The struggle is real: NPO funding support in South Africa

Gabrielle Ritchie

Director, The Change Room

8th September 2016

I have been engaging recently, through training workshops, with a range of South African non-profit staffers who know what it’s like out there on the ground.  These aren’t the big-city non-profits.  These are people seriously slogging it out in under-resourced areas, looking into the big yonder and wondering how they will continue to fund the delivery of essential community services.

These services include, for example (and usually amongst many other services):

1. HIV counselling and testing – most times these are the only entities in an area who provide this service.
2. Trauma counselling – always these organisations are the only facility that has any capacity to provide support to those who have suffered violence, abuse, trauma, loss.
3. Sex worker support – access to health advice, testing and treatment in a context where state clinics are unsensitised (and often hostile) to sex workers and the context in which they work.
4. Sexual health education and resource-sharing – particularly for youth, where there are clearly insufficient resources and information available to guide and advise.
5. Support for women survivors of gender-based violence – always the only place that women can turn to.
6. Diversion programmes – designed to support juvenile offenders towards avoiding a life of wrong-doing and imprisonment.

These organisations are not about charity.  While they are about welfare, this is welfare in the “big” sense of the word, where these non-profits provide services and support to individuals within communities towards improving their emotional well-being and providing a place where they can be served, understood and where their issues can be held.

This is fundamentally an issue of social justice.  This is about access to wellness services.  This is about attending to the basic health and wellness needs of communities.  And this work is always under-funded, and often goes unpaid. Non-profits providing these essential services are struggling to get the attention of the state, of corporates, of individuals – and, most especially, appropriate levels of support from provincial funding pots in the departments of health, education and social development.

The work being undertaken, and the services being delivered, by these organisations are right up against the raw coalface of under-resourced and impoverished areas.  The work is often difficult and, because of under-staffing, can be hugely overwhelming.  It is becoming increasingly critical – for community support, development, and general physical, social and economic health – to ensure the long-term endurance, resilience and sustainability of these “social services” organisations.   There is no doubt that the government relies absolutely on such non-profits to deliver a range of health, wellness and support services – without which communities across the country would literally be left in the lurch.

Whether these kinds of services are needed is not up for discussion – they are critical in a global and local context of increasing inequality and social dysfunction.  Whether they must receive appropriate levels of support from  government is also not for debate – the government fully relies on this huge group of organisations, and the thousands of staff and volunteers who work at these NPOs, to  provide basic levels of community support. Whether they actually receive the required support is also a non-discussion – countless organisations rely on staff who are willing to continue working for months without salaries in times of zero funding.

These organisations are the heroes of our non-profit sector. There is nothing fun, exciting or edgy about the constant demand for their services, nor the overwhelming need for delivery of this huge range of social support interventions provided by these organisations.  But there they are – slogging it out, eking out their existence, working to make sure they are able to keep their doors open.  For the sake of the individuals who have nowhere else to turn.

Google “community counselling centre” or “sexual health centre/ clinic” in your area.  You will be amazed at what comes up. Find a local non-profit community counselling centre or clinic services centre and see how you can support the work they do. These organisations are the only option – and they are critical to our national well-being.

 

Is your organisation fit for philanthropy and fundraising?

Gabrielle Ritchie, Director: The Change Room

27th May 2016

Are you fit for fundraising? What do you need to know to attract funding resources to your organisation?

A quick bullet list for you (ok, it might have got a bit long):

1. There are no shortcuts in raising money. No quick fixes. No cutting corners.
2. You have to have your governance in order. This is critical. No donor is going to fund an organisation with poor governance.  See http://www.governance.org.za  for the Independent Code of Governance for Non-profit Organisations in South Africa.  You can sign on to the Code.
3. You have to have a plan – a plan for your work and a plan for your resourcing of that work. You know the line – failing to plan is planning to fail.  For a video discussion of the role and importance of planning in organisations see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eMDReWepAw
4. You have to be able to demonstrate excellent financial management – where everything tallies, regular financial reports are sent to your funders, and you have annual audited financial statements. There isn’t really any way around this.
5. You need the skills and capacity to raise funds properly and professionally – however you parcel the work out, delegate to board members, get volunteers on board. Next week I will be posting on the basic skills sets required for effective organisational resourcing – keep a look-out.
6. Your organisation must be clear about its mission, and must speak with one voice to communicate clear and coherent shared messages.  For good resources on this go to www.askinyathelo.org.za.
7. You must build a profile for your work – traditional media, social media, networking events, community forums etc. However you do it, you must share stories about what you do.  For a video discussion of this in the South African context go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXuoE-QX5Tc
8. You must have the required skills to implement your projects. Signs of poor project implementation means you either won’t get the money, or you might have to give money back to the donor.  For a short list of key skills go to http://askinyathelo.org.za/essential-skills-for-an-advancement-operation/
9. Fundraising is an organisation-wide endeavour. Everyone is involved – either in providing excellent services, implementing great programmes, answering the phone professionally, writing good content and reports, managing the money, making sure your IT network functions, keeping your organisation’s premises clean. Everyone. Make sure they know that, and that they feel part of the team.
10. Writing an annual report, no matter how short and simple, is a great way to make and keep friends.
11. You must have a well-crafted case for support – so that you can explain simply and swiftly why what you do is important, and the ways in which your organisation provides unique value to the context in which you work. Know why you are special. Be able to speak about that with confidence.
12. You know how everyone talks about proposal writing? It is one of the least important parts of the process of raising money. Well, it is not the most important – but for key things that donors look for in your approach to them, here is a short overview called The Power Pitch: non-profits on a mission to attract funding.
13. The most important part is your capacity to speak passionately and expertly about your work and what you seek to achieve – to donors, to the people you work with, to potential partners, to relevant people in government, to the media.
14. And finally (kind of…) – know how to engage professionally with your donors and your potential donors. Loads of people are wanting to access funding, so don’t mess your chances up by being sloppy, unprofessional, and by not following the basic rules.
15. What are the basic rules? Communicate with your donors, be very very sure to thank them appropriately, acknowledge them in ways that work for both the donor and for your organisation, and keep them posted – on progress, on impact, on achievements, on milestones. Even on bad news, failures, things going wrong – don’t hide this stuff. Communicate! An e-mail, a phone-call, a handwritten letter, an image, an invitation to an event – it doesn’t matter how you do it, but keep doing it. Communicate.
16. To do all that, you have to manage your donor contact data. You must know who supports you and how to contact them. Keeping this data up-to-date, with well-managed information on donor history with your organisation – critical.

Just to say it again – THANK and ACKNOWLEDGE. Communicate and keep contact data.

Let me know how you go!

Researching South African Philanthropy – for growth!

by Gabrielle Ritchie, Director: The Change Room

1st April 2016

Image source: CAF Southern Africa: I believe I can make a difference. Report on Giving in South Africa. 2015

In the last few weeks in South Africa – preceding the 31 March 2016 milestone ruling in South Africa’s Constitutional Court regarding #Nkandla – we have seen a couple of important events in South African philanthropy.  In some senses the #ConCourt judgement is as much a victory for philanthropy in support of democracy as it is a major victory for democracy itself.

Much has been happening in local philanthropy, aside from the extent to which Constitutionalism in our country has so fully been strengthened with philanthropic funding. The first event I refer to was the launch of a unique new online knowledge resource (at www.resourcingphilanthropy.org.za) which offers insights, thoughts, expertise and knowledge on practices of grantmaking in South Africa, and an overview of the current state of the local philanthropy field, with a particular focus on funding in support of human rights and social justice.

This is the first resource of its kind, offering a comprehensive look at the “as is” in local philanthropy, as well as documented insights and views from a range of key practitioners in the social justice and philanthropy fields. In addition, the resource offers illuminating insights into the innovative grantmaking practices and approaches of The Atlantic Philanthropies, a limited life Foundation which has now exited from its grantmaking in South Africa after funding more than $355million in projects, programmes, initiatives and capital developments in the Southern African region.  Remarkable stuff.

The second event I refer to is the launch of South Africa’s first Chair of African Philanthropy at Wits Business School (announced last year and launched recently), a long-overdue energy shot for building the field of philanthropy, not only in South Africa but also more broadly across the continent. This is most exciting, and a pan-African seminar has been held to kick-start the development of the academic programme under this new Chair.  With Professor Alan Fowler leading this development, the knowledge environment is seriously opening up for the local philanthropy field.

These are both clear signs of the growing energy and interest in the field of philanthropy in South Africa and on the rest of the continent – not just in the forms of giving, but also in who gives; what people commit their support to; the intentions behind giving; the reasons for wanting to contribute to a particular cause or organisation; how this giving takes place; and trends in amounts invested in social issues and in particular causes.

While these research initiatives and this energy are absolutely critical in the strengthening of the environment in which philanthropy is built and broadened, there is a range of other features required for local philanthropy promotion and growth.

The global experience in growing philanthropy indicates a number of key requirements for encouraging and improving the levels of philanthropic funding investments in social change.  These include the provision of encouragement and motivation for philanthropy; fostering an interest in and understanding of the field of philanthropy; developing a strong research-derived knowledge base in this area; and building a strong professional infrastructure around the business and practice of high net worth philanthropy. Additional to this is the requirement to ensure that the legislative framework for philanthropy actively enables and encourages giving, rather than inhibiting it.

To build, maintain and strengthen support for a strong change-focused agenda for civil society in South Africa, the following (amongst many others) are important enablers:

• Active citizenship – the commitment and active engagement of South Africa’s people in the identification and removal of obstacles to rights and justice
• The freedom to build democratic participation through social movements and civil society organisations
• The willingness of philanthropists, nonprofit organisations and social activists, to define and implement programmes for social and political interventions for change
• A Constitution which outlines the inalienable right to human dignity and equality, and which can be called upon directly in support of efforts to access rights
• A legislative framework that facilitates the space for civil society activists to speak, organise and demonstrate where they deem necessary, without fear of sanction (or worse)
• The political will of the state to ensure that civil society can operate openly without restriction, within the boundaries of the Constitution
• A post-secondary education system and structure geared to engage responsively with the needs and requirements of a strong democratic culture, and not only to respond to the needs of commerce and industry
• A progressive media that seeks out news and stories on issues of rights, civil society initiatives, and the watch-dogging of government and big business (for rights violations and other transgressions around good governance, transparency and accountability)
• The financial resources to conduct the work required – to support the organisation of initiatives, the design and implementation of campaigns, the physical space where organisations can do their work, legal challenges in court, and the many other tactics that might be employed by a movement or organisation to achieve access to rights and justice.

Currently in South Africa, most of the above enablers exist – and some require a more demanding and vociferous public than others, for the realisation of the enabler.   While human rights and change-focused activism takes place all over the world regardless of the existence of any of these conditions, it is these which most directly and actively support the attainment and realisation of rights and justice.

However, it is the area of financial resourcing (outlined above), that surfaces as a key challenge in South Africa.  Any South African news channel will provide ample indication of the ongoing urgency for financial support for social justice initiatives at a local, provincial, national and regional level.

For example, we all want a free media but we need to learn to pay for it. So as my sign-off, I am providing my organisational PICK OF THE DAY for strong investigative journalism:

Amabhungane at http://www.amabhungane.co.za Support amaB. Support Democracy.

 

 

It’s 2016! Some early thoughts on South African philanthropy.

Gabrielle Ritchie, Director at The Change Room:  4th January 2016

It’s the start of 2016 and South Africa has got off to a rocking start with a number of key hashtags in response to the ongoing, appalling, tiresome, tedious, offensive racist vitriol that white people seem to think it okay to spew all over social media.  Sigh. The first excellent hashtag is #TheYearWeMispronounceBack – a strong statement about the insistence amongst white people (turns out this is experienced the world over) to find “black names” too challenging to bother with.  It’s not that the names are too challenging.  We know this. But rather that so many of “my people” just frankly don’t consider it important enough to bother with black names.  Shocking horrible dismissive arrogant racist stuff.   The # takes the mickey out of traditionally white names, while making a key political point about respect, language, culture, supremacy, privilege and a range of other social factors and dynamics at play.

The second hashtag is #PennySparrow. Or #JustinVanVuuren. Or #ChrisHart. Or #DennisDyason.  All of whom are white South Africans who have spewed forth some ugly ugly stuff in the last 36 hours or so.  Not repeating any of it here, as it doesn’t warrant further sharing.  The bottom line out of all of this is that #RacismMustFall, and it is the responsibility of white South Africans – me included, obvs – to speak out loudly in support of anti-racist measures, to call racism out when we see it, and to stand up and raise our voices against any form of racism (yes, even our own). And we can’t expect any accolades, medals, or awards for it.  We must simply get on with it and do it. If white South Africans have any work to do, it is being constantly vigilant about our own behaviour and that of those white folk around us.  No complaints. Just get on with it.

So what does all of this have to do with philanthropy in South Africa?  A good question, you might be thinking. And this is really directed at us white South Africans.

Okay, so philanthropy is about someone giving financial support for a cause/s which that person believes in. It is about “doing good”.  It is – as has been shown in a number of recent South African research reports – about believing that one can “make a difference”, that by giving one can “contribute to change”.  Giving therefore has to start with the questions “what do I care about?”, “what is the change I want to see?” and “what difference do I want to contribute to making?”.  Asked and answered honestly is where the line gets drawn, between those who want to be “helpful to those less fortunate” (and I am not knocking that, really) and those who actively want to see change.

One of the key areas of real change required in South Africa is that #RacismMustFall.  Spend a good few minutes thinking about that, and thinking about how your own giving and your personal philanthropy can contribute to tackling your own prejudices – not just in what cause or organisation you support, but also in the way in which you offer such support.  The real impact is often felt in HOW we do things, and philanthropy is no different.  The HOW of philanthropy is crucial in effecting real change.

If you are looking to support any social justice cause this year, and you are also looking to ensure that your own racism and that of those around you is tackled, then your support needs to be committed; your approach will be consultative; your ears will be tuned to listen to the voices of those doing the work (rather than to your own voice); and you might look to contribute to work already happening rather than foregrounding your own way of doing things.

There is so much going on out there – amazing initiatives by incredibly energetic and creative people.  And they need your financial support.  Think about what you want to support this year, and how you are wanting to offer that support.

Please share any thoughts you have on this 🙂   Our young democracy depends on you.

 

 

 

Is “Consultant” almost a swear word for non-profits in South Africa?

by Gabrielle Ritchie

service provider | consultant | advisor : 13th August 2015

A certain cool descends on a NPO meeting when the word “consultant” is raised. The word gets prodded like a smelly fish, or turned over for closer inspection. NPO staff don’t generally love a consultant, or consultancies, or people brought in to do project-focused, short-term pieces of organisational work. Consultants are spoken of (and I know this, having contracted numerous consultants across a huge variety of projects in my role as an NPO director of programmes) as anything from expensive, time-wasting, never fully apprised of “the work”, limited, don’t get the depth of the work etc …all the way to bloodsuckers, leeches, scavengers, a rip-off, just out to make the bucks, and so on.

In short, “consultant” is like a swear word, and consultants must generally get in, get out and move on. The relationship between consultants and their client can be fractious, and tenuous. There is generally a deep distrust in organisations of consultants, and those organisations doing the contracting tend not to trust that a consultant will deliver timeously and excellently on the work required.

Then there is a range of little complexities and potential trip-falls.  For example, who sets the terms of engagement – does the consultant indicate their fee, or does the client indicate what they are willing to pay? Perhaps in the non-profit world, because some of the more old-style players still insist on “paying is bad, free is good”, the very notion of having to pay for a service or for work done, by someone other than an employee, is simply irksome.

So I am now a “consultant”. Or am I a service provider?  Does “consultant” just sound more expensive and costly for the same work? Are they the same?  In fact, most “consultants” who work in the non-profit space can more accurately be described as service providers. This might sound like just a bit of old semantics, but I stand by my firm belief in the approach that “words really do matter”. I have a personal preference for being as accurate as possible (along with using liberal sprinklings of a few choice bits of slang along the way!), so I do prefer calling a provider of services a “service provider”.

As a service provider, I consult to organisations around specific aspects of their work and what they need to deliver on, and I provide a range of services. In other words, as a service provider, I do aspects of the work that client organisations need to deliver on. Most times, service providers and consultants are contracted because organisations simply don’t have the capacity to do the work. Perhaps the skill is too specialist and costly to have someone in a staff post. Perhaps the project deadline is looming and work needs to be delivered, so extra capacity is brought on board. Perhaps a one-off project needs a particular skill that is not core to the organisation’s work, and so a consultant is brought on board. Or perhaps a project was conceived, and budgeted, as one for which external providers would be contracted. Organisations have myriad reasons for contracting in expertise in certain areas, and there are myriad specialists out there to fill these organisational needs.

Here is the kicker, though – and it brings us back to the swear-word nature of the word “consultant” in the NPO sector. The thing about service providers, advisors and consultants to the NPO sector, and working in the non-profit space, is that there is really very little difference between those who provide services to NPOs and NPO employees (ie. people employed by, and paid a regular income to work for, a NPO). Almost every service provider I have worked with in the NPO sector are driven by the same kinds of values and objectives as those they serve and to whom they deliver specialist services. As service providers they are choosing to work with non-profit organisations, in support of their organisational missions, and to work with them towards achieving their client’s goals.

As a service provider – ie. being paid by a funder or a non-profit to deliver pieces of work – I am working hard at understanding the difference between how I work now (freelance/ consultant/ service provider) and how I worked before as an organisational employee (and contractor of consultants!). Some of the questions I have posed to myself, as I make my morning coffee and prepare for a day of service providing, include:

1. What is different about how I work?
2. What has changed in the scope, quality and characteristics of the things I care about – the issues, the people, the areas of endeavour, the change-driven agendas?
3. How has becoming a service provider changed my values?

The conclusion is, apart from a few extremely critical differences in my work day and in what administrative issues I need to concern myself with, there is very little difference. Very little has changed. Nothing has changed in fact, with regard to the things I care about, my ethics and values, my sense of social justice and rights-driven change agendas. The only thing that has changed is that I don’t work in an organisation any longer, and I no longer have a set income that I earn monthly, performance and delivery depending.

This new life is a very different kind of work life. Many say it can be really lonely; it can be exhausting worrying about where the next piece of work will come from; it is challenging constantly working with different clients; and so on. I will no doubt experience the full range of conflicts and joys of working on my own, but what I do know for sure is that I am as committed as I ever was to strengthening South African civil society and the funders and organisations which comprise this space. So are most of the consultants and service providers who work with non-profit organisations! In fact, non-profits themselves are increasingly developing products and services through which to generate income. In other words, they too are becoming consultants and service providers.

Generally speaking, and based on my still-fresh and new perspective as a service provider, us consultants and service providers are a good lot! Perhaps my previous scepticism of all things consultant was simply an ill-disguised envy for those who could engage with the best of the actual work, without having to navigate the intricacies of being an organisational staffer 🙂

The Power Pitch: non-profits on a mission to attract funding

image from @deviantART

By Gabrielle Ritchie : Independent Advisor, Consultant and Service Provider to Grantseekers and Grantmakers

What do donors look for in a pitch or proposal?

I had the excellent fortune of being able to participate as an audience member in a Donor Dragon’s Den this morning at Inyathelo (the non-profit for which I was – until recently – director of programmes, where I established and ran amongst many other initiatives a programme to promote South African philanthropy).  I left Inyathelo a few months ago to pursue my own more focused interests, and it is now a real treat to experience as a client the excellence of an organisation with which one has been integrally involved.  What a great use of a few hours, with Eskom’s load-shedding accommodated into the mix and all!

So what is a Donor Dragons’ Den and how did this first Den work at Inyathelo? (I say “first” as I believe there are others to follow!)

Non-profits were invited to submit a one-page written case for support.  From all of the submissions, four organisations were selected to pitch to a panel of six funders, in front of an audience of approximately 100 people from various non-profits and other initiatives around Cape Town. Each pitch needed to be delivered within five minutes – and, along with a spoken pitch, could include powerpoint and other adjunct materials.  This Dragon’s Den was perhaps a little different to the usual DD format as it did not involve funding directly and there was no cash award for the best pitch.

So why did it work so well from my point of view?

It worked for a number of reasons – let me bullet point here:

• There was a power panel of donors – including corporate funders, private foundations, and community funders.
• Four non-profits were brave enough to stand up in front of an audience, not only comprising a donor panel but also including 100 colleagues and peers from the non-profit sector.
• All of us could listen, firstly to the pitches and then to the donor feedback – a fantastic learning opportunity!
• While there was no funding award for the top pitch, there was a great bag of benefits including tickets to Inyathelo’s upcoming September 2015 Advancement Academy, and a subscription to Inyathelo’s Advancement Academy
• There was genuine interest and enthusiasm in the room around how each pitch was presented, and in what the donor panel’s comment and feedback was on each pitch
• The donor panel engaged fully with each presentation, and their detailed feedback on each was thoughtful, careful, constructive and succint – providing insights for all participants to take to apply to their own next set of pitches and their organisational cases for support.

My key take-aways for non-profits, from the donor panel critique, were:

1. However your case for support is presented, ensure that you tell a compelling story.
2. Take the donor on a “key points” journey in the short time or space you have to present your case.
3. The “Donor Grid” is a really helpful frame when selecting what to include/exclude from your pitch or introduction – Story, Statement, Statistics, Solution. There you have it plain and simple.  Provide those in clear, punchy linked narrative, and you are already on a more likely path to success.
4. Donors see evidence of sustainability as critical – and they don’t only look at funding sustainability.  Donors find it really compelling when an organisation can present or refer to a visible named group of committed drivers/supporters who will BE there for the organisation, and who are deeply committed to its sustainability.
5. Income generation is a very important criterion in assessment of a case for support. Indicators are sought by donors with regard to viability of income generation. Evidence of active efforts to generate income, based on selling products or services, is deemed a key positive pointer (but, paradoxically, won’t necessarily attract donor funding! Bit of a tightrope there!).
6. If an organisation is in the brilliant position of getting to pitch directly to a donor, it is the quality of the spoken presentation (passion, integrity, punch) that will win the day – but this must be matched equally with whatever material you leave behind.  A personal pitch and a written piece must work together, and each must be equally powerful.
7. If you are able to present an in-person pitch, and you do use a powerpoint, ensure that your spoken word matches the powerpoint slides in such a way that pitch and powerpoint both complement and strengthen each other.  One can bring the other down.
8. It seems REALLY obvious – but you MUST make an ask! The Dragon’s Den panel indicated an appreciation for a specific ask, a specific budget amount for a specific piece of work.
9. In an in-person pitch, best you know who you are dealing with.  Funding decision-makers are people too – therefore some will appreciate a lot of detail while others are looking for big picture indicators and strategic approach.  Know who you are talking to.
10. If you have developed a leave-behind pamphlet or one-pager, great infographics work well.  But they need to make a good, stark, unmissable point.
11. Tell stories that make your organisational work come alive!
12. It is possible to involve organisational beneficiaries or clients in your pitch or your organisational storytelling.  In-person contributions, though often incredibly powerful, come with a caution from donor panelists around the power politics and possibility of exploiting the holders of those stories.  This is really good to think through and for one’s organisation to be very clear about.

So there you have it.  If you do ever get to pitch to a donor in person.

Most organisations, though, don’t manage to arrange face-time with funding decision-makers.  How, then, do the above points apply when submitting a written case or proposal?

Here is my shot at translating from the “Dragons’ Den” to a “Power Proposal”:

1. Have a good story – strong, well written, with named individuals even if those names are changed for privacy and protections.
2. Make a strong statement with your case – illustrating how your organisation provides sound solutions to abiding problems.
3. Statistics and the use of numbers will provide a punchy, effective, in-your-face illustration of the scale of a problem and the impact of the solution.  Use them – but use them well. As above, great infographics work really well – just as a bad one can really detract from your story.
4. Make a specific ASK. Mention an amount. Explain the amount. And show through narrative and budget how you will use the funding, what you hope to achieve with that budget, and how such a contribution or investment (yes, use those words!) would support the organisation in achieving specific, defined goals.
5. It turns out that donors increasingly want to see evidence of sincere efforts to develop income-generating products and services.  Such product development initiatives, and related income, serve to demonstrate effort, intent and integrity on the part of the grantseeker to work toward a real diversification of income streams to support the organisation’s work.  This in itself is a whole topic – one I might get to address down the line!

If you think your organisation’s written case for support or your spoken pitch needs work, take the above into account.  And look out for Inyathelo’s next Dragon’s Den.  It’s well worth a couple of hours!

How do we know when FREE is worth the effort, or just a waste of time?

Non-profits generally love FREE!!  And donors usually get really excited about low-cost/ no-cost opportunities for their grantees to access skills-exchanges and new knowledge.

But How do we know when FREE is worth the effort, or just a waste of time?

Here is one virtual online conference you can be sure will be worth the effort.  Organised and hosted by Resource Alliance, an organisation with a global reputation for its excellence in capacity development products and services for non-profits (particularly their conferences!), you can’t really go too wrong 🙂

This two-day event is being held on 13th and 14th May 2015 and all you need to do to be part of this fantastic learning event is register here. Over the two days, 16 sessions will be presented by leading experts in digital marketing, online fundraising and social media marketing, from within and outside the non-profit sector.

Full details on the programme are available here and include the following:-

• Six practical methodologies to enable you to get started – Dr Scilla Elworthy (UK)
• Charities don’t tweet, people do – Euan Semple (UK)
• Adapting to a changing world: the innovation imperative – Colin Habberton (South Africa)
• Seven ways to use mobile to build your supporter base – Nick Allen (USA)
• Integrating digital into your old fashioned fundraising stuff – Sean Triner (Australia)
• Crowdfunding for fundraisers – Ronald Kleverlaan (Netherlands)
• Five learnings from masters of social media you can use in your fundraising today – Touko Sipiläinen (Finland)

According to Resource Alliance, who host the regular Netherlands-based International Fundraising Conference,over 2 000 delegates from 120 countries participated in last year’s Fundraising Online, which once again aims to help charities of all sizes successfully navigate the shifting sands of technological change.   With a focus on “empowerment and bridging the gap between online and offline initiatives”, Resource Alliance explains that this online initiative makes it possible for delegates to “benefit from the expertise of renowned speakers in the comfort of their own workplace, wherever and whenever it suits”.

Gotta go now … off to register 🙂  I am not missing this one!

The Lexicons of the Non-Profit Sector: do you speak non-profit?

By Gabrielle Ritchie : Independent Advisor, Consultant and Service Provider to Grantseekers and Grantmakers

1st April 2015

The vocabulary of the non-profit sector often comes under the spotlight not just for its exclusionary jargon-ness, but also because often meaning is not as widely shared as the very existence of the jargon would have us believe.  Questions are often raised about what we really mean by the jargon we use? Are we only talking to each other, or do others actually understand our lingo? Are we sharing our thoughts and messages best, to bring people along with us on our mission, or have we been taken in by our own hype?  Should NPO-speak be more or less corporate?  Should we speak stronger business language, or should the corporate sector learn to speak “non-profit”?  Does speaking corporate make us appear smarter and more attractive to funders?  What about those who can’t or don’t or won’t go corporate with their modes of communication? Are they automatically at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing funding? Are those who don’t speak corporate less likely to attract funding? What is the real difference between corporate and non-profit lexicons? If the donor world is widely English first-lanuagage, and the non-profit world predominantly English second-language (in South Africa, at least), how does this exacerbate the existing power-dynamics already at play between grantseekers and grantmakers?

Of particular interest to me is whether the language of marketing, branding, communications and PR is necessarily “corporate speak”, or whether this language can be (or perhaps has already been) appropriated, adopted and re-worked to suit the non-profit sector.  Can the non-profit sector comfortably speak branding and marketing without appearing is if it has corporatised?

The Non-Profit Service Providers Network

A key forum for such discussion is the Cape Town-based Non-profit Service Providers Network (NPSPN), a referral-based group of individuals and small companies who provide services, advice, consultancies and other forms of support to non-profit organisations operating in South African civil society.  This is an energetic group of people looking to share the particular challenges and experiences of working with non-profits, and seeking a forum where thinking and experience can be debated, up-ended, challenged, and spotlighted.  The network is a really useful meeting of minds, where pertinent issues can be surfaced and discussed amongst peers and colleagues.

What struck me at the March bi-monthly gathering of the NPSPN is that all of the for-profit service providers around the table speak very competent non-profit.  While most of those who provide services and products to non-profit organisations are themselves for-profit, most individuals appear to make “a living” rather than generate any vast profit from the fees they charge for their services.  It is here that the for-profit service provider and the non-profit to whom they are providing services become almost indistinguishable.  These service providers, for the most part, are as non-profit in outlook, world-view and language as the non-profits they serve and as those employed in non-profit organisations.  In effect, these service providers are no different in their goals and missions to most of the organisations they work with, and it raises the question of why we insist on boxing the small service providers as “for-profit” as if in some false juxtaposition to the organisations they serve.

At the March 2015 NPSPN meeting, a few issues of terminology and language were tabled for discussion. I am writing here less about the phenomenon of sector-based jargon, which exist in every sector, and more about the need to ensure that we are all understanding each other – in an including way, rather than languageing ourselves into a reformulation of the social elite in ways that are excluding, elitist, alienating and effectively quite imprecise and therefore inaccessible to so-called outsiders.  In a December 2012 post, Jodie Shupac reflects (referencing others) on the source of contemporary nonprofit jargon.  Shupac notes that much non-profit language has become corporatised, attributable to the fact that as governments have increasingly called on nonprofits to provide the services they once offered, the sector has felt the need to up its language game.  Taking their cues from the business world, says Shupac, non-profits are increasingly using language that is business-oriented, and is flavoured to convey their lean shapes and efficient functioning.

Issues that arose at the March NPSPN meeting focused, in one or other way, on the ways we talk about what we do. These issues included, amongst others:

1. The importance of marketing for non-profits – the importance of profiling one’s organisation, of having a communications strategy, of being visible on social media platforms and of ensuring the use of traditional media channels and platforms.  But the question was raised – Why? Why is this important if you are an organisation with extremely limited resources and a clear mission?  It was also suggested that the commercial “selling” language used in marketing is inappropriate for the NPO sector.  Is this the case?  Why is it inappropriate, and what compromises occur (possibly unwittingly) through the adoption of selling-speak?

2. In discussions on non-profit branding, what are we really talking about?  Are we talking the language of corporate branding, or does branding in the non-profit sector serve similar but ultimately separate functions?

3. If you have very limited budget, how do you best and most appropriately target your spend in ways that serve your organisational mission, and which also serve your need to promote your cause and/or your organisation?  Are there different levels of marketing available for different levels of spend?

4. How do corporate and non-profit clients differ?  Do small service providers need to fully adjust their ways of speaking, languageing and referencing to accommodate their different clients, depending on sector?

5. Are there specific features or characteristics of the NPO client – almost an NPO personality type, perhaps?  Are challenges specific to providing services to NPOs?

6. Are fees charged on a sliding scale from corporate, to big NPO, to small NPO?  Does one reflect the full fee and then include the discounted rate as an indication of the extent to which a for-profit provider is supplying a non-profit with a full discount?

Many of the questions raised, both explicitly and implicitly, weren’t answered in the session – but they remain pertinent and they warrant discussion.  If you  have any thoughts to share, please do!!