Archive for the ‘NPO Projects Management’ Category
It has nothing to do with the actual writing. Words come very easily to me. That part of the art, I have pretty much mastered. The problem with me and my blog is the fact that my life is not compartmentalized. This presents challenges when it comes to writing for a specific audience. What do I mean? I do not think of my work and personal interests as being completely separate. This makes it difficult for me to pen articles from one angle or for a specific audience.
I am involved in non profits, love politics, love social media, love tech, love politics, work on human rights, work on environmental issues, I farm, I love business and the list goes on and on. At any given time I will conceive of an interesting topic on any of the things in the preceding sentence. So a reader may stumble upon an interesting topic on non profits, come back the next day and they are confronted by a random post on farming pigs. So what readers get is a cocktail of sorts that represents a mash up of a personal blog/professional blog/how to blog/farming blog/business blog/political blog/mining blog. *Sigh*.
Bloggers, at least the successful ones, predominately focus on one subject and blog the hell out of that subject matter. I cannot and I do not think I will ever attempt to. The other option would be to establish blogs for all the major issues I’m interested in. But that would consign me to having to update, what….5 blogs or so. No thanks Some bloggers are just good at tying varying interests into a coherent and cogent blog on one particular matter. I just cant . I guess in kindergarten that would make me the kid who always colored outside the circles. So that my dear friends is why I have bumped up the static on failed bloggers. *Sigh* again :(. Meanwhile, I will continue making cocktails.
Fundraising is never an easy job. It is a painstaking effort that requires a lot of work and often drags on for months on end. Fundraising is a creative process that can be demanding. From personal experience, when fundraising from a clean slate (if it is not an extension of a project or a specific request for a defined project) you have to actually map out an idea that can effectively and innovatively address a problem. I have often found that reading around a lot often helps. I often conceive of project interventions by reading everything from online news, following global development trends, reading various non –profit blogs among many others. Beyond mulling an idea that’s worth funding there comes the actual writing of the proposal part. This part for me may be the most time-consuming, particularly for new project ideas (which is often for me as I hate repackaging ideas). Most often than not at the very beginning I will suffer from serious writer’s block. And I have often noted that this is because I will still be thinking or mapping the idea or project intervention in my head. Most funders obviously have a proposal template/guide and put out a post on a generic one here. The difficult part is innovatively or creatively presenting an idea. You have so much confidence in your project intervention but the challenge is to sell it well. The challenge is to enable the other person to see it as a project intervention with much potential impact. I guess this is a marketing issue or problem (and I know this word is still taboo in non-profits).
But I digress. That is not the reason for this post. I just wanted to outline (in the paragraph above) the fact that fundraising is HARD. And even that may be an understatement. Ask any fundraiser. However, one of the biggest lessons I have learned from fundraising is a very nonchalant approach to failure. Fundraising has taught me to be able to live with the fear of failure and with failure itself. Thing is-when fundraising you are mostly assured of one thing-you are bound to fail. More than once. When you put out 20 project proposals a year, you may be extremely lucky to get funding commitments on 6 of those. There is just no possible way to hit the ball out of the park every time you write a proposal. Initially this was so disheartening for me. I’m extremely competitive and am just so used to winning. Fundraising, though, will knock you down :). You receive a denial of funding ever so often that you are inevitably wired to handle failure. This is just a reflection of the fundraising environment. There are just so many non-profits chasing very little money. So for global requests for proposals it’s a long call.
So why is being able to live with failure a good thing? Well, the good thing with failing often is that you are not afraid of trying things anymore (at least for me). The main barrier to trying most things in life is the fear of failure. But when you work means you are constantly faced with the prospect of some measure of failure you become very confident in trying new things out. Seth Godin calls this the lizard brain. So now I’m more prone to trying new things out-building a business, writing a blog, building relationships, applying to all kinds of things because I have gotten over the barrier of the fear of failure. This is not to say that I’m now comfortable with failure or I can live with it well. It certainly does not mean that I have lowered the bar and am now comfortable with mediocrity. Far from it. What it means is that I rebound from failure fairly quickly (although those who know me may dispute this :)). It means I’m fine with trying new things even when I’m faced with the prospect of failure. The possibility of failing at something is something that I have learned to get over as a result of failing over and over again.
Governor Sean Parnell announces amount of the 2011 PFD (Photo Credit-Bill Roth/Anchorage Daily News)
Today marked the announcement of this year’s annual Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) amount for Alaskans. The PFD is a check that Alaskans get. Just. Yes, just for living here. This year’s amount was a whooping US$ 1,174. To qualify, you have to have lived in Alaska for at least a year (sucks for me!) and it is drawn from the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). In 1976, Alaska voters approved a constitutional amendment to establish the APF. The APF was created by the constitutional amendment that had the provision that ‘at least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments’. The APF is invested in a diversified portfolio of assets all of which should have a reasonable return on investment (ROI).
Now, beyond the fact that this is just a boon for residents here, I drew some lessons from this as an African. Africa is resource rich and yet poor. This has resulted in such terms as the ‘resource curse’ or the ‘paradox of plenty’. The challenge is to leverage our natural resources to trigger sustained economic growth and participate more effectively in the global economy. Oil and precious mineral discoveries often result in windfall revenues that our governments are ill prepared for in terms of absorptive capacity thereby resulting in corruption, the Dutch disease, further impoverishment of citizens and worse…conflicts and wars.
Herein lies the lesson I drew from Alaska’s PFD checks. Finite natural resources such as oil and precious mineral resources and revenues should be managed with intergenerational equity in mind. This Fund was established in 1976, people are still reaping benefits in 2011 and with prudent management I see no reason why generations to come will not benefit from this. The Fund has over US$35 billion in assets. Another lesson I learnt is that there is need to ensure that the people directly impacted by mineral extraction or oil drilling get a direct benefit from the same. There are arguments for and against mining or oil drilling. I will not get in to that suffice to say that for Africa, there are limited alternative developmental models so if there is going to be mining even those against mining should at least ensure that people derive some benefit from a resource found in their area. The PFD check comes in your mail. Direct. To You. Of course, this may be working well here because of the government system in the US (federal/state) and the small population in Alaska. And again, the context should be considered. So while the PFD does not go towards social and or developmental infrastructural projects in Alaska, in Africa this is definitely a very important issue. Thus the question becomes one of logistical nightmares and deciding whether it is better to give each community member US$300 or use those resources towards building a clinic or a school etc. Another key lesson is that the Fund is not just about saving but also about spending. But the spending part is only on realized earnings and not unrealized earnings. So a change in asset value as a result of market shifts is not an unrealized earning. If the assets gain another US$1 billion in market appreciation, the money will not be spent. It will only be spent from realized earnings and these consistent of dividends, rentals, income from sale of assets etc.
This is obviously a very general overview of the PFD. There are other issues regarding its management and other nuts and bolts issues I do not touch upon. It is obviously not a perfect model. I am sure that there are some Alaskans who may not be happy with the administration of the Fund. I also have some questions e.g. how large a number Alaskan natives benefit from the Fund? However, this certainly provides a model to learn from in terms of management of oil, gas and mining revenues. People basically want to know where the money is going and want to gain something from the extraction of resources in their areas. And these are issues most African states continue to grapple with, the most recent being Ghana and Uganda with new oil discoveries. Will they provide new case studies on good oil revenue management? Only time will tell.
You can read more on the APF here , more on the PFD announcement here and you can go through the PFD Statutes and Regulations here
Some Key Points in NGO Fundraising
Posted on: March 1, 2011
I am by no means an expert when it comes to fundraising but I have noticed some trends within the non profit sector in Zimbabwe that may help explain a lot of frustration with regards to fundraising.
Fundraising-key points
- It is taboo to speak of marketing or a marketing budget in most NGOs in Zimbabwe. NGOs generally avoid any corporate-speak and regrettably corporate-think when it comes to their operations. Everything for-profits do is to be avoided as a plague regardless of some cases of successes with various tools. So the premise from which fundraising is approached is altogether strange as it should be viewed as marketing. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with that word-Marketing. There should be an active and conscious effort to show what differentiates you from other NGOs. This should go beyond scheduled reporting. Try as much as possible to move away from the usual way of reporting and communicating with donors. What most NGOs do is almost too mechanical. You could take 2 project reports and just switch titles and the organizations and the reports would be the same. There is need to be more inventive and imaginative.
- It is about relationships. This has been said time and time again but continues to be lost on most non-profits. Funding agencies rarely fund a proposal or an organization. They fund people. The first and often most important step is to establish communication, build and cultivate relationships before asking for anything. It is a lot like dating. You need to go on a couple of dates first before proposing. So forget throwing the proposal or pitching when you first meet or start communicating with a support agency. Instead, focus on showing off what you are doing. Make the donor see the need to keep supporting you. In communication always ensure that there you create an opportunity for re-engagement or follow up. The communication should not be closed but open. As an example, if you are emailing an update on your projects, you could end by asking whether the donor is interested in you sending a related publication or something. Pavement pounding-get out and meet people.
- If you do not ask, you do not get. Period. The caveat for number 2 is that at some point, you need to ask for support. If the communication drags on forever without you making ‘the ask’, it can become nauseating or the donor simply concludes that you do not need any support. Always be closing. Do not lose sight of the endgame.
- Everything you do is fundraising. The meetings you hold, the reports and publications you develop, the press statements you issue, the newsletter you develop….Everyone in the organization is involved in fundraising. The receptionist who picks up a support agency call, the program officer implementing project activities, the accountant dealing with the money. Everyone.
everyone has to pull in the same direction
- Everyone under-estimates the time it takes. With fundraising you do not go to bed a wander and wake up a wonder. Everything is x10 painfully slower. Even when you are invited to submit a proposal. The loop time is often + 3months. Hofstadter’s Law comes to mind- It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s law J So be prepared to literally slog it over a couple of months
- Sometimes it is simply a numbers a game. I have often guessed that for every publicized opportunity, of the 1000 people who see/read about the opportunity only half will apply. Of the 500 that apply, maybe only half will complete the application and send it through. Of the 250 that complete the application, only half will do it right. There is no veracity to this but people often are lazy to do stuff that looks hard. And sometimes, just sometimes, fundraising can be tough. The more meetings you set with potential funders, the more proposals you develop, the more likely you are to get something. But it has to be strategic targeting. It is not about ‘throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping some sticks’. In fact, you need to have a method of tracking the status in terms of your relationship with various funding agencies. But you do have to try more.
Put in the Hours
This is by no means the silver bullet to fundraising. No. But just a couple of things I think people should get right. Sometimes you can get funding without doing much of the above. Sometimes it just comes down to luck. This is also not about gaming a system. These are things that just make sense whether you are a small business or a small non profit.
/gilbert makore/
If you work in a small non profit, you will identify with this. If you intend to work in a small non-profit, here is what you need to know about job titles- they often mean nothing. Working in a small non profit often means you have to wear more than one hat on any given day. This often means that while you may be employed as a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) officer, it should not be surprising that you will end up helping or even leading proposal development, holding community meetings or muddling through communication or web-design. This is often due to the fact that, small non profits, often have small budgets and are therefore forced by circumstances to engage in ‘heavy’ multi-tasking. The job description, therefore, also often means nothing. What is often required is juggling tasks, using a diverse skills set and across various domains. Personally, this draws a couple of parallels with entrepreneurship, in particular, start-ups. I once read that in start ups, titles mean nothing, forget the Managing Director title, you are the messenger, driver, janitor, secretary, communications and marketing person. This is so apt and so describes the situation in small non profits. In small non profits as in start ups, there is no 9-5 work day. This post on job titles in start ups is spot on. But I think the comparisons end there 🙂 thats an issue for another post.
Job titles mean 'jack'
So is this really a bad thing? Well, there is no easy answer to that. It is a good thing because it allows any person in a small non profit to develop-their skills set. When you join a non profit, you often have one area of core expertise. But after a couple of years, you will also have some skills that you would have developed, whilst still retaining your area of core expertise. Caveat- Unless you are really lazy 🙂 Teams at non-profits often remain small and with this comes nimbleness. The ability to do more things more faster and the ability to change direction with relative ease. Almost everyone at a small non profit has a complete 360 degree view and knowledge of the organisation-you have done research, administration, secretarial work, budgets, planning, fundraising, marketing, communications…….
Job Titles mean 'jack'
The negatives to this include the fact that the people working at non profits often have humongous work-loads and are almost always stretched. Burn-out is a constant lingering concern. The other disadvantage is that there is often a temptation to solely focus on other areas of need while neglecting you area of core expertise. What is needed is a delicate balance entailing delivering on you area of core expertise (what you were employed for) and adding extras in the form of working on other areas of need. The best way to look at it is-your have your job (area of core expertise) and then you also have side gigs or side projects (areas of need within the non profit that you need to work on). And thats why the job description, with all its warts, remains important. Both you and the boss need to be clear on what the areas of delivery are. The other skills you bring to the party or learn on the job are, well, add ons, the cherry on top, if you like. The situation may be different in bigger developmental organisations
Yes, you can hand out the business cards or have the large door sign, as long as you remain clear that the title describes but a small part of your work. In other words, you can fool everyone else, just don’t fool yourself. So have no illusions when applying for a job in a small non profit. But hey, its a load of fun. Everyday you learn. Its a conscious decision and an awful lot of work but often worth it.
/gilbert makore/
Why NGO presentations suck?
Posted on: February 2, 2011
Boring Preso
- They read like academic textbooks not novels (they dont tell a story)
- The presentation delivery is a drone, hardly engaging (euphemism for-‘boring’)
- There is too much text on the presentation/powerpoint slides
- The font on the slides is usually not right (usually too small)
- The background colour on slides is usually not right
- The presentations hardly have any images
- NGO folk think presentations=powerpoint
- Everything is bulleted
- There are usually more than 15 slides (read-too many)
- There is over-use of animations. flashing images, flying text. the works.
- The presentations on powerpoint contain every word the presenter will say
- NGO folk hardly receive training on doing presentations
- NGO folk hardly practise doing presentations
/gilbert makore/
GilbertMakore's Blog 