Resolutions

By Aaron Hurst on January 5, 2009 1:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Every year, the Taproot Foundation sees a big boost in volunteer applications in early January.  We refer to it as the New Year's Resolution Bump.   We assume we are like a gym that benefits from holiday reflection and individual's optimistic goal setting at the start of each new calendar year.

One of my unrealized PR goals has been to make "service" a common topic of New Year's resolutions media coverage and "pro bono service" the feature of stories discussing resolutions within trade publications.

As a starting point, I dug a little this year to see if service is a common resolution. In my search I came across the annual Marist University Poll. Each December they ask American residents to share their resolutions for the next year, and they track the changes from year to year.

Here is what stood out to me in the survey:

1) Service is not a common resolution.  The combined resolution of "volunteer or donate time or money" was a goal for only three percent of people in the New Year. At three percent it tied with "work harder", "get a new job" and "be kinder to people."
The top choice was "lose weight" at 20%.

2) "Volunteer or donate time or money" is 500% more likely to be a resolution for men than for women. Other research shows that 24% of men volunteer compared to 32% of women. The only other resolution with a similar gap was "work harder" which was cited by men 600% more often.  Now that I am married with kids, I am inclined to say that this delta is based on the fact that women are already serving more and working harder. Men aspire to do as much.

3) Resolutions about improving a respondent's health, finances, weight or work were cited 82% of the time. In comparison, resolutions dealing with benevolent social interactions--"being a better person", "volunteer or donate time or money", "be kinder to people" and "increase family time"--were collectively only goals for 12% of Americans.

Reading this data makes me wonder if it would do any good to have service be a bigger part of resolutions.  Do people keep their resolutions? If service was a common New Year's resolution, would this make it more likely to happen? Or might it relegate service to a list of things Americans feel guilty about and thereby decrease the joys of doing it?

John C. Norcross, a professor of psychology at the University of Scranton has studied the effectiveness of resolutions.   He found that 71% of people kept their resolutions for two weeks, 64% for a month, 50% for three months and 46% for six months.

That isn't a bad result.  If we could double the number of Americans who cite "service" as a resolution (from three to six percent) and within six months 46% of them were engaged in service, that would be a big boost in the number of Americans serving.

Perhaps 2009 will be the year that I finally realize my own annual New Year's resolution to make pro bono service a common topic of New Year's resolution articles.  The first step will be to find a PR executive who made "pro bono service" their own resolution for this year and can help make it happen.  Know anyone?

2008: A Pro Bono Year in Review

By Aaron Hurst on December 23, 2008 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

2008 has been the greatest year in the history of the pro bono service movement! I wanted to share with you some of the key milestones from this year as 2008 comes to a close:

• The Pro Bono Summit, hosted by the President's Council, is the first event ever that focused on pro bono services across mutiple fields.

• Billion + Change campaign launched and secured $400 million in pledges of pro bono service from corporations across the country.

• Leading intermediaries like the Pro Bono Institute and Public Architecture reported record levels of interest and engagement.

• The Taproot Foundation's leading pro bono program launched in DC and Los Angeles.

• New research from Deloitte, Taproot Foundation and Common Impact expand our understanding of the field.

• Capital One created what is likely the first scalable, multi-functional, in-house program that sets the bar for corporate community investment.

Over the year, we have also seen some exciting new trends emerge:

• Pro bono service is beginning to be valued as a true cash equivalent by philanthropic community.

• Pro bono service is spreading to in-house programs and is less and less confined to professional services firms.

• Pro bono service, especially in the legal profession, is moving from 'thousand acts of kindness' to multi-firm campaigns that address systemic issues head one.

• Professional services firms, following the example of Deloitte are beginning to lay the groundwork for a transparent marketplace for pro bono services with public budgets and outcomes reporting.

What a year!  There is a lot to celebrate and a lot of organizations that have contributed to making this possible.  Thank you for helping to harness human capital to improve the human condition.

State of Nonprofit Environmental Leadership

By Aaron Hurst on December 18, 2008 8:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

We recently added a question to our online Service Grant application asking nonprofits to report if they have an environmental policy and, if so, to share it with us. We made this change for two reasons. Firstly, we want to encourage nonprofits to adopt policies. Secondly, collecting this data enables the Taproot Foundation to better understand the state of environmental leadership in the nonprofit sector so that we can become a champion for change (see my blog entry on the topic from earlier this year).

248 nonprofits have completed the new online application.  Of those, 63 (25%) reported having environmental policies.  Our sample size will grow significantly over the next year, but we felt that the early findings are telling and the issue is urgent enough that we wanted to share it with you now.

Nonprofit Adoption Trends

Of the 248 nonprofits, the largest group with environmental policies was no surprise:  54% of nonprofits with environmental missions have adopted environmental policies.  That is more than double the percentage of all the other issue areas we serve (education, health, social service and education). Although it was not surprising that they are leaders in this area, I was struck by the fact that 46% of nonprofits with environmental missions don't have policies.  Those nonprofits within the health category were the least likely to have one with only 17% reporting having environmental policies.

The budget of a nonprofit had negligible impact on whether or not there was an environmental policy in place until that amount surpassed $10 million.  At that point the percent of organizations with policies drops to 17%.  We've heard many people argue that nonprofits can't afford to take on environmental agendas because they are too strapped for cash.  Our data contradicts this point and shows that it is the "wealthier" nonprofits that are the least likely to be environmentally responsible.  

Geography appears to be the most weighted variable for environmental responsibility. Boston has the highest adoption rate (36%) with New York coming in last (15%).  Seattle and Chicago join New York at adoption rates less than 20%. The San Francisco Bay Area and DC join Boston with rates above 30%.  This suggests that the local social ecosystem plays a major role in driving responsibility through collective norming.

Best Practices

In reading the 63 policies, two best practices emerged:


Common Environmental Policies

These are the most common efforts listed in the environmental policies:

• Transportation: encouraging telecommuting, public transportation and biking

• Waste management: reducing consumption and waste (i.e. uneaten food), and increasing recycling (paper and electronics), etc.

• Sourcing: recycled paper, recycled technology, local food, organic food, etc.

• Facilities: LEED-certified buildings, landscaping, power usage, etc.

• Programs: supporting community environmental education programs

Four Recommendations:

1. We need to re-evaluate the assumption that nonprofits can't afford to take on environmental policies and agendas.

2. Like they did to drive diversity in nonprofits starting 20 years ago, foundations need to ask nonprofits about their environmental policies during the grant making process to make it an "expected" practice.  This is especially true in regions where the adoption rate is currently the lowest.

3. The environmental grant making community should make it a requirement of grantees to have a policy in place. 

4. Most policies are still just touching on small changes that have minimal impact. We need to raise the bar. One way to do this is to create tools that help nonprofits leverage their influence through their programs and with their partners--thereby expanding their impact beyond their four walls. Along with evaluating their own footprint, nonprofits should be leaders in educating their partners and clients about the importance of, and strategies for, environmental conservation.

Goalkeeper Theory and Recessions

By Aaron Hurst on December 15, 2008 7:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This past Sunday marked one of my favorite days of the year--the day the New York Times Magazine publishes the "Ideas of the Year" issue.  Many ideas are amusing and at least one of them stands out in particular (so far--the list is alphabetical and I am only through reading up to "G" as of writing this post)  because it has already prompted much reflection on my part. I am stuck on the blurb about "Goalkeeper Science."  The research they share about goalkeepers has really got me puzzled.

The study originally published in the Journal of Economic Psychology looked at 286 penalty kicks and found that 94% of the time the goalie either dived to the right or left.  Only 6% of the time the goalie stayed centered, and yet statistically they were better not diving to either side.

The academics' conclusion was that goalies want to appear decisive and would rather be wrong than look like they didn't try.  By diving to the left or right they show effort, which makes it harder to criticize them.

They then suggest that leaders do the same thing in moments of crises.  In hard economic times a President or CEO feels compelled to act to show leadership when many times the best course of action is actually staying the course.  If leaders take action and fail they can be blamed for being wrong.  If they stay the course and are wrong they look lazy or indecisive.  Neither is an acceptable trait in a leader.

As the head of an organization I worry that I may be acting like a goalie during this recession.  I am preoccupied with the idea that three years from now I will look back and have not done anything to ensure the success of the organization.  I will have either failed to cut back and thereby create a financial burden we can't handle or I will have cut back too much and failed to realize our potential.

My last blog post is about how we need to take action in a recession to innovate now.  I fear that in a couple of years we will have missed this great opportunity to figure out ways to do more good for less.

Then I look at the "Big Three" in Detroit.   They didn't act--chose to stay the course--and now have 1990's product being delivered in 2008 which no one wants.  Standing front and center while the ball went to the left means they're the goalie who failed and lost the game (although it appears they will be around a few more seasons to right their teams).

This research is really eye crossing.  What is the right move for me as the Taproot Foundation goalie?  How should I be leading us as we face this recession?

Where I am netting out today is that staying the course is likely more often than not the right course of action because the ball will usually be kicked in the center.  But, it won't always pan out this way, so you can't just stay front and center every time (especially if the other teams see the pattern).  I think the key is to remove ego from the equation.  Leaders should act based on knowledge, values and instinct and should be aware of times when ego comes into play making you feel compelled to act mainly as a shield from embarrassment.

OK, on to letter "H".

Recession Innovation

By Aaron Hurst on December 12, 2008 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When Obama was first elected last month the media and talking heads spoke a lot about how the President-elect was going to have to put his agenda on hold to fix the economy.  He was going to have to put it all on hold and focus all his efforts on getting the world out of a deep recession.  While the verdict is still out, it appears as though the exact opposite is happening.  The economic crisis is creating a window of opportunity for Obama to introduce radical policy changes that may have never had a chance during less turbulent times.  Rebuilding our crumbling national infrastructure and moving our country to a green agenda that includes rebooting Detroit might actually happen.

There was an author on NPR the other day who spoke about times of distress being the only times the public has the will to support radical change.  The Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 each led to some of the most audacious changes in public policy over the last 100 years.  It is human nature to be open to bigger solutions when the challenges appear bigger and more urgent. Breakthrough innovation also greatly increases in time of distress as we question our assumptions, change our priorities, and look for ways to do more with less.

The Taproot Foundation only exists because of the 2001 recession.  The slow down in my workload freed up my time to start the Taproot Foundation and to recruit some core volunteers like Caroline Barlerin who also had more free time to spend building a new nonprofit.  The combination of a major decline in foundation giving and a wave of innovation fatigue at the time also made raising money next to impossible.  This forced me to design a model that could be cost effective and also forced us to be super crafty in all our efforts.  The Service Grant was a recession baby.

Given the scale of this recession and the profile of social entrepreneurship today, I am expecting some real breakthroughs over the next couple of years.  I can't wait to learn about them.

Bringing Back DC

By Aaron Hurst on December 8, 2008 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just completed a two-month tour of MBA programs across the country. The speaking engagements were sponsored by Deloitte and covered many of the top programs from HBS to Kellogg to Haas. It was an honor to meet so many impressive students and to learn from their points of view.

What stands out to me as I return from the final presentation (Robert Smith at Maryland) is the potential for this new generation of leaders to renew our society.

While I hope that many of these MBAs have productive corporate careers that include significant pro bono service, I also hope that some of the best end up in DC.

Can Obama once again make DC the-place-to-be city for the best and the brightest of our country? Can he raise the bar to return the federal government's status to the employer of choice?

What is it going to take?

5 Ways Foundations Can Support Nonprofit Mergers

By Aaron Hurst on December 3, 2008 5:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With the economy in the toilet, the topic of nonprofit mergers is on the rise in the foundation community.  Here are five quick ideas for how foundations can help make mergers happen:

1) Combine. Make it known that if two existing grantees agree to merge, you will guarantee them a multi-year grant for a total of at least 150% of the combined current amount of your funding.

2) Cash out.  Offer to provide an ED with a year of severance pay if they merge their organization with another and are willing to cut her/his own job (i.e. have the other ED become the head of the combined organization).

3) Consult. Create a publicized merger fund to cover the cost of hiring a consultant to identify merger opportunities for any current grantee.

4) Conspire.  Partner with other foundations supporting an issue area (e.g. early childhood education) and agree to tell your grantees together that you will be making 75% fewer grants going forward but each grant will be 400% of your average grant last year.

5) Connect. Host an event for all the board members of your grantee organizations to educate them on the need for mergers, have them meet their peer board members and start discussions.

BONUS IDEA: Lead by example and merge with another foundation to show how you were able to cut overhead costs by 50% and therefore give out more money to the community.  You can even use idea number two (cash out) and give the cut staff a year of severance pay.

Any more ideas to share?

80:20 and the Nonprofit Sector

By Aaron Hurst on November 24, 2008 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Corporations are often able to scale by identifying which solution will meet 80% of the market's needs.  They realize it is rarely doable to find a solution for all 100% and pursuing it would be too costly.  The gains are to be made by focusing on the 80% and ceding the remaining 20%.

Public policy often works the same way.  You can't create policy to meet the needs of every American.  At best, it can serve the needs of 80% of the population.  Nothing on a large scale can ever meet every stakeholder's needs.

The nonprofit sector is often left to deal with the remaining 20% of the market--the most challenging part of the population, which has been left un-served. It is not uncommon for nonprofits, and those they serve, to feel like society and "the Man" have left them exposed to the elements.  This naturally creates resentment and an underdog mindset.

It is therefore not surprising that most nonprofits create models designed to meet the needs of ALL the 20% left exposed by macro policies.  These programs are intended to be optimized and focused on each individual's needs rather than to most efficiently serve 80% of that remaining 20%.  Although focusing on only 80% would de facto enable them to serve more people at a lower cost, following this logic would be an acceptance of the decision-making strategies used by large companies and the government (those bodies that initially left nonprofits' target populations un-served).

Over the last decade an entire generation of "social entrepreneurs" has bucked this assumption, has adopted the 80/20 mindset and has been able to build scalable organizations that are generally more efficient and effective.  They are often criticized by traditional, local nonprofits for using solutions that don't fit the exact needs of a particular neighborhood or child.

This criticism is fair, but the reaction should not be a call to shut down these national organizations or to have them change their strategy for further customization.  In order to best serve the under-served, society must both support these organizations that effectively meet the needs of 80% AND support local nonprofits which are needed to catch the remaining 20%.

For example, if there are 100 million people in need, public policy is responsible for serving 80 million (80%).  That leaves 20 million people (20%) under-served and exposed.  The social entrepreneurial segment of the nonprofit sector can then focus on serving 80% of that population, or 16 million.  That leaves 4 million (20%) to be served by small local nonprofits--society relies on these organizations to fill in the gap. These nonprofits have the hardest job--customizing their solutions for individuals and working on the most challenging situations.

That is the architecture of our safety net when it works.  We need to recognize the reality of the structure and consider it a success when the government and social entrepreneurs can provide solutions for 80% of us.  We must also celebrate local nonprofits who are asked to do the hardest part of the job securing the safety net and not criticize them for being inefficient or call for their consolidation.  They are part of the equation we need.

User's Manual to Your Manager

By Aaron Hurst on November 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was reading Business Week this past summer and came across a cool tool designed by Ben Dattner.  He calls it a "User's Manual to Your Manager" . At the Taproot Foundation a number of us have used it and have found the tool to be very useful and thought provoking.  

We adapted it to our culture to make it fit.  Here is a draft of the user manual I created for my team.  

User's Manual to Aaron Hurst

My Style
I love action. It is how I learn and what I appreciate in my colleagues.  I judge others based on the action they take and their forward motion.

When to Approach Me
I like to solve problems and also to remove barriers, which obstruct others' ability to move the ball forward.

Approach me just about any time and I will let you know if I can't engage at that moment. I'd rather you asked than assumed I can't.

Values
Growth. Potential.  Initiative. Resourcefulness.

Communicating with Me
Be crisp about what you need (articulate whether you are looking for my input, decision and/or brainstorming).  I hate false alignment so speak up if you have an issue.

How I Make Decisions
I make decisions quickly based on my values as well as the logic and data I have on hand. I don't care who provides that data or logic and will often reverse my decision as soon as I see data or logic that clearly points out another direction as the better choice--that is, as long as the new approach is still aligned with my values.

What I Will Not Tolerate
Like Reagan, I trust and then verify.  If I find reason not to trust you, it is hard to rebuild my confidence.  Easy ways to lose my trust: not admitting a mistake (I make them daily), giving me misleading information, negative surprises, misrepresenting the Taproot Foundation, treating other people poorly and being too hierarchical.

Feedback
If you need feedback, ask me for it (I am not consistent in giving feedback).  If you have feedback for me, tell it to my face (or over the phone) not over email/IM or in a group email.  Sharing your feedback with me will make me respect you more - not less.

How I Develop People
I like to help people grow by giving them opportunities to prove themselves. Such opportunities must stretch beyond the tasks they have already reached a comfort level at completing.  I will continue to delegate responsibility and projects to you until I see you sinking or failing to meet my standards. 

I realize I am not the right mentor for most people and will try to leverage my network to find you mentors that can speak to your professional development needs.

How to Help Me
I move quickly and have a terrible eye for detail (but I highly value having details addressed).  Therefore, help me make sure the details are covered and don't assume I know which details need to be addressed. 

For similar reasons, I am great at starting projects but need partners to ensure they follow through to completion. If you are taking over one of my initiatives, be aggressive about getting the information you need from me to be set up for success in completing the effort. I will likely already be thinking about the next initiative, and you will need to force me to download everything about the effort I am handing off to you.

Pro Bono on NBC?

By Aaron Hurst on November 17, 2008 7:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

NBC has taken product placement to a new level (check out NYTimes article on the topic).  Products are not only integrated into shows but product placement has actually become a core part of the design and writing for shows.  It can be a really effective strategy. For example, "The Matrix" movies completely flipped my image of the Cadillac brand. Some fight this innovation and see it as corrupting the integrity and art of television.  I see that as a pretty high standard to set for pop culture.

To me, product placement looks like an opportunity.  First cars, insurance and soda are placed in your favorite shows.  Then...let's do it pro bono.

NBC, in your next sitcom, have one of the characters regularly participate in pro bono service. If it is with the Taproot Foundation, I can write you a receipt for the fair market value of the product placement. You can then write that donation off. 

Now, I am not looking for our logo simply to appear on the show. I want to see doing pro bono with the Taproot Foundation be part of the plot. In case you lack the imagination, here are a few potential tie-ins:

• A mid-life crises turns character into a pro bono junkie

• Couple meets on a pro bono project and finds true love in their shared values

• Character works at the Taproot Foundation (make sure they are really attractive to make this part realistic)

• Roommates met when one was doing pro bono service for the other's nonprofit. Now they are zany roommates from different sectors.

• Reality TV. Think "The Apprentice" where all the projects are for charities.

Do you have any ideas for NBC on how to do product placement for pro bono service and the Taproot Foundation?