The Fort Worden Collaborative

Fort Planning Process Upate

• The six-year planning process for Fort Worden has been guided by one core principle:  The essential idea of a public park is the preservation—as common property—of beautiful open spaces, culturally significant landscapes, and historically sacred sites. 
• Despite Herculean and loving efforts by park staff and volunteers, deferred maintenance costs and the gap between earned revenues and expenses at the Fort grows every year. The State—by itself—does not have the resources to continue plugging this gap.
• Our job is to preserve and sustain this park for generations to come.
• The best way to preserve buildings (and the best way to pay for preservation) is to work towards 100% occupancy.
• While Fort Worden will continue to pursue outside conference and vacation business, the public voted heavily in favor of  expanding residential learning programs as the most mission-appropriate strategy to increase occupancy.
• In 2008 the Parks Commission approved recommendations from a specially appointed Task Force that a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) emerge as the manager or co-manager of Park. It is envisioned that a managing nonprofit at the Park would be staffed by the existing park personnel.
• Centrum and Washington State Parks have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining a series of milestones, the achievement of which will prove out the value and ultimate scope of nonprofit management at Fort Worden.  
• Meanwhile, the City of Port Townsend—through their own strategic planning process—identified Fort Worden as one of three anchors in the areas economy. Successful preservation of Fort Worden will be a boon to the City.
• In September 2009, the Port Townsend City Council  authorized a Public Development Authority (PDA). Core to the PDAS’s charter is the preservation of historic structures and special places.
• On January 25, the City Council appointed an interim board of directors for the PDA. The majority of the board has a strong connection to Fort Worden, including a State Parks Commissioner, and representatives from Centrum, Peninsula College, and the Marine Science Center.
• Centrum and the PDA are now negotiating their own MOU outlining how the two entities can work in partnership and share resources to achieve the MOU, milestones.
• Neither Centrum nor the PDA  will be a managing entity at Fort Worden.  A new management entity will emerge as the result of a successful milestone process.
• Until the MOU milestones have been achieved to everyone’s satisfaction, Fort Worden will operate as it has operated for the last three decades, with oversight by the management team at Fort Worden and by leadership at the Parks office in Olympia.
• Fort Worden will always be a State Park overseen by the Washington State Parks Commission. 

Historic Preservation and Green Economic Development

[H]istoric preservation has been one of the most effective economic development strategies available to local governments. Much of the construction activity in Tacoma [WA], for example, has been due to preservation work. Even with local and federal tax advantages, restored buildings pay more in taxes than the parking lots that too often would have replaced them.

And unlike the mega projects that most economic development bureaucrats hope for, preservation work tends to use local contractors and local suppliers. Rehabilitated buildings don’t end up in the landfill, leading some advocates to say that the greenest building is one already standing. MORE

Excerpted from: "Those Who Don’t Value Historic Preservation are Destined to Lose Economic Benefits" by Peter Callaghan, The Tacoma News Tribune

Kim Klein: Mission, Message, and Damage Control

In hard times, people begin to pose false choices: “We cannot go to the movies until there is world peace, we cannot have a ballet until there is no homelessness, we cannot save birds until all children are well fed.” They see cutting funding, pulling back, as the only way to respond to the economic downturn. The more people react in this way, the more it seems they have taken some kind of sourpuss vow: they will not laugh until oppression has ended.

In fact, there is enough money for all our nonprofits. Granted, to get them all funded will require rethinking national priorities and a redistribution of wealth, but there is no shortage of money.

The case statement is the cornerstone for raising money effectively, the message is specific to the moment; it simply shows the world that you have read the paper, listened to the news, and are conscious of what is happening around you. It places your work in the context of the larger world. It faces current reality squarely. MORE...

This article, excerpted from the Nonprofit Quarterly, has been adapted from Kim Klein’s new book, Reliable Fundraising in Unreliable Times, published by Jossey-Bass.

A New Partner

The future of Fort Worden State Park could soon be in the hands of the newly formed Port Townsend Public Development Authority (PDA), which would guide the next stage of planning as the fort expands as a center of education. Read more.

by Scott Wilson, Port Townsend Leader, December 23, 2009

Technology: Focus on Trends, Not Tools

I hate to break it to you, but very few people can tell you what’s next when it comes to technology, at least, not with any accuracy -- and I’d bet most of those who can are bound by non-disclosure agreements.

Here’s the secret: You don’t need them.You don’t need to know how many terabytes the new hard drives will be, how fast the processors, or whether or not Twitter will still be here in five years. If you want to be a technology prognosticator, don’t focus on the tools. Instead, focus on the trends in how we're using those tools.Look around at how we’re all doing work and finding play. Those are the trends that matter in technology.

The tools and strategies that feed these trends are investments in the future, not fads.So, here are four trends you’ll want to watch in 2010. (And for those of you sick of hearing about Facebook, breathe easy. This list is social-media free,even if the implications aren’t.)

1. Collaboration. The technological barriers to collaboration have nearly been erased. No more flip charts; we have wikis. No more data lock-in; we have mash-ups and software integrations. Where there’s a will to collaborate,there is now a way -- and there’s a lot of will to collaborate. Your staff, your stakeholders, and your donors all want to work with you and with each other to help you meet your mission. 

Implications: It’s more than a mindset. You’ll have to learn to curate conversations rather than dictate a message.You’ll also have to learn to manage more email and more kinds of communications than ever. Invest in technologies that enable conversation for your stakeholders, but unify communications for your staff....

Excerpted from Holly Ross, NonProfit Times: Seven Nonprofit Seers Predict What's Ahead

Partners: Looking Ahead

The Learning Center vision provides the Park and the resident partners a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop an integrated economy, dramatically increasing their overall capacities through coordination, centralization, and consolidation of marketing, fundraising, and business management functions. 

These partners have the ability to develop and promote a broad range of programming that ensure both the mission of Fort Worden State Park as a Learning Center and their own organizational success are achieved. Partnerships between resident partners and other mission-consistent programs and organizations should bring additional audiences and resources to the Park. 

Resident organizations willing to increase their own organizational capacities to support the Learning Center and to work in an integrated fashion with one another need to be given priority. The economic viability of the Park and its partners will require a delicate balance of programming and creation of opportunities for entrepreneurial undertakings that can help support every partner’s mission. 

Each phase of the Long Range Plan should be implemented looking through a lens of sustainability of the natural environment, the economics of the Park and the relationship to the Port Townsend, Jefferson County and Washington State greater communities to ensure that Fort Worden State Park is available for future generations to enjoy. 

As a Learning Center, Fort Worden State Park should partner with a variety of residential and non-resident institutions and groups to present programs involving performing and visual artists, the environment and natural resources, historic preservation and interpretation, culinary arts, stewardship practices, and educational training. Individuals and small groups from around the country seeking a variety of educational opportunities should find the Learning Center inviting while taking advantage of traditional park opportunities in a spectacular setting. 

The Park should offer programs for intensive experiences designed to engage participants of all ages and from all backgrounds and cultures. Nationally recognized organizations can present multi-day and seasonal programs that could include performances, lectures, presentations, exhibitions and festivals attracting the public. School-age children will be able to participate in multi-day educational programs with an emphasis on experiential learning. 

Artists, writers, scientists, environmentalists, musicians, recreational users, dancers, chefs, farmers and historians should find the Park a place where improbable alliances could be forged and unique ideas come to fruition. The Park should support people desiring to step out of their daily routines to brainstorm new ideas. This unique environment would provide room for remarkable things to happen. 

Excerpted from Fort Worden Business Development and Operations Plan by PROS Consulting.

Why Be a Partner at Fort Worden?

• A high quality space and prominent location increases the visibility for all Partner organizations and helps garner public recognition and support.
• By spending (affordable) rent dollars to pay the costs of a facility designed for Partners, resources are leveraged to increase capacity of all organizations to deliver on their mission. 
• One time program investments end up benefiting multiple organizations and supporting their programming for the long term. 
• Because of the variety of ownership structures of Fort Partners, they are—working together—uniquely poised to maximize a broad range of acquisition, financing and fundraising tools.
• As the number and success of Fort Partners grows, so does the Park grow as a hub of economic activity: office workers are local consumers; residents and clients receive training, services and support. Some facilities create jobs; others catalyze new investment and serve as centers for revitalization of the Park and its facilities.
• Working in partnership there is more capacity to fulfill commitments to green design, reclamation and reuse of historic buildings, universal access for all regardless of physical ability, and one-stop coordinated visitor services.
• Collaboration on facility needs and back office infrastructure can produce great financial savings as well as improved program facilities and enhanced technology infrastructure.
• By bringing nonprofits together, staff can develop relationships and design and implement multi-stakeholder initiatives with greater ease.
• Community meeting, performance and open green spaces offer a chance to recapture a community "commons."  Through joint training, public outreach and education, daycare and other critical services, Fort Worden offers a wealth of opportunities that support people and build communities.

Extracted and adapted from “Why Create Multi-Tenant Nonprofit Centers?”  From the Nonprofit Centers Network.

Effective Social Investing

I don’t advocate for doctrinaire purity in social investing. I most emphatically do not believe that all social investing should be low risk. But I do advocate for clear thinking about what one is doing, why one is doing it and what one really is accomplishing. Like commercial investing, social investing requires hard work up front and throughout the investment period. (This is yet another obstacle: in contrast to social investing, doing “charity” requires little work and provides great and immediate emotional rewards.) 

While approaches differ, it is fair to say that social investing requires the following:

1. the use of rigorous selection criteria to choose nonprofit organizations to support, structuring investments to strengthen organizations in which investments are madein order to enhance their ability to provide effective services reliably and sustainably at high levels of quality,
2. tracking performance and providing non-financial supports as indicated, thus helping these agencies become more effective and efficient in helping the people they serve to measurably improve their lives and life prospects,
3. diminishing transaction costs to help these organizations stay focused on achieving their respective missions, and
4. helping nonprofits to build reliable revenue streams that will support them sustainably at the appropriate level of scale— before terminating the investment.

Excerpt from Philadelphia Social Innovations Journal, David E. K. Hunter, October 2009

Data Warehousing for Nonprofits

Let’s say you’re a mid-sized organization with a desire for more integrated and meaningful reports. You have four different software packages that are each tracking some aspect of the constituents you deal with – for instance, your donors, activists, several different types of clients, and volunteers. Each system is working pretty well by itself, but it’s very hard to look across the organization to get a full picture. How likely is it that a volunteer will donate? What is the full value of services you're providing to each client? What kind of constituent is most likely to be a lifelong donor? They’re interesting questions, but almost impossible to determine at the moment.

This is a situation in which many organizations find themselves. What can you do? You could consider using a single constituent relationship management system (CRM) – one software package that would replace all four of your current systems, to allow you a single, integrated view. This can be a compelling option, especially for smaller organizations. But for larger organizations that are happy with their existing software, and making a lot of use of the specialized feature sets, no single software is likely to address everything needed.

Enter data warehousing: a centralized repository of data that automatically pulls information from each of your systems in order to report on it or analyze it in a central place. Each of your existing software packages continues to work in exactly the same way, but you also have the ability to see all of their data together in one place. MORE...

by Laura S. Quinn, idealware, October 2009

Partners’ Meeting Agenda: December 01, 2009

Fort Worden State Park, Blue Room Building 200

3:30- 5:00pm

AGENDA

3:30 Check in round (How are you doing as a human being here in this moment?)

3:40 Administrative

• Announcements
• Changes and consent to the current agenda
• Consent to minutes of previous meeting
• Feedback from last meeting (notes from the minutes)

3:50 Content

Proposals: 

• All future business meetings will be structured to accomplish the MOU Milestone – Program and Partnership Development (per conclusion of the November 24th special partner meeting)
• Milestone Program and Partnership Development will be the aim of the group

 Issues

• What kind of leadership is required
• What resources are needed and where those resources will be sought
• What kind of guidance partners need in taking on this task; and
• What supportive role the Collaborative, the Advisory Committee, part workshop participants, donors, etc. will be expected to play in partner planning.

Clarifying questions on the remainder of the MOU

Reports

 Elections

 4:50 Closing round

Next meeting: Subcircle Meeting

Blue Room Building 200

December 15, 2009  

Volunteer Coordinators / Quarterly Huddle (Steve Shively)

Feedback on meeting and facilitation

 4:55  Check out

(And how are you doing now as a human being here in this moment?)

 5:00 Meeting Adjourns

Business is Changing Before Our Eyes

We are in a rare confluence of these major trends:

• The financial rewards that drove business behavior have eroded (e.g., stock market returns, higher salaries and bonuses, real estate price growth).  Cost-consciousness is the order of the day.
• The business environment is increasingly transparent and open, thanks to social media.  Competitors are highly visible to your customers.  There is no where to run, no where to hide.
• Social and environmental responsibility are where it’s at.  People make purchase, employment, and partnership decisions on this basis.
• Established companies as well as new ones focus on social goals as much as business goals.
• Being who you really are — being authentic — is essential to succeed in this social environment.  (No more putting yourself aside to do your job.

If you are thinking about your business, your nonprofit, you association in the same way you were last year — it’s time to update your thinking.The future belongs to those who can:

• deliver high value at a low cost,
• interact positively and continouosly with their customers, and
• add personal and social value to their products and services.

PS:  Here’s a related article at Harvard Business Publishing online.

From siteground220

A Social Stock Exchange?

In the social stock market, companies that incorporate social or environmental missions into their bottom lines meet investors and donors interested in enterprises and non-profits that satisfy business standards. Interested investors would receive a full profile of the undertaking, an itemized budget, evaluation of the project’s risks, and the organization’s strengths and weaknesses. Every item that can be measured is measured, including a project’s impact on beneficiaries’ quality of life.

Excerpt from the Investors' Circle Blog, June 5, 2009

How Art Works As Part of the Real Economy

On Friday, November 20, 2009, the National Endowment for the Arts is hosting a forum about America's artists and other cultural workers and the way that art works as part of this country's real economy.   Academics, foundation professionals, and service organization representatives will come together to discuss improving the collection and reporting of statistics about arts and cultural workers, and to develop future research agendas and approaches.

The live webcast can be found here, where you will be able to view the complete event, from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. In addition, an archive of the event will be available here the week following the forum.

For the full schedule and list of participants, please see the NEA media advisory.  

Using Measurement to Improve Social Benefit

Social ventures comprise a new and growing movement of organizations that attempt to provide both social and financial benefits. They are often described as having a double (or triple) bottom line - definitely financial, and also social and/or environmental. They may be not-for-profit organizations with revenue-generating programs (social enterprises), or they may be for-profit companies with a social mission (social-purpose businesses).

Social ventures face all of the challenges of any business struggling to grow in an intensively competitive environment, and other challenges besides. Investors  are not generally equipped to understand the financial potential of social purpose businesses. And funders of social and environmental programs are leery about supporting profitable ventures in social enterprises. As a result, social ventures in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors report barriers in accessing capital that, in the current economic climate, threaten their existence. 

One persistent question for social ventures and their supporters is how to measure progress towards their non-financial goals. It's an important question for several reasons:

• What is measured is often what drives behaviour, and financial results have a compelling nature that is hard to resist. The other 'bottom line' needs to have some compelling results of its own to ensure that the proper attention is paid to that part of the mission.
• Investors who are accepting a higher risk or lower returns in the hope of social benefit want to be assured that the benefit is forthcoming.
• Funders who provide grants or loans for revenue-generating ventures want to be assured that the ventures are not compromising their social missions.

Excerpted from a deeply researched and valuable study by Logical Outcomes/RealWorld Systems.

Nonprofit Overhead: Catch 22

Many funders know that nonprofit organizations report artificially low overhead figures, and that the donor literature often reflects grossly inaccurate program ratios (the proportion of program-related expenses to indirect expenses). Without accurate data, funders do not know what overhead rates should be.... In the absence of clear, accurate data, funders must rely on the numbers their grantees report.... [T]hese data are riddled with errors. As a result, funders routinely require nonprofits to spend unhealthily small amounts on overhead....

Not only do funders and donors have unrealistic expectations, but the nonprofit sector itself also promotes unhealthy overhead levels. “The 20 percent norm is perpetuated by funders, individuals, and nonprofits themselves,” says the CFO of one of the organizations we studied. “When we benchmarked our reported financials, we looked at others, [and] we realized that others misreport as well. One of our peer organizations allocates 70 percent of its finance director’s time to programs. That’s preposterous!”....

In response to pressure from funders, nonprofits settle into a “low pay, make do, and do without” culture, as the Nonprofit Overhead Cost Study calls it. Every aspect of an organization feels the pinch of this culture. Nonprofits often are unable to pay competitive salaries for qualified specialists, and so instead make do with hires who lack the necessary experience or expertise. Similarly, many organizations that limit their investment in staff training find it difficult to develop a strong pipeline of senior leaders.

Excerpted from The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle by Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2009 

Infrastructure in a Pinch: Why Reach Matters Now

Nonprofits in every corner of the United States are interacting at every level with intense social, political, and economic chaos. Unemployment is increasing at record rates and will cause a cascade of other problems even as government budgets are squeezed, foundation assets decline, and individual pocketbooks are strained. This leaves services—services that are provided largely by smallto mid-sized, community-based nonprofits—to the most vulnerable populations at high risk for demise or severe cutbacks. At the same time, a window appears to be opening for smaller, community-based nonprofits to play a more visible and organized role in using their skills, knowledge, and resources to work with residents toward the creation of new social compacts. To respond to this challenging environment in a rapid and well informed way, nonprofits of all sizes and shapes, but especially, the majority which are small or mid-sized, need the connective tissue of infrastructure to, among other things:

• restructure their practices, services, and organizations to fit a resource-scarce environment;
• identify and pursue available resources;
• track important trends in government and communities;
• identify potentially useful innovations in practice, financing, and organizational structure
• occurring elsewhere;
• engage in collective policy development and advocacy.

Excerpt from: Study on Nonprofit and Philanthropic Infrastructure, The Nonprofit Quarterly

Board Members' Guide to Partnership Planning

Partnerships may arise with the potential to allow nonprofit organizations to carry out their missions more effectively and efficiently. Board involvement is imperative when such an opportunity arises. Although the level of board involvement may differ depending on the complexity of the arrangement, yet its role in leading discussions on the potential impact on organizational performance is critical to all types of arrangements....

Read more of this detailed and thoughful analysis by Dr. Ramya Ramanath and John A. Van Eyk from the fabulous Nonprofit Good Practice Guide.

Fort Receives Federal Stimulus Monies to Support Efficient Energy Efforts

 Kate Burke, Fort Worden Area Parks Manager, announced today that the Park is the recipient a $250,000 million loan from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to support a series of energy efficiency projects for historic buildings across the Fort Worden campus. This $250,000 has been matched by another $250,000 from Washington State Parks. The half million dollar program is designed as a first step toward reducing energy use at the Park by 25% over the next three years. 

Fort Worden was one of 19 projects funded across Washington, selected based on their ability to:

• Implement a project that will produce tangible results 
• Create or retain jobs in Washington
• Leverage other funds
• Increase energy efficiency and production to in turn reduce energy costs and consumption for consumers, business and government.

Rogers Weed, director of the Washington State Department of Commerce, writes, “This stimulus funding is a unique opportunity to capitalize on the leadership of Washington communities to continue building our competitive edge nationally and globally.”

This funding at Fort Worden will pay for old boiler conversions, lighting upgrades, window replacements, and insulation. Burke notes, “Energy is the largest non-staff cost of running the Park. We all love these historic buildings and good stewardship means reducing both those costs and our carbon footprint. With these dollars we will take a significant step forward.”

Burke adds that she is committed to using local labor and materials whenever possible. “It’s all part of the green ethos that is central to the long term vision for Fort Worden State Park.”  The Park—through its concessionaire Bon Appetit—is the second largest buyer of locally sourced food in Jefferson County. Fort Worden is also home to the new Center for Historic Preservation, committed to expanding the local skills base to sustainably repair, restore, and reuse buildings at the Fort and in the greater Port Townsend area.

“Local communities are the engines of our economy and the laboratories of innovation,” said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “This funding provides the resources to put in place innovative energy efficiency projects that will create jobs, while reducing carbon pollution.” 

Adrian Ellis: The Changing Place of the 501(c)(3)

The last twenty years have been a period of almost unimaginable change: in the threats and opportunities presented by geopolitics, in our relationship to technology and the environment, and in the economic structures that sustain us. But our cultural organizations, superficially at least, look very similar: a bit more weary inside, some new facades outside, but there are many of the same entities, often the same faces, and the same agendas.

This may be because creativity and the canon of culture change more slowly than these other areas of human endeavor. But it may be that it is because nonprofit cultural organizations are unhealthily insulated—and as a result isolated—from these wider changes.

Keep reading this very smart, thoughtful analysis in Grantmakers in the Arts Reader; Vol 18, No. 3 Fall 2007. Hat tip—once again—to Anne Focke.

Interim Board Tapped for Historic Preservation Center

Members of the new interim board of Port Townsend’s Center for Historic Preservation believe that the city affords a nearly unparalleled opportunity for teaching, research, and workforce development. Port Townsend boasts two National Historic Landmark Districts, one being the Fort Worden State Park campus where the Center will be based.

“There is a reason the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation was founded in Port Townsend,” notes Trust Executive Director Jennifer Meisner. “We are expanding our mission to support this ambitious, nationally significant project.” Meisner and the Washington Trust held a public forum at Fort Worden State Park in the spring of 2009, exploring how such a Center might evolve in Port Townsend. She is now a founding member of the interim board.

The Port Townsend School of Woodworking and Preservation Trades—in partnership with the State Department of Veterans Affairs—has already been teaching preservation skills to veterans on rehabilitation projects at Fort Worden. “Since we founded the school at Fort Worden two years ago, we always knew that preservation would central to our curriculum,” explains Tim Lawson, lead partner at the school. “We are thrilled to be part of this larger, regional effort."

The City of Port Townsend threw its energies behind this project early on as well. City Planner Rick Sepler has been offering his expertise by managing the planning process. Port Townsend Deputy Mayor George Randels points out, “The Center will build on the City’s well established reputation for destination learning, while preserving our most valuable historic resources.”

 The Fort Worden Collaborative is a new public-private partnership promoting conservation, creative learning, and economic development at Fort Worden. “The Center for Historic Preservation is certainly a marquis project at the Fort,” says Thatcher Bailey, Collaborative consultant and chair of the Center’s interim board. “It is getting the attention of all the right advocates, educators, political leaders, funders, and institutional partners.”

The interim board will develop and approve a preliminary mission statement and a start-up financing strategy for the Center, and select a founding board and advisory committee. Interim board members will also organize a major charette in early November that will gather the region’s most prominent experts, practitioners, and creative thinkers in the field of historic preservation to help guide planning efforts.

Rick Sepler explains that “An endeavor of the scope and seriousness we envision will transform the historic landscape and the economy of this area. We want to make sure, from the start, that we have all the right people giving us their best thinking about how we can be successful.”

Center for Historic Preservation Interim Board

Thatcher Bailey, Fort Worden Collaborative

Gee Heckscher, Architect; Board Member Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

Phil Johnson, Jefferson County Commissioner

Tim Lawson, Port Townsend School of Woodworking and Preservation Trades

Alex McMurry, Historic Preservation Officer, Washington State Parks 

Jennifer Meisner, Executive Director, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation; Adjunct Faculty, University of Washington 

George Randels , Deputy Mayor, Port Townsend City Council

Dave Robison, Cascadia Planning Services

Michael Sullivan, Artifacts Consulting; Board Member Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

Interim Director

Rick Sepler, Planning Director, City of Port Townsend; Adjunct Faculty, University of Washington 

Tom Watson: Why Seth Godin Is Wrong

Online marketing guru Seth Godin takes aim at nonprofits in a widely-quoted blog post “The problem with non” today [See following post], a diatribe of sorts that repeats a meme that’s been active in American philanthropy circles for at least a decade: nonprofits are afraid of change.

And it’s true, of course – at least on the surface. Most organization, especially large ones, do not race to take risks. But Godin’s piece is both simplistic and under-reported. Sure, it’s easy to say – as he does – that “non-profits, in my experience, abhor change.” Yet in my experience, they hate a change a lot less than failure – and they also hate change less than vast swaths of the corporate world (Wall Street and big insurance leap to mind).

It’s dismissive at the extreme to lob this kind of question: “When was the last time you had an interaction with a non-profit (there’s that word again) that blew you away?” Besides, Godin’s “success” metrics are wacky: Twitter followers? Digg counts? Pitching Silicon Valley VC’s? It doesn’t ring true. Sure, passion and the willingness to take risks matter – but I don’t think a simplistic techno-capitalist argument can be spread across the vastness of 501c3-land.

For one, I’m impressed every week by the work of nonprofits – work that does indeed, blow me away. And for another, there is some risk-taking out there – more and more capital directed toward experimentation – and some terrific advances in story-telling, organizing, fundraising, and activism. My book spent much 200 pages covering those stories. You want Twitter? Social change bloggers often dominate the serious discussion of social media’s impact.

This comment is particularly wrong-headed: “The only reason not to turn this over to hordes of crowds eager to help you is that it means giving up total control and bureaucracy.”

Undoubtedly, control and bureaucracy can be big problems with nonprofits, large and small. But does anyone now living believe that the most philanthropic nation in the history of the world should devolve its nonprofit and service sector into a crowd-sourced cyberlibertarian throw of the dice at utopia? Yes, $300 billion annually is less than 2% of GDP – but it’s a vital 2% for those who rely on the services and support that nonprofits provide.

I don’t – and I preach digital change to nonprofits every day. Change ain’t easy when the world keeps moving and you have the keep the lights on – ask the President.

Besides, nonprofits are way, way down the list of sectors that really abhor change. Wall Street, big insurance, government – now they really hate change. More nonprofits need to adapt, to experiment, to take risks, to embrace change. But they need to keep on providing services while they’re doing it.

I think the “non” in Seth’s post relates to its own currency frankly – it’s an old bromide that’s getting kinda stale.

From Cause Wired Communications

Seth Godin: The Problem with Non

Non as in non-profit.

The first issue is the way you describe yourself. I know what you’re not but what are you?

Did you start or join this non-profit because of the non part? I doubt it. It's because you want to make change. The way the world is just isn't right or good enough for you... there's an emergency or an injustice or an opportunity and you want to make change.

These organizations exist solely to make change. That's why you joined, isn't it?

The problem facing your group, ironically, is the resistance to the very thing you are setting out to do. Non-profits, in my experience, abhor change.

Take a look at the top 100 twitter users in terms of followers. Remember, this is a free tool, one that people use to focus attention and galvanize action. What? None of them are non-profits. Not one as far as I can tell. Is the work you're doing not important enough to follow, or is it (and I'm betting it is) paralysis in decision making in the face of change? Is there too much bureaucracy or too much fear to tell a compelling story in a transparent way?

Beth has a great post about the feeling of vertigo that non-profits get when they move from the firm ground of the tried and true to the anti-gravity that comes from leaping into change.

Where are the big charities, the urgent charities, the famous charities that face such timely needs and are in a hurry to make change? Very few of them have bothered to show up in a big way. The problem is same as the twitter resistance: The internet represents a change. It's easy to buy more stamps and do more direct mail, scary to use a new technique.

Of course, some folks, like charity: water are stepping into the void and raising millions of dollars as a result. They're not necessarily a better cause, they're just more passionate about making change.

A few years ago I met with two (very famous) non-profits to discuss permission marketing and online fundraising and how they might have an impact. Each time, the president of the group was in the room. After about forty five minutes, the meetings devolved into endless lists of why any change at all in the way things were was absolutely impossible. Everyone looked to the president of the group for leadership, and when he didn't say anything, they dissembled, stalled and evaded. Every barrier was insurmountable, every element of the status quo was cast in stone.  The president of the group was (he thought) helpless.

When was the last time you had an interaction with a non-profit (there's that word again) that blew you away?

Please don't tell me it's about a lack of resources. The opportunities online are basically free, and if you don't have a ton of volunteers happy to help you, then you're not working on something important enough. The only reason not to turn this over to hordes of crowds eager to help you is that it means giving up total control and bureaucracy. Which is scary because it leads to change.

If you spend any time reading marketing blogs, you'll find thousands of case studies of small (and large)  innovative businesses that are shaking things up and making things happen. And not enough of these stories are about non-profits. If your non-profit isn't acting with as much energy and guts as it takes to get funded in Silicon Valley or featured on Digg, then you're failing in your duty to make change.

The marketing world has changed completely. So has the environment for philanthropic giving. So have the attitudes of a new generation of philanthropists. But if you look at the biggest charities in the country, you couldn't tell. Because they're 'non' first, change second.

Sorry if I sound upset, but I am. The work these groups do is too important (and the people who work for them are too talented) to waste this opportunity because you are paralyzed in fear.

Read more from Seth Godin on his blog.

A Slight Delay

September 16, 2009

Kate Burke

Fort Worden Area Parks Manager

200 Battery Way

Port Townsend, WA 98363

Dear Kate:

Centrum is requesting that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and Centrum regarding the operation of Fort Worden be removed as an agenda item from the Commission’s October 1st meeting.

Our organization would like to have more time in reviewing the latest draft of the MOU, and would like to align the document with our strategic plan which will be reviewed at our annual board retreat at the end of this month.

We are hoping that the MOU can be placed back on the agenda for the Commission’s December meeting and should confirm this with you early next month.  We remain excited about this new direction for Centrum, and the ability to work closer in partnership with Washington State Parks.

 Thank you for your understanding in this matter. 

 Sincerely,

John A. MacElwee

Executive Director

Andrew Taylor: Structure Influences Behavior

I'm sure we all can recognize that physical structures influence our actions. The shape and layout of a building will lead people to use it in a certain way. We have bottlenecks in our kitchen during parties. We have lobbies or performance spaces that seem particularly suited to positive social interaction. We have airports we love and airports we hate – either for how they facilitate the productive flow of people and of planes...or how they don't.

Winston Churchill had a particularly powerful quote on the subject (as Churchill inevitably does), when he said:

"We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us."

We build these structures – whether by accident or intent – and they shape our behavior, our experience, our interaction, and our perspective.

But today, I'm talking about structure from a broader definition than bricks and mortar. I mean anything that encourages or discourages individual or collective action. Anything that blocks your path to one action or attitude – like a wall – or encourages and rewards you toward another – like an inviting hallway, or the cheese at the end of a maze.

Once you start looking for such invisible barriers and incentives, you'll find them everywhere. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.

Financial Structures

The shape, distribution, and flow of financial resources have a dramatic influence on behavior by individuals, by organizations, and by communities. If you have a mortgage, consider how your own perspective and even behavior changed when you signed the paperwork. Did you become a little more cautious, a little more risk averse? If you've work with or for an organization with persistent, cyclical cash flow problems, you know the physical and emotional impacts it can have on staff and leadership. Choices become panicked. Vision becomes narrow and short term.

On the incentive side, you also know the drawing power of focused, contractual philanthropy – where the promise of resources can draw an organization off its original course, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. Consider the kind of contribution my colleagues and I have come to call “the gift that keeps on taking,” for the toll it extracts from the life and breath of the organization it sought to support.

In your own states and home cities, consider the financial mix of your cultural ecology – how much cash is flowing through and from what sources, how much energy is invested in physical structures, and how much is pooled in pockets of frozen resources like endowments or trusts. Then consider how that structure influences the behavior of the arts organizations around you, the artists, the audiences, the donors.

Statements of financial position or cash flows do very little to suggest the real and visceral impact of financial structure on behavior. But enough of financial matters, consider another structure that influences behavior:

Organizational Structures

In hierarchies, governance, reporting, and authority structures we can find another complex architecture of barriers and incentives to behavior. How we select, promote, recognize, and reward staff and volunteers, for example – whether through intent or tradition – often defines the boundaries and hallways of behavior. Do we chastise for bold mistakes, or encourage them? Do we foster honesty and learning, or do we reward frenzy and excess hours?

Many have found the structure required by nonprofit tax status to be particularly confusing and complex – with a governing board unsure of their allegiance to the organization or the community, and an executive leadership with more knowledge of the work to be done than those who hire and evaluate them. In your own work in the public sector, you all know the particularly complex barriers and incentives of representative government. These walls and hallways can lead even insightful and intelligent individuals to behave in odd and unpredictable ways.

Mental Structures

I'll also suggest to you that there are structures in your own head and among the professional and social groups you align with that influence your choices and behavior. We all have models or theories that shape our interaction with the world – some are obvious to us and accepted with intent, others are embedded so deeply we don't even see them. When you wrote your name with your non-dominant hand you felt the tension of working against these habits and propensities.

These mental structures are formed and informed by the structures around us, and the barriers and incentives we've experienced over a lifetime.

Policy

Finally – although we could follow this thread for a long, long time – policy, itself, defines structures that discourage or encourage collective behavior. We block and discourage certain behaviors as illegal, and attach punishments to make those barriers real. We encourage other behaviors – like philanthropic gifts – through incentives in our tax laws and fiscal privileges for our nonprofit organizations.

Policy, broadly defined, is constraint on behavior. Policy is an on-going effort to influence the flow and direction of human action, and to define a space where a productive society can function.

To be clear here, I'm not saying that structure determines behavior. All of us have choice and accountability. Despite our environments, we have free will. Furthermore, we all respond differently to the structures around us. I'm just saying that structure influences behavior. That, over time, these structures can encourage individuals and groups to make one choice more likely than another. It's in the aggregation of these millions of choices that communities and ecologies take their shape and tone….

Excerpt from Andrew Taylor, The Artful Manger, Three (Short) Detours Back to Public Value, Arts Journal

Maximize Benefit to the Public

In the nonprofit world, board members ideal role is to look out for the interests of the ultimate equity holders—the public—protecting the nonprofit enterprise so it can fulfill its mission, sometimes over many years. The end goal is not so much profitability and financial returns but to maximize the benefit to the public….

But the ethos in today’s nonprofit world encourages everyone to do just the opposite. Board members, managers, grant makers, and government officials are so determined to ensure that nonprofit organizations deliver more for less that they regularly lose sight of their role as protectors of the organization’s capacity to deliver quality services as long as the need for them exists, and to get the highest-quality results that will have the largest social payoff to the public.

It may seem counterintuitive to suggest that the way organizations can most powerfully achieve their missions is to “just say no” when a foundation or government proposes cutting the amount an organization will be provided in overhead, while urging organizations to do more with less. But that is what board members—and grant makers—must do if they want to build organizations that will make a difference, instead of just caretaking groups that are too weak to do the job America needs them to do.

excerpt from Clara Miller, America’s Greatest ‘Public Works’, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Vol XXI, No 6, January 15, 2009.

 

Expanding Our Citizen Science Program to Serve a Regional Purpose

The Project 

Founded in 1982, the Port Townsend Marine Science Center (PTMSC) engages and inspires people of all ages in understanding and protecting our coastal and marine environment. PTMSC’s Citizen Science Program, enhances the science literacy of a broad public and supports restoration and conservation of Puget Sound. With the problems of Puget Sound’s poor health gaining national recognition, PTMSC is in a position to make major impacts through its location, expertise, programs, and facilities. 

PTMSC proposes a significant expansion of its Citizen Science Program. PTMSC will provide a range of research opportunities for both scientists and trained volunteers, and educate the public about current scientific research and how it—and they—can be instrumental in the restoration of Puget Sound.  This will establish Fort Worden as a regional center for Citizen Science programming and training. PTMSC will establish an innovative new lab facility to support this growth and to create a more effective interface between scientists and the general public.

The Need

• People deeply care about Puget Sound and count on agencies, non-profits and elected officials to ensure its health for generations to come.
• The public is not fully aware of the severity of Puget Sound's environmental degradation or how they can also be an important part of the solution.
• Citizen volunteers all over the Sound are interested in rolling up their sleeves, getting wet and helping scientists collect information that helps us better understand, manage and steward the Sound.
• To be effective this project needs to 1) engage and educate thousands of individuals who want to study and preserve the Sound and 2) support a broad range of education and research projects.  PTMSC will need to develop new or expanded facilities.

The Benefit

• Fort Worden and the PTMSC place a high priority on providing leading edge programs in partnership with diverse groups including universities, non-profits, for profits and the public sector. PTMSC has a successful history of working in partnership with other agencies and organizations committed to the health of Puget Sound. Potential partners in a Citizens Science endeavor include NOAA, Washington Sea Grant, Puget Sound Partnership, Foss Maritime, and the University of Washington Applied Physics Lab.
• Fort Worden expands its capacity as an environmental training center, hosting residential programs and conferences, where scientists train citizens to conduct Puget Sound based research. This enhanced use of the site and facilities aligns perfectly with the new mission and vision for the Park.
• PTMSC has a Scientist-in-Residence Program that trains interns from partnering universities and college programs, Ameircorps members, regional volunteers, and school groups. 
• Scientists have a unique venue for showcasing their research through an evolving “State of the Sound” exhibit where trained docents interpret current scientific research and give it context.
• The facility provides access to a central Sound location with a variety of marine and coastal habitats for research.

Preserving the Tradition

The Project

The Port Townsend School of Woodworking (LLC) has established a national reputation for education in woodworking. Jim Tolpin, John Marckworth, and Tim Lawson created the school in 2007 driven by their strong belief in the importance of woodworking and the preservation of traditional skills. Kevin Palo joined the faculty in 2009 to add historic preservation to the curriculum.  Sharing these skills with young people, construction workers, hobbyists, artists and others is the core value of the school.

The school's location at, and in partnership with, Fort Worden State Park allows it to teach practical historic preservation skills while incrementally restoring and preserving buildings at Fort Worden. The Port Townsend School of Woodworking is transitioning to non-profit status and securing funding to create a sustainable organization and strengthen and expand the course offerings and facilities. 

The school is working in partnership with the City of Port Townsend, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission,  and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation to create a regional center for historic preservation at Fort Worden State Park. The school will play a defining role in the new center, focusing on the trades and traditional skills associated with woodworking and historic preservation. The school will transition graduates into the workforce actively preserving the historic buildings at Fort Worden, in Port Townsend's Uptown and Downtown Historic Districts, and throughout the region.

The Need

• The traditional skills of woodworking and historic preservation are in decline. Master craftspeople, especially in historic preservation, are a dying breed.
• Historic buildings are lost through the lack of skilled tradespeople and high costs of existing skilled tradespeople. 
• The public is not fully aware of the cultural costs of the failure to restore and reuse older buildings. The environmental cost of demolishing old buildings is extremely high. Preservation is the greenest building practice.
• There is no significant practical training in historic preservation offered in the Puget Sound region.
• The community of Port Townsend places a high value on history and the preservation of buildings in the city and at the Fort, but has a large stock of deteriorating buildings.

Benefits

• Fort Worden becomes a historic preservation training center, hosting short-stay and long-stay residential courses.
• Creates the next generation of crafts- and trades-people.
• Strengthens the local and regional workforce. Many historic preservation projects in Washington State are undertaken by out-of-state contractors.
• Greater availability of historic preservation skills improves retention rates of old buildings.
• Retains the character of neighborhoods across the region by maintaining the diversity of architecture and the sense of history in the community.
• Fort Worden and Port Townsend benefit directly; buildings will be partially or fully restored during the preservation classes. Restoring derelict buildings to useful life will provide opportunities for future park partners and new businesses.

Point Wilson Light Station

The Point Wilson Light Station is listed in the National Register of Historic Places; #A-71000870. Established in 1879, the fourth order lens was originally situated in a wooden tower superimposed through the keeper’s quarters.  In 1913 the lens was moved to the new tower and fog signal building and the original wooden tower was removed.  The same original fourth order lens is still housed in the 1913 tower.

There are seven buildings associated with the property. The Ranch House and Radar Station are not historically significant.

• Lighthouse - The 1913 lighthouse 
• Double Keeper’s Quarters - The keeper’s quarters, originally constructed in 1879 is a wood frame structure, two (2) stories high.  Converted to a duplex. 
• Oil houses - these two (2) structures have also been noted as the paint locker to the North of the lighthouse and storage to the South of the lighthouse.  
• Carpenter’s shed and woodshop – built in 1879
• Ranch house (four bedroom) and garage – built in 1962
• Vessel Traffic Service Radar – installed in 1982.  The fog horn was removed in 2007.

Property Ownership

The US Coast Guard owns the property currently.  In 1996 the property was declared surplus and in 2006, the legislative bill was amended which allowed USCG to transfer all associated buildings and property to State Parks.  State Parks is reluctant to take possession due to the significant costs associated with the long term operational impacts with this acquisition along with demonstrating outstanding historic and environmental stewardship.  

Extenuating Issues

Shoreline restoration vs. armoring to protect historic buildings:

• The Coast Guard has been paying for the armoring of the shoreline in order to maintain the buildings approximately $250,000 every two to three years
• Armoring and gabions which have been installed and maintained to protect the buildings are  now counterproductive  to the health of the Puget Sound.
• Port Townsend shoreline management plan requests removal of armoring and gabions to restore shoreline to its more natural state 
• The removal of the armoring will endanger the four of the historic buildings
• Moving the historic buildings will cost conservatively from $3-$5 million plus additional funds to restore the interior of the keepers house to its historic origin.  This may be a perfect project for the Veterans as they work towards certification in Historic Preservation from our new Center.  

In the conclusion of this project, the goal will be to rent the property to support the operations at Fort Worden and to further the learning center vision, mission and goals. 

22

The incomplete become whole

the crooked become straight

the hollow become full

the worn-out become new

those with less become content

those with more become confused

sages therefore hold on to one thing

and use this to guide the world

not considering themselves they appear

not displaying themselves they shine

not flattering themselves they succeed

not parading themselves they lead

because they don’t compete

no one can compete against them

the ancients who said the incomplete become whole

came close indeed

becoming whole on this depends

Lao-Tzu’s Taoteching, translated by Red Pine, forthcoming from Copper Canyon Press,

Copyright 2009 by Red Pine

Assume Good Intention

Dear Partners,

Nora Porter, graciously, arranged a site visit by Kristiné Reeves from Senator Patty Murray’s office yesterday. She had limited time so she was brought up to speed on the overall planning process and got a more in-depth briefing on the PT Woodworking School and proposed Center for Historic Preservation and the Marine Science Center’s projects and ambitions. She also stopped by a Blues workshop in progress.

She is a great contact and is willing to help us frame requests for help through the Senator’s office. Her one repeated piece of advice was to plan in concert with one another and approach funding requests in broad partnership with each other and as many other public and private entities as possible. Everyone has needs right now but we will do better if we take a breath, get strategic and coherent in how we engage major funding opportunities like this.

I know that many of you feel that my constant talk about partnership is warm-and-fuzzy stuff. It is not. It is 100% strategic. Partners who want to go maverick are obviously not serving the whole, but neither are they doing themselves any favors.

Partnering is hard. A whole bunch of egos. Fear of what could be lost. Uncertainty about what is gained. 

People say they want to be sure they can trust others in such a process. But here’s the problem with that request: there is always a reason not to trust someone. We can always dredge up some fear to project on another person and his/her motives.

If we develop and hold onto a narrative of mistrust around a person or institution we are making an investment in that narrative being true.

I urge we take another tack: assume good intention. We have an agreed upon mission, vision, and values. If someone acts counter to these, call that person out. In 99 out of 100 cases it will be a misjudgment, an error, and not a secret agenda to undermine or dominate.

Assuming good intention is not naïve. It is a strategy for moving forward. And the further forward we move with the mission, vision, and values the stronger, clearer, and more compelling the mission, vision, and values are. Then trust is a given.

Holding on to power is the surest path to powerlessness. The more power we give away the more powerful we are.

-Thatcher

Keep Fort Worden Under Public Control

...from Lyle Courtsal, Letter to the Editor, Port Townsend Leader, July 29, 2009

The wheels of predatory injustice grind slowly forward, devouring everything in their mindless path these days. The recession, caused by bank scammers, continues to hold us back from a promising future and destroys the social fabric of our communities and our Bill of Rights. The numerous wars prove once again that a criminal corporate-development strategy based on dictatorial enslavement is unviable and death dealing. And what is left of arts and music in America turns out to be uninspiring and completely out of touch with the times.

The proposed privatization of Fort Worden for the purpose of creating an elite arts colony is one more nail in the social coffin created for us to die slowly in. Jazz, blues and snobby, gutless writers teaching others to capitulate will not win the day these days.

The solutions we seek are not found in running from the many horrors the worst of us created, but in facing them, learning from them, and dealing effectively with them as our forefathers and foremothers did. Giving away public land like Fort Worden to people only interested in what they consider "culture" from their half-dead, narrow-minded worldview and that of their backers only guarantees that we will slide further and deeper into the poisonous military-corporate muck that has destroyed our precious freedoms and killed so many people around the globe. Keep Fort Worden under full public control. 

God bless America - and quickly, please - while there is still something of her left alive.

Social Return on Investment

Few terms evoke such a passionate response in the impact management field as “social return on investment” or “SROI.” It’s not so much the idea itself that sparks debate, but the varying interpretations of how the term should be translated into practice. Perhaps in part the tension comes from conflating the generic concept of social return with conventional (financial) ROI or with methodologies like “Social Return on Investment Analysis.” But one thing is certain: everybody has their own intepretation of what SROI means.

Many who love the concept of SROI thrill to the vision of a universal performance measure that places human and environmental well-being on par with financial wealth…. Or to the vision that do-gooders might really be able to account for their performance…. Or that philanthropic money might be allocated against more objective criteria…. Or that SROI could be compared directly with financial ROI to reveal a new, sustainable “efficient frontier”…. Or that SROI will reveal the financial returns driven by social investments…. Whichever particular vision it is, they love SROI!

On the other hand, many of those who dislike it can’t stand that it implies that you could sum up all that is of value into a single, quantitative ratio…. Or that it caters to the dangerous tendency of mainstream capital markets to abstract everything to the point that it is no longer anchored in a real source of value.

Many of us, however, see a middle ground: that SROI in practice may provide a coherent underlying architecture on which to build processes and tools that help organizations manage the social returns of their investments in a hands-on way.

The analogy to financial ROI implies that SROI is two things: one, comprehensive, and two, a single ratio. The dilemma, though, is that to arrive at a single ratio, the social value numerator has to be in money terms so that it can be divided by the investment denominator-- but a complete summary of all significant social value simply cannot be represented in exclusively monetary terms. For example, the value of "children not orphaned" simply can't be fully captured in terms of their increased earning potential. 

Many, especially in the finance industry, see exciting potential in figuring out how to unify all information about non-financial impact into a single ratio that would be more directly analogous to financial ROI. In concept we think that would be cool too, but it is hard to imagine that it would ever be perfectly analogous to financial ROI, which is the comprehensive sum of all financial value relative to investment. 

That presents us with a choice. We can narrow the definition of “return” to refer just to that part of the value that can be reasonably captured in dollar terms; we can expand the definition of what “return on investment” means to include multiple numerators (monetary, quantitative, qualitative and maybe even narrative), relative to investment; or, we can scrap the term entirely. 

A lot of us who have participated in the SROI conversation, and put the idea or measuring social returns into practice, have felt like the first option would not really get us anywhere—after all, we were trying to move away from the straightjacket of financial ROI being the sole design criterion for everything, since that was so clearly leading us into the abyss.

So, some took the third option and moved away from the term to chart a course to other concepts that spoke more accurately to the actual steps in the process and to the product. 

While others, including ourselves, find the concept represented by the term itself-- with the implication of comprehensiveness, systematization and relevance to capital markets-- to be too powerful a compass point to abandon entirely. But we recognize that for it to be comprehensive requires a more broadened definition of return, so we have settled for annoying the financiers with an interpretation of SROI that results in multiple facets of value relative to investment... and we've either made the best of-- or gone into temporary denial about-- the knotty information design problem presented by multiple types of social value numerators.

Fortunately digital technology and the internet open up the possibility of transmitting videos just as easily as 1s and 0s. What does this look like? Microplace is one example of an organization beginning to put financial returns into their social context systematically, by including information about who, where and how poor are the clients served by a given microfinance organization. E+Co is reporting information quarterly about their quantitative social and environmental outputs, like the number of people with new access to clean energy, on par with financial performance. And Calvert Foundation was an early pioneer of interactive output accounting with its “SROI Calculator.”

The debate over the meaning of SROI is surely a creative one, and hopefully its tension will continue to spur constructive debates that lead to interconnections between the profit-driven and mission-driven worlds. We hope that one connection made will be that more professionals in the finance world will realize that, in isolation from the other kinds of returns that go hand in hand with it, financial ROI is a needlessly imperfect gauge of value.

From SVT on Impact, Sara Olsen and Brett Galimadi, Social Edge, a Program of the Skoll Foundation, July 14, 2009. Olsen and Galimidi, partners at Social Venture Technology Group, bring you the latest trends, approaches, examples and general musings on how to manage resources to generate the greatest positive impact possible: HERE

Corporate-Nonprofit Partnerships

A hallmark of corporate-nonprofit partnerships is that they advance both the mission of the nonprofit organization and the business purpose of the company. They are mutually beneficial relationships that involve the exchange of something of value from each participant to the other and involve clear responsibilities, shared contributions, and shared risk.

Grantmaking

In a grantor-grantee partnership, a corporation–either through a corporate giving program or through a company-established foundation–makes a philanthropic contribution in support of a nonprofit organization.

Cause-Related Marketing

The marketing strategy of linking a company and its products to an issue or cause in order to enhance the corporation's image while benefiting the designated cause or nonprofit organization.

Sponsorship

A broad term that covers many kinds of business-nonprofit relationships from financial to in-kind operational support. Nonprofit organizations can create innovative sponsorship opportunities of many different kinds to engage additional corporate partners, reach wider audiences, increase financial support, or build operational and strategic capacity.

Certification

An arrangement in which the nonprofit organization recognizes that a product or service of a company complies with certain established standards. Typically, these certifications are available to any product or service that meets the standards

Licensing

An agreement in which the nonprofit allows its information or knowledge to be used for a fee or an agreement in which a nonprofit's name is attached to a product.

Message Promotion

An alliance in which a nonprofit organization works with a company or media outlet to promote a public interest message.

Employee Involvement

A broad category of collaborations between companies and nonprofits that harness the valuable network of employee interests, talent, and financial resources to create value for nonprofit organizations.

Advocacy

A formal or informal partnership in which nonprofit organizations and companies work together to alter their operations, promote changes in public policies, support self-regulation, or endorse operating or ethical standards.

Social Enterprise

A broad range of activities that improve the company's core business operations, such as building unique supply or distribution channels, by working in partnership with a nonprofit, which also receives something of value in return

Strategic Alliance

A term to cover a broad range of collaborations in which partners combine their core competencies to accomplish social change and meet business objectives.

More from Mission and Market: the Resource Center for Effective Corporate-Nonprofit Partnerships

Conceptualizing an Artistic Dividend

For decades, arts advocates and cultural economists have tried to make the case that public and philanthropic investments in the arts create a positive economic return for the host community beyond the aesthetic enjoyment of the immediate audience or the incomes generated for workers in the artistic enterprise. Hundreds of arts impact studies have been done, detailing the probable expenditure of arts patrons, including tourists drawn to a region expressly for this purpose, on tickets, restaurant meals, hotels, and other local purchases. Despite the methodological problems that confront such efforts, these studies document a not insignificant economic return to non-artistic businesses and the regional economy as a whole.

These studies approach the arts as predominantly a local-serving industry, especially for museums and the performing arts where, with exceptions like New York and London, the majority of tickets are purchased by local residents. Visitors may also attend, but they do not base their travel destinations on the opportunity to see local theatre or dance. Few performing artists, then — musicians, dancer, actors and performance artists — are believed to export their art out of the region. Other artists — painters, sculptors, photographers, authors — may more easily export their work as well as sell it locally, since it is embodied in a product that stores artistic value for consumption elsewhere. But for the most part, artists in these occupations are seen as initially creating for a local market. Thus resident artists and artistic establishments are not generally considered a part of the economic base of the region, especially because economic base analysis has relied on industries rather than occupations in identifying base components.

Such an approach seriously understates the full economic contribution of an artistic community to a regional economy. Restricting itself to arts organizations and the impact of events associated with them, it fails to trace the many ways in which a region’s artistic talent contributes to regional productivity and output. It cannot capture, for instance, the work that artists do to enhance the design features of a region’s manufacturing products or marketing efforts. It does not tally up the success of photographers, painters, authors, poets and graphic designers in exporting their work out of the region over the internet, arts fairs, or via other direct sales routes. Nor does it account for the revenues and income to groups or individual artists who tour with theatrical, musical or dance performances. It does not take into account the incomes earned and human capital created by the many artists who teach others in their craft. It does not trace the incomes generated for support workers who build sets, edit manuscripts, print books and music, act as brokers or agents and engage in paid promotional efforts outside of arts establishments, links that Howard Becker enabled us to see so powerfully in his book, Art Worlds (1982). Finally, arts impact analysis does not evaluate the extent to regional consumption of the arts may be import-substituting, as consumers prefer to spend on performances and artwork rather than spending at shopping malls full of imports. Furthermore, since artists themselves heavily patronize other artists’ work, and so much of this work is labor intensive, the multiplier effect of local arts consumption may be higher than expected. All of these are components of the artistic dividend for a regional economy — the additional economic impact that would not occur without the presence of artists....

Artistic activity produces dividends for a regional economy in two ways — as current income streams and as returns to the region as a whole on past investments. Every year, thousands of individuals in a regional economy labor to produce artistic performances, canvasses and photographs, books and magazine articles, tapes and films and videos that are attended by paying customers or sold via bookstores, galleries, art fairs and art crawls, the internet, private patronage or contractual arrangements (including with government, business and wealthy individuals). To the extent that their work is marketed at all, artists creating such works of art earn greater or lesser amounts of income. They also place orders for materials, equipment and labor, much of which further generates incomes in the region. Furthermore, the work of regional artists can enhance the quality and salability of products and services of other businesses in the region who are customers of or suppliers to artists.

Artists are thus not simply earning income from local activities. They are contributors to the region’s economic base — goods and services exported out of the region that enable the producers to earn incomes that are in turn spent in support of local-serving businesses as well as on imports of yet other goods and services. Every region must have a relatively unique economic base to thrive in a world increasingly integrated through trade with other regional economies. Artists contribute to this economic base when their work and performances are paid for by consumers and businesses elsewhere. They also contribute to it when their work helps regional businesses win or expand markets elsewhere.

We can also think of the artistic dividend as a kind of public good, a return to past decades of investments by funders, patrons, businesses, arts organizations, the public sector and artists themselves in the human capital and physical infrastructure that constitute “art worlds” in the regional economy. A vibrant arts community encompassing everything from pioneering and internationally renowned regional theatre companies and museums to the thick and diverse layers of artistic talent in the regional economy will serve as a major drawing factor for the location of new businesses, the recruitment of new employees from elsewhere and further gravitation of artists to the region. It also helps reinforce the loyalty of current residents and businesses to the region, providing the “lovability” that is so essential to the future of a high wage region in a fast integrating world.

Exerpt from The Artistic Dividend: Urban Artistic Specialization and Economic Development Implications by Ann Markusen, Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs,University of Minnesota. Hat tip: Anne Focke.

Partnerships for Parks

Public-private partnerships for parks are proliferating across the country—and generating much excitement and interest. One reason is that they work. Parks partnerships are successfully combining the assets of the public and private sectors in novel ways to create new and refurbished parks, greenways, trails, and other community assets in our cities—often in the face of municipal budget constraints.

Another reason for the increased interest in parks partnerships is that parks themselves are becoming more important elements of urban revitalization initiatives under way nationwide. After nearly three decades of steady decline, changing public attitudes are encouraging many cities to support more investments in public infrastructure, including parks. Instead of being challenged to upgrade and maintain parks in the face of continuing neighborhood decline, park managers now are encouraged to use parks as a way to support positive changes in neighborhoods. And increasingly, parks agencies are not expected to do this alone. In many cities and urban neighborhoods, they can count on the support of other organized constituencies, most often from the expanding community-based nonprofit sector.

Importantly, park partnerships are occurring in an overall environment of growing public-private partnerships in other activities, too—especially community development. A new "technology" of partnerships is thus evolving, offering valuable lessons that can be applied across a variety of arenas.

Read More: Lessons from the Lila Wallace Readers' Digest Urban Parks Program

David LaPiana: Mergers for the Greater Good

We agree with Emmett Carson’s sentiments, published the San Francisco Chronicle Open Forum [see below], that merging two weak nonprofits will not per se result in the creation of a single stronger organization. However, mergers provide a realistic mechanism for strengthening nonprofit infrastructure and enhancing community impact while utilizing public and private funds most efficiently.

Should some nonprofits be allowed to fail during the current economic crisis? Probably. Still, many struggling nonprofits provide essential services to the most vulnerable in our society. Some may be able to continue their work by consolidating their programs under a stronger organization. We need to seize this time to support nonprofits as they trade their autonomy for a partnership that will allow them to continue to provide desperately needed services.

Nonprofits that close their doors leave communities without services. But a more basic point struck us on reading Mr. Carson’s piece: most nonprofits don’t really live in a “marketplace,” subject to market forces much like businesses. Instead, they fill in gaps created by the marketplace.

When providing an essential service simply cannot generate a profit (e.g. homeless services) it’s done by a nonprofit. If nonprofits lived in a true marketplace, their budgets would actually grow in 2009, since demand from increasing numbers of customers, particularly in the human services, is growing dramatically.

Mr. Carson argues to let the market do its work, but it has already done that, creating economic collapse and rise in social problems we face today. Rather than leave the fate of our community to fate, we must salvage as much as possible of vital community services from this economic train wreck.

Nonprofit mergers are a vehicle for saving valuable programs from the sinking administrative ships of which they are a part. Many of these programs serve people who would be left with no other choice to turn to. It is not like letting Lehman Brothers go down, knowing other banks are ready to step in to meet their clients’ needs. When a major homeless shelter closes, there are no others waiting to take in its clients. It is fashionable to use the rhetoric of the market as a context to describe the problems of the nonprofit sector, but our “marketplace” is filled with “customers” who, while exhibiting a growing demand for services, have an ever-shrinking ability to pay.

At this critical time, nonprofits need to create viable new structures. Not all will survive; indeed, many thousands of nonprofits will close their doors this year. But communities deserve the opportunity to save what services they can, and mergers provide one path to achieve this.

July 6, 2009: Musings on the Nonprofit Sector

Emmett D. Carson: Remaking the Nonprofit Landscape

For years, there has been growing concern that the Bay Area has become home to too many nonprofit organizations. The sheer number, critics said, was inefficient and unsustainable.

The economic crisis has heightened those concerns as our state, county and city governments make difficult choices about which nonprofit services will be continued and which will be cut. These cutbacks, coupled with the decline in charitable gifts from donors, will remake the nonprofit landscape.

As a result, there is increasing outside pressure on nonprofit organizations with similar missions to merge.

The thinking is that merged organizations would become more efficient, combining back office functions and reducing staff and overlapping service areas.

While a merger is the right strategy in some cases, my own experience at Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which was created by the successful merger of Peninsula Community Foundation and Community Foundation Silicon Valley, leads me to believe that the marketplace will produce better and faster results than promoting widespread mergers.

Mergers are not for the faint-hearted and, contrary to popular thinking, merging two weak organizations does not result in a stronger organization but rather a weaker one.

Mergers are expensive and disruptive. It takes money to consider how to integrate services, staff and systems, and time to think through the merits of such a strategy. Unfortunately, both are in short supply.

Even more challenging is the fact that merging organizational cultures is a delicate, complicated exercise under ideal conditions, and even harder when leaders are faced with the urgency of responding to burgeoning community needs.

Mergers require enormous amounts of energy from the boards and senior management of both organizations, which can distract them from focusing on their core work.

Mergers introduce uncertainty to employees who understandably worry about the security of their own jobs.

Mergers also challenge donors and supporters of each organization who begin to question whether they will lose their identity and traditions in the transition. Such concerns inevitably lead to short-term service disruptions as a new culture and supporting systems are developed. The two years or more that such efforts inevitably require mean that the hoped-for efficiencies will not materialize in time to make a difference during this economic downturn.

The alternative is to let the marketplace work. As financially strapped nonprofit organizations are no longer able to sustain their operations, they will cease to exist and those that are stronger can expand to serve other areas and constituencies. To the extent that stronger nonprofits are reluctant to expand services or may not be sensitive to the cultural needs within specific communities, private and government funders can be helpful in providing financial incentives at far less cost than it would take to support widespread mergers. Funders also can help nonprofits close their doors in an orderly fashion with dignity and respect. There is no blame to place on organizations that must close due to the dramatic economic changes that are reshaping the global economy.

Allowing the market to work will be faster and more cost-effective than promoting mergers. In the long run, it will result in a healthier nonprofit system, one that can deliver effective services and be sustained with fewer resources.

Emmett D. Carson is the CEO and president of Silicon Valley Community Foundation.This article appeared on page A-19 of the San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, June 19, 2009.

James C. Scott's Advice

• Take small steps: We cannot know the consequences of our interventions in advance.
• Favor reversibility: Irreversible interventions have irreversible consequences.
• Plan on surprises: Choose plans that allow the largest accommodation to the unforeseen.
• Plan on human inventiveness: Always plan under the assumption that those who become involved in the project later will have or will develop the experience and insight (metis) to improve on the design.

From Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, James C. Scott New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998. Reviewed by John Kreidler, San Francisco Foundation, in Grantmakers in the Arts Newsletter: Volume 9, Number 2

Hat Tip to Anne Focke

School, Historic Preservation Could Go Hand in Hand

Tim Lawson, a founder of the Port Townsend School of Woodworking, said he believes his small Fort Worden campus can bring a new era of historic preservation to the area. "Look around," Lawson said, pointing to the many buildings located within the state park at Fort Worden. "Pick one of them to work on; they all need it."

The historic fort is just one step, but it's a big step in Lawson's vision for the future of his school. 

More...

By Erik Hidle, Peninsula Daily News, June 23, 2009

Gerhard Richter on Intent

"What I'm attempting in each picture is nothing other than this.. to bring together in a living and viable way, the most different and the most contradictory elements in the greatest possible freedom."

Merging?

As the interest in nonprofit mergers grows, so do the myths surrounding them. In the nonprofit sector, mergers carry the stigma of for-profit experiences. This is understandable, considering some of the legendary train wrecks of for-profit mergers.

Many people reject them on that basis alone. Decision-making gets skewed when myths dominate thinking instead of clear-eyed analysis. This is a good time to examine some of the more persistent ideas about mergers in the nonprofit sector.

The increase in mergers is a product of the economic downturn. Although it is logical to associate the increase in merger activity with the economic downturn, the fact is that many nonprofit resources are locked in outdated corporate structures and aging program models. While the downturn is making mergers seem like a logical choice, it is only a catalyzing agent for trends that were already under way.

Excerpt from Merger Myths: 6 Reasons the Package Really Is on the Truck, Thomas A. McLaughlin, The Nonproft Times, April 1, 2009, Vol. 23, No. 7

Leading Beyond Authority

People who lead beyond their authority can produce change beyond their direct circle of control.

Traditionally, many leaders learn to lead by rising through their organisations and earning the authority to lead.

But the world is changing: and leaders must change with it. As organisations develop increasingly complex internal structures and external relationships - working across cultures, borders and boundaries—the leader’s ability to lead both across and outside their organisation becomes ever more important.

So how do leaders learn to lead now? When they have succeeded within their own world—yet find themselves surrounded by a host of new and unfamiliar faces, audiences and challenges? When they do not feel they have the legitimacy to lead anything or anyone outside the authority they believe has been prescribed for them?

This situation requires a different kind of leadership. A different set of perceptions, skills and talents. And further leadership development, which encourages broader vision and the ability to operate across diverse worlds right from the outset.

From Common Purpose

Our Space

In every democracy, there is an invisible, open space. It lies between the citizen and the state. Between the immediate responsibilities facing each individual and the institutional responsibilities of the government. It is political, but not party political: a place where people come together and act for a greater good. And it is open to everyone, from every sector of society.

From Vision Statement, Common Purpose

Nearing Agreement...

We, the undersigned representatives of Washington State Parks and Centrum, enter into this Memorandum of Understanding to achieve mutually agreed upon milestones that will enable each organization to fairly assess each other’s capabilities and willingness to create a long term partnership in support of the vision, mission and values of Fort Worden State Park, as approved by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.

The milestones will demonstrate both parties’ desire and ability to successfully and collaboratively develop the most effective management for Fort Worden State Park, and to create a financially vital center for integrated learning for all people.

We enter into this relationship in good faith, recognizing the process we undertake is necessarily adaptive and evolutionary. The scope of our ambition is immense. There are existing models of the partnership we can and will research and learn from, but our business, site, and demographic conditions are unique and we must embrace trial and error as a legitimate operating principle. Goals and outcomes established today will likely need to be amended at appropriate intervals to reflect shifting circumstances and trends. Nimbleness, agility, creativity, and mutual respect will be our touchstones.

Both parties understand and agree that the milestones are not a test of each institution’s specific capacities so much as they are a demonstration of both institutions’ capacity to work collaboratively to preserve and sustain the extraordinary resource that is Fort Worden, and to provide each visitor with the highest levels of customer service. We will work to complete the following milestones to the satisfaction of both parties by December 31 of 2010. This outcome will lead directly to long-term lease negotiations, the parameters of which will be iterated through the milestone process. 

We recognize that a host of specific business development, land use, and leadership issues may arise that may not be specifically called forth in the agreed-upon milestones. We agree to systematically identify and address such issues in the same spirit of mutuality and cooperative problem solving that we bring to the milestone process.

We agree to regularly inform the staff and Commission at State Parks and the staffs and boards of Centrum, the Fort Worden Advisory Committee, Park Partners, and the public at large about our progress towards achieving these milestones.

Excerpt from Draft Memorandum of Understanding between Centrum and Washington State Parks

Dynamic Governance

What does it mean to govern?

The questions governance addresses are: What is the aim of the organization? How will this aim be achieved? Who makes decisions? How are priorities set? Or considered? How is money spent? 

 

Strong organizations are characterized by deep commitment. If every member is aligned with the aim of the organization and works whole-heartedly toward it, the organization is more likely to be effective, productive, and extremely powerful. Sociocratic organizations require that policy decisions be made with the participation and consent of those they most affect.

 

A circle's fundamental responsibility is to realize its aim. An aim describes an intended result, a product, or service. It is tangible and can be delivered and received. The circle should define its aim from the point of view of the client. The aim is a yardstick for measuring success and a basis on which to evaluate arguments for or against decisions. Only with a well-defined aim can the circle judge the validity of (objections to proposals) paramount and reasoned arguments. 

 

Defining an Aim

A well-formulated aim is a prerequisite for designing a good process. To be effective, you need to know where you are going. The three elements of a good aim statement are:

1. A named product or service that (could I buy one? hire it? use it? enjoy it? produce it? The objective of an aim statement is to define the product or service that has exchange value. In writing the aim, listen to your customers or clients. What do they say about their needs in relationship to your area of expertise? What product would fulfill those needs? The next step is to write the aim statement. Be as objective and factual as possible. 
2. Is differentiated from other aims, and (What is your market niche?)
3. Described in terms your customer or client understands (The aim should use language that your customer or client understands.)

Excerpted from We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy. A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods,  John Buck and Sharon Villines.

Some Observations from Bill Wise

The Partners—public, private nonprofit, and for profit—are promoting creative learning and discovery at Fort Worden. There is an opportunity on the afternoon of June 4th to work together and  to implement what everyone’s been talking about these last few years. 

The challenge is real. Our economy has shifted fundamentally, and likely for the long term. We are challenged by a marginal transportation system. We are challenged to develop and promote compelling real value. We are challenged to find and attract bright, energetic seekers that want and need the creative learning and discovery programs we offer. We are challenged to seek creative ways to leverage each other’s efforts, to share resources and to find amazing new ways to be successful.

This is the time, the opportunity, to work together—build a stronger, resilient and more sustainable future for ourselves, for alliance members and for Fort Worden’s future. 

How? 

Bring it! Bring your ideas, your plans, your successes and your failures and explore how to leverage each other. 

This is not a test. This is real—we need results. Reality is facing us squarely. Can we leverage each other? Can we share resources? Can we reach out to the larger Puget Sound and Pacific Northwest Region? Can we deliver real value and attract this larger community? Can we become a regional hub for creative learning and discovery?

We will need for this year, and the next to deliver improved performance - for our own enterprise and to the collective Fort Worden and its stakeholders. It is the time for the partnership to emerge.

The time is now. Bring it!

Thoughts/guides concerning a successful outcome

This fiscal year and the next… how does my enterprise improve performance? Think partnership… think leverage… think sharing resources.Go for the “low hanging fruit” now, the more demanding programs further out. Minor investments now may yield quick returns. It is the accumulation of many small gains that will deliver real gain.

Consider my enterprise’s current revenue and expense streams 

• Is my enterprise sustainable?
• Are the programs in place to make it sustainable over the next three/five years?
• If not, can I open the discussion to build an ongoing enterprise?
• If yes, how can I make it better? 

Consider my enterprise—how it can leverage the whole of the Fort Worden complex?

• Can we extend programs to weekend long, weeklong, more?
• Can we market value beyond the local East Jefferson County?
• Do we offer value other enterprise clients might desire during their stay?

What resources within the Fort Worden circle can lift my enterprise performance?

• Are there services I need, that others already have?
• What services/resources can be shared or that I can share?
• What are the redundancies, the gaps and overlaps across the campus?

We have five hours on June 4th—we will have a follow-on session later in the month to ground and solidify the commitments we derive during this session—we can make this work.

Bill Wise is facilitating a series of partner revenue strategy meets beginning June 4 at Fort Worden. He is currentlyfacilitating the strategic action plan with the Port of Port Townsend and its stakeholders, and is Chair of EDC Team Jefferson, the County's economic development organization. Originally from Massachusetts, where he enjoyed a long career in guiding high tech companies, Bill was Chair of the Advisory Committee for the City of Sherborn, which reviews and seeks input from the public in regard to the town's budgets for administration, schools, public safety, etc. Prior to that appointment, he was chair of Sherborn's Conservation Commission.  

Broadband at Fort Worden

As we make our way towards the midpoint of 2009, I would like to take this opportunity to bring all of the Partners onto the same page with regards to the current status of the broadband network here at Fort Worden. That network—CentrumNet—was brought online in 2006 and 2007, and provides internet access for participating Partner organizations and guests at the Fort.

History

Although the State had provided high-speed access to the Fort previous to 2006, State regulations prohibited non-State partners from using it. As a result, most Partners functioned on dial-up or a very weak form of DSL. As we progressed through 2005, it became clear that many of the Partners could not do business here at this campus without a higher level of service. Separately, Peninsula College invested significant resources to provide a dedicated connection for their private use to the Schoolhouse.

In the last major utility upgrade here at the Fort, the State installed fiber optic cabling throughout much (but not all) of the Fort. This presented an opportunity for participating Partners to run their own broadband network. After significant and lengthy discussions with Cable providers, Satellite providers, and Telco providers, it became clear that the only technical and cost-effective solution was to establish a Telco-based access solution through Qwest. Centrum agreed to pay the upfront setup costs of the installation (roughly $20,000), and Partners using the network would repay their share of those costs over time.

The network was installed in 2006 and 2007 by BerryHill Software and Hanson Electric. Initial partners were Centrum, Marine Science Center, Goddard College, and the Fort Food Concessionaire (originally Guest Services, now BAMCO). In 2008, Madrona, Wheeler Theater Box office, and Pavilion Box office were added. In 2009, Copper Canyon was added. The buildings currently served by the network include: Park HQ, Centrum, Natural History Exhibit, Marine Exhibit, 204, 205, Commons (including free wifi in Local Goods), MMI, Copper Canyon, Wheeler Box Office, Pavilion Box Office.

Today

As of May 2009, the participating Partners have mostly repaid the setup charges. Centrum bills each participating Partner monthly for internet access charges. These payments cover the cost of that access (Qwest + Olympus.net) as well as the cost to provide technical support.  

We run what is called a “bursty T-1” network. That is to say, most of the time, our bandwidth runs slightly below 1.5 MB/s, but can burst up to 1.5 MB/s as needed. This is not a blazing fast connection. In fact, it is probably similar to what many of you have at home. We serve 12 buildings and dozens of users with that connection. As a result, we are approaching the limit of what we can expect in terms of network performance. 

Unfortunately, Qwest’s own circuit limitations in Port Townsend mean that doubling our bandwidth (the next step up), would result in a tripling of our costs. In 2008, it appeared as if the State would be able to partner with us to install a microwave-based access system that would result in a significant increase in speed. However, it appears that the only way that type of access will be available in the near future is if the participating Partners purchase it. So where we are now, is where we are likely to be for a spell.

The Future

Centrum and the Partners made the investments necessary to provide a basic level of service to the campus. However, it will soon be necessary to take the next step. A comprehensive network architecture plan is needed to address the future needs of campus partners, guests, and facilities. We have had initial discussions with a network architect, and feel fortunate that this expertise exists locally. This plan will need to include bandwidth, staff, Partner data needs, as well as physical infrastructure. And of course, a funding strategy needs to be in place to enable that plan to be implemented. These are things to think about as you all work together to tackle these issues.

Looking back at where we’ve been, and where we are—I believe that it is remarkable that this network exists, and that it has largely served the needs of the Partners. The opportunities for business growth that will emerge from a thoughtful, smart technology plan, are staggering—especially considering the intelligence and creativity of the Partners here at Fort Worden. I have enjoyed working with you all on this project, and wish you all the best moving forward.—Keven Elliff

What Problem Are We Trying to Solve?

Good managers solve problems, but great leaders create problems and then empower others in their organization to solve them. Creating problems leads directly to innovation.

Want to Innovate? Create a Problem!, Ted Santos & Deborah Brown, Moving Ahead Newsletter, December 2006, Volume 1, Number 12

Turner on Organizational Change

Every CEO knows the importance of the bottom line when it comes to assessing the financial viability of his or her organization. But what about when it comes to change… do you know your bottom line? 

Successfully implementing and sustaining change in an organization needs a bottom line – an "Intended Outcome Statement" is your change bottom line. It describes where the organization is going and what it will look like when it gets there. The intended outcome is the beacon for everyone involved and affected by the change and serves as a benchmark on which to measure success. Documenting and communicating a clearly stated, detailed intended outcome puts the goal of the change in focus for the organization and the individuals affected.  

To be effective the intended outcome should: 

• State clearly and concisely the direction and purpose of the change 
• Motivate the individuals to move in the direction of the change 
• Orient the leaders and affected individuals around a common goal

The articulation of a detailed and well-documented intended outcome is a critical first step and powerful tool that can dramatically affect the success of change in your organization. The benefit of clearly documenting as well as communicating the intended outcome for any change initiative, is its ability to focus a team’s energy on the future and guide the activities, behaviours and decisions needed to realize successful, sustainable change.    

Here are three questions to help get you started in defining an intended outcome for your organization: 

• When your organization has successfully completed the transition how will it be different?
• When the organization has successfully made the transition to the new environment, what will be different about how the affected individuals do their work? 
• What will your customers/clients say about the organization when the change has been successfully implemented and the transition is complete? 

Do You Know Where You're Going? Defining an Intended Outcome for Change, Dawn-Marie Turner, Turner Change Management.