An Act of Slacktivism - by Seth Bate

I was going to write a blog post about “slacktivism,” but I couldn’t be bothered.

The word “slacktivism” has entered the mainstream news recently. It’s a term that’s been applied to folks who participate in acts of support for a cause or organization that require minimal effort – often online. Changing a profile picture on Facebook or affixing a magnetic ribbon to your car might be acts of slacktivism.

I find the slacktivist label needlessly demeaning. Paying lip service to a higher purpose is not a bad thing, and it seems to me that people who participate in these efforts mean well. With some education and encouragement they might move from well-meaning activities to meaningful action.

For non-profits and coalitions, think of slacktivists as people who are already predisposed to support your work:
•    Start where they are. What are they likely to know about you or your cause? What are the common misconceptions?
•    Discover connecting interests. What made them care enough to take even modest action online? What might inspire them to higher levels of engagement?
•    Speak from the heart. What made you care about your cause? What inspires you to keep going when progress is difficult?

For individuals, if you cared enough about an online plea to respond, consider other ways you could help – without expending that much more effort. Can you provide referrals? Can you make a brief testimony video? Can you learn the policy priorities of an organization that works on that cause? And of course, can you write a check (or make a PayPal transfer)?

I believe Kansas is full of people who care and who can be inspired to take meaningful action. If you agree with me, please share this blog link with all your Facebook friends.

Picture courtesy of Randy

The Everyday Transformation of Recovery | By Lael Ewy

In Back Of The Real
railroad yard in San Jose
     I wandered desolate
in front of a tank factory
     and sat on a bench
near the switchman's shack.

A flower lay on the hay on
     the asphalt highway
--the dread hay flower
     I thought--It had a
brittle black stem and
     corolla of yellowish dirty
spikes like Jesus' inchlong
     crown, and a soiled
dry center cotton tuft
     like a used shaving brush
that's been lying under
     the garage for a year.

Yellow, yellow flower, and
     flower of industry,
tough spiky ugly flower,
     flower nonetheless,
with the form of the great yellow
     Rose in your brain!
This is the flower of the World.

--Allen Ginsberg

What has me thinking about this poem right now is the delight and terror, the cosmic meaning Ginsberg finds in a homely, even horrid, little object: a foreboding, ugly flower in a forgotten scrap of land, a flower that just about nobody else but the desolate wanderer speaking the lines would happen to find. This poem exemplifies one of the most powerful and compelling traits of creative work: finding deep meaning in the mundane. Art is at its best when it’s heavily laced with the everyday.

This is both an artistic standpoint for me and a coping mechanism. In recovering from a major depressive episode nearly 20 years ago, I found myself drawn to those small moments and images that tied me to the world: a tree blazing orange on a crisp, fall day; the bruised gray-blue of a Kansas thundercloud; the pitch and roll of my old Mustang when she cleared a curve, the V8 pushing me back as we sped away.

If we get entirely too caught up in purity and perfection, we set ourselves up for continual disappointment and eternal frustration. The more “pure” a poem is, the more it trends toward a glossy sort of dullness. We know that Anne-Sophie Mutter has suffered as we have by the rough edge she puts on an otherwise sweet Brahms violin concerto.

An oyster without an irritant will yield no pearl. 

Unless we are able to abide with the small, inglorious steps we need to take to reach our goals, we’re unlikely to even begin, whether that goal is finishing the great American novel or merely getting out of bed in the morning. At my lowest, I made my goal taking a walk every day, rain or shine, snow or ripping prairie wind. Walking, I found gnarled hedge-apple trees and the scent of their decaying fruit. I found the tickle of the night’s cobwebs as their spiders ambitiously blocked my path. I found in the sandpiper’s cry the courage to keep on going.

The power of peer support is to have another who is there with you and has been where you are, reminding you that this glorious, ugly moment leads to another and another, and in those, too, there will be flowers, tough and spiky, resilient and industrious—and ready to be rediscovered in the moment after. I found a supportive peer in Ginsberg. Now, I’m helping others be supporting peers in the flesh.

And recovery, then, is an art, one that takes place moment-to-moment—an art that looks a lot like life.   

Photo courtesy of  Francesco Pappalardo

Social Change, Songwriters and Ipods

On an unbearably hot August night, I recently went to see one of my favorite singer/songwriters, Jackson Browne in concert at an outdoor amphitheater in Kansas City.  One of the best moments of the night, or at least as far as my heat-singed brain could remember, was when he did a song entitled "Looking East" that's a statement of his concerns and hopes about this country as he sees it from his home in California.  The line that always catches me, and one of the reasons I love this song, is "these times are a famine for the soul but for the senses they're a feast."  He goes on with lyrics about the "hunger" underneath our social problems and the power that exists to change things. 

This song, as do many of Jackson Browne's songs, make me think of conversations I've had with a number of organizations regarding how to create social change.  I usually use an example such as this:  Social change comes about because someone, just one person frequently, stands up and points out the issue and offers an option to the way things are currently.  That person, and maybe a few others who have the same revolutionary perspective, offer a vision of how things should be...and some ideas about how to get there.  These people are the innovators.  Think of Steve Jobs (or whomever created the Ipod or Ipad) as a technological innovator.   If the innovators are loud and passionate enough, early adopters jump on.   Those are the people who had an Ipod while the rest of us were still carting around bulky CD players...or cassette Walkmans.  Eventually, when enough of the early adopters join in and start telling others about how great this new thing is, the early majority gets on board.  Those are the people who got an Ipod in about the 3rd generation (while their kids probably had at least a 2nd generation Ipod).   The early majority represents a critical mass or a tipping point where it's more normal to do the new thing than not.  But there are still some who stand back and view the new thing with suspicion or skepticism...at least until they see evidence that the new thing really works...or doesn't cost too much or isn't a fad.  These are the late adopters.  They'd be the people who only recently got an Ipod...or are still mulling over the idea and worrying that something will come along and make the Ipod obsolete.   Finally, there are the laggards.  Really, the laggards are the people who finally give in because they don't have many other options.  They're probably the people who argued with their car dealer about why they have to have a CD player when a cassette player or radio would be just fine. 

This example illustrates the Diffusion of Innovations model by Everett Rogers.  It's one of my favorite models because I think it perfectly illustrates how things actually happen.  We can think of all kinds of examples that are much more relevant than the revolution of the Ipod.  This same process has happened with such major social issues as recycling/environmental consciousness, smoking, civil rights...just to name a few really powerful examples. 

So why did I reference this particular Jackson Browne song in the beginning.  Honestly, I want everyone to go out and buy his music because I like him so much.  But more importantly, his songs always reference the power of the individual to create change.  To quote my good friend Jackson once again "...long ago I heard someone say something about Everyman."   In this song, called "For Everyman," he refers to the power and responsibility of all of us to care for others.  So it's up to individuals to be the voice for change.  Eventually, if you're passionate and have an idea of how to make things better, others join in...and then they bring others...until it's normal to do the healthy, caring thing. 

So these times may be a feast for the senses (thanks in part to the Ipod...or Ipad)...but they don't have to be a famine in so many ways.  It doesn't take a program or even a specific activity.  It just takes one person to start a movement that leads to social change.  And that person can be anyone.  As Jackson says "...power in the song being sung alone" (from "Looking East" again).

Just one last thing:  If anyone has a chance to talk to Jackson Browne, please thank him for being an innovator who inspires others to create change.  And also tell him that regardless of how great he was onstage, it's never, ever a good idea to wear a funky retro polyester shirt in Kansas in August.  I'm just saying... 

Written by Tara Gregory, Research and Evaluation Coordinator & Rock Goddess

Social Network Evaluation in Analysis

Note: This blog post is a reposting from AEA 365. Check them out for more great tips to guide your evaluation processes.


My name is Oliwier Dziadkowiec and I am a fourth-year doctoral student in Community Psychology at Wichita State University (WSU) in Wichita, Kansas. My colleague, Trish Peaster, and I recently conducted a Social Network Analysis (SNA) through our work at WSU’s Center for Community Support and Research. The client requesting the SNA was a coalition composed of 139 members across 10 counties. We were hired to determine the following:

1. Network density of coalition members within and between employment sector
2. Key coalition members within each employment sector
3. Current and emerging leaders, mentors, and innovators across the network
4. Opportunities for enhancing the network

While there are a number of popular software packages for SNA including UCINET , Pajek, and Net Miner, we decided to try Network Genie to collect our data and InFlow 3.1 to analyze the data.

Hot Tip: We had a good experience using Network Genie for collecting social network data. It is administered online and is easy for participants to indicate who they know by simply double clicking on their name. Follow-up questions such as “how often do you communicate with this person” and “how many projects have you worked on with this person” are then asked only for those whom the participant knows. This feature makes answering follow-up questions much easier, especially for large networks. Network Genie is not free, but it is easy to learn and has excellent customer support. Alternative data collection methods can be found in Social Network Analysis (Knoke, D. & Yang, S., 2008).


Hot Tip: InFlow is not as easy to learn, but has several nice features. For instance, data collected from Network Genie can be directly downloaded into Inflow for analysis. These are not sold as a package, however. Inflow also has nice graphical features and good documentation of all the commands needed for analysis. The program has an easy to use “point and click” menu, but the range and flexibility of operations that you can perform are fewer than with other SNA software packages.

Hot Tip: Have a good theory. In order to evaluate the network (size, clusters, key players), we found it useful to use the framework developed by Valdis Krebs and June Holley Building Smart Communities through Network Weaving (pdf). This theory allowed us to objectively judge the strength of the network and make recommendations for enhancing it.

Hot Tip: SNA packages have a variety of measures to evaluate networks. Be sure that you understand the meaning of each measure or have a consultant nearby who does. This is key to making your findings valid and meaningful to your client.

Want to learn more from Oliwier and Trish? They will be presenting as part of the Evaluation 2010 Conference Program, November 10-13 in San Antonio, Texas.

Wichita Survey Takers Wanted

Hey ICT people-

One of our researchers – Emily Grant – needs your help! She’s working on her dissertation about the beliefs/attitudes that Wichita residents have about the environment and needs 1000 ICT residents to fill out her survey.

This survey is purely to gather information; there are no right or wrong answers.




So help her out by donating 15 minutes of your time! http://wichita.kumc.edu/care/








Photo courtesy of Sean McGrath

5 Questions About Visioneering Wichita (And how CCSR was involved)

As some of you reading this blog may already know, Visioneering Wichita has been selected to receive the 2010 Alliance for Regional Stewardship (ARS) Organizational Champion Award presented by the American Chamber of Commerce Executives (ACCE). 

What some of you may not know, is that back in 2005, when the Center for Community Support and Research was known as the Self-Help Network, we were helping shape and develop the fledgling initiative. So in honor of our partners over at Visioneering Wichita, and their well-deserved award, we present “5 Questions about Visioneering Wichita”

Q1: What exactly is Visioneering Wichita?
VW is a 20 year strategic plan that started in 2004 designed to improve the quality of life, foster economic development, and promote civic leadership in the city of Wichita. This plan was based on input from over 16,000 Wichita residents.

Q2: What are the goals of Visioneering Wichita?

• To promote job growth
• Stop the decline of Wichita per capita income
• Provide for a skilled workforce
• Increase the number of post-secondary students by 3% per year
• Develop the downtown area to promote economic development and to expand the arts/culture of Wichita
• Promote racial diversity, opportunity and harmony
• And more. 

Q3: How was CCSR involved in Visioneering Wichita?
CCSR provided a series of leadership development classes for the Visions Partners – promoting civic engagement and community collaboration. As a result of these classes, participants were able to:

• Better understand the elements of a successful community collaboration
• Identify strengths and challenges in collaboration
• Learn how to use their newfound leadership skills within their local organizations, networks and coalitions
• Develop and action plan for organizing and bringing together groups to assess collaborative strengths and challenges.
• Grow in ability and willingness to participate in future strategic alliances and other community leadership roles.

Q4: Will Visioneering Wichita really work?
The plan is solid, but we need the support of the Wichita citizens, businesses and government. If we all work together and focus our efforts, we can drastically improve our quality of life and meet the VW benchmarks.

Q5: How do I find out more about Visioneering Wichita?
Good place to start – The Plan.  Available to download as a pdf from Visioneering Wichita.
Or just contact info@visioneeringwichita.org.

Congrats again to Visioneering Wichita in receiving this national award!



Photo Courtesy of AnyJazz65

Thoughts on Our Nowegian Visitor

Senior researcher Johan Barstad of the Patient Education Research Center in Moere Og Romsdal, Norway, recently visited the Wichita State University Center for Community Support and Research (CCSR) on Thursday and Friday, June 24-25.  Barstad is interested in CCSR due to its 25+ year experience in promoting and researching self-help groups.

Barstad met with CCSR to discuss previous methods of research, methods of assisting self-help groups and how to integrate self-help groups into professional services.  More specifically, Barstad was gaining input on Norway’s national initiative to incorporate self-help groups into health and human services.  Barstad is a part of a research team in Norway who is trying to better understand the diversity of self-help groups in the country and the relation between self-help services and professional services. 

His two days included meetings with CCSR Director Scott Wituk, the CCSR Research & Evaluation Team and the CCSR Mental Health Consumer Initiatives Team.  Additionally, Barstad met with self-help group researchers and experts: Greg Meissen and Lou Medvene from Wichita State University.  Finally, he visited with three Kansas self-help organizations: Project Independence, Good Grief of Kansas and Victory in the Valley.

Scott Wituk commented on the recent visit.  “What Johan and others in Norway are doing is phenomenal.  They are attempting to bring together the very informal, grassroots self-help groups with the professional helping systems to create new forms of sustained, effective, and low-cost care.  They are attempting to create empowered patients who actively participate in their health care.  Self-help groups can play a role in that.  In many ways, the challenges in the U.S. health care system are not too different.  We thoroughly enjoyed the visit and learned a great deal.  I hope to be working with Johan in the future on a few international self-help projects.”   


Photo courtesy of ElBosco

Spotlight on an Initiative: Compassion Kansas

What is Compassion Kansas?

CCSR is in the last year of its Compassion Kansas initiative, a 3-year, federally funded project designed to enhance Faith-based and Community-based Organizations through grants, workshops and one-on-one capacity building assistance.

Capaci-what now?

Community nonprofits, groups, and coalitions can typically be very effective in targeting the specific needs of their local communities. But these smaller organizations frequently lack the organization needed to thrive.

These organizations are far more successful when they operate with adequate funds, thoughtful planning, a well-trained staff, effective boards, and the ability to respond to challenges.

That’s essentially what capacity-building is – giving organizations the tools to do what they do, better.

Okay, so what capacity-building services does Compassion Kansas offer?

In addition to the financial awards, Compassion Kansas provides:
•    Assistance in developing stronger grant applications
•    Strategic Planning
•    Plans for diversifying funding sources
•    Board development and leadership
•    Staff and volunteer management
•    Networking opportunities
•    Statewide attention to the work of these organizations

These services are provided through workshops, and one-on-one mentoring with a CCSR staff member.

What’s in store for the future of Compassion Kansas?

Compassion is undergoing some changes, but the Center for Community Support & Research is committed to continuing capacity-building efforts across Kansas.

So, dear Kansans in community coalitions, alliances, fledgling nonprofits – what would you like to see in the future as far as capacity building efforts go?

Step Away from the Can of Doing: What a Home Depot Commercial Teaches About Evaluation | Dr. Tara Gregory

I've been mesmerized lately—in that kind of love-hate way—by Home Depot commercials wherein a manly man announcer urges people to shop at Home Depot with statements like "turn your doing dial up to 11" and "set your savings swagger on full tilt" and, most nonsensically, "open up a can of doing." I may not be quoting these perfectly except for the "open up a can of doing" phrase. Open up a can of doing? I'm not even sure what this means. But these commercials irritate me quite a bit—mainly because they fill me with an overwhelming urge to run to Home Depot. For what, I don't know.

And that's where my issue lies. Indiscriminate and unplanned opening of a Can of Doing can be wasteful of time and resources. Owning a house that's over 100 years old, as I do, there probably isn't a big enough Can of Doing to cover what needs to be done. If I really thought through what it would take to make my house what I want it to be and made a plan, my trip to Home Depot might be valuable. But I have to admit that my savings swagger will undoubtedly propel me toward superfluous and relatively easy tasks versus those that might actually make my house more solid and valuable.

So what does this have to do with evaluation? I've been involved in a number of evaluation projects where it seems that people have opened up a can of doing without really knowing why. More specifically, organizations often say they want to do an evaluation, but frequently lack a clear idea of what they want to know.

Evaluation is simply a way of answering the big questions about an organization: "What should we be doing? What do people think of our services?  Are we making a difference for those we serve?"

But organizations can get too focused on just doing something, even when it comes to evaluation. I've had multiple experiences where organizations have a list of questions they want to ask, but no real idea of what it is they want to KNOW. There's a big difference here—questions with a capital Q  and questions with a small q. Big Q questions represent your evaluation goal—what you want or need to know. In reality, there aren't that many big Q questions. They're basically about whether your program is needed, how well it's implemented, and what difference it makes. That's pretty much it. But there are a huge number of possible small q questions for each of these big Q questions. And if you don't identify the big Q first, your small q's can go down unnecessary or misleading paths.

If you open the can of doing before really knowing what needs to be done—if you ask the small q questions before identifying the big Q question—at best you'll waste time and energy. At worst, you'll be led astray by information that doesn't really tell you what you need to know.

What nonprofit organizations really need to hear is: Before you get your evaluation swagger on and open up a can of assessment doing, ask yourself what one or two things you really need to know. And step away from that can of doing unless you've finished this task!

For more on evaluation basics, come to the next Compassion Kansas workshop on May 20 (1 - 5 p.m.) called "Does Your Program Work? How to Use Simple Evaluation Techniques and Tools to Answer this Question."  Contact Angela Gaughan at 316-978-3843 or angela.gaughan@wichita.edu to register. (Registration is still open, even if the website says otherwise)




Photo courtesy of  J. Stephen Conn

Foundation giving down 8.4% in 2009, Foundation Center reports

 “Challenged by a prolonged economic downturn, the nation's grant-making foundations cut their giving by an estimated 8.4 percent in 2009, a new report from the Foundation Center finds. The decline is the steepest since the center began tracking the data in 1975.”

According to the Foundation Growth and Giving Estimates report released by the Foundation Center on April 16, 2010, foundation giving was down approximately 8.4% in 2009. This represents a record decline since the Center began tracking information in 1975, yet it is a significantly lower decrease than one would expect, given the estimated 17% loss in foundation assets in 2009.

Facilitators at CCSR often hear from people who want to start nonprofits that they will “get grants” to fund their operations. While grants certainly can be a part of an organization’s revenue, CCSR often reminds enthusiastic founders that grants should only make up about 20% of their nonprofit’s revenue. The rest should come from members’ support and donations, corporate giving, events and fundraisers, and revenue generated from activities that support the organization’s charitable purpose.

It is also helpful to understand how grant-making organizations work. So here are two pieces of information that will help you understand a little bit more about foundation giving. Let’s call it “Intro to Foundation Funding.”

1. Foundations follow a formula to figure out how much they have available to give. The formula can vary by foundation and is the responsibility of the organization’s board to determine. The formula is usually a percent of an average of a foundation’s revenue over a three- to five-year span. For example, the funds available for grant-making in 2010 could be [x] percent of the average of a fund’s average market value for 2007, 2008, and 2009, which will vary based on earnings in that time. A foundation might have several funds. The [x] is usually a small enough number to ensure that the fund will endure perpetually, such as 5%.This is called asset-averaging. What does that mean? Gains or losses in the value of a foundation’s funds are mitigated by the averaging process. But the 17% loss in assets from 2009 will lower the amount of money foundations are able to give for two to four more years.

2. Most foundations cannot give grants from a fund if the value of that fund has dropped below its historic gift value. Say Betty the Community Supporter gave $100,000 to her Local Community Foundation in 1997. Over time, through wise investing, the Local Community Foundation was able to grow the amount in that fund. But in 2009, the value of this fund dropped to $90,000. Most foundations have rules in place that prevent them from using that $90,000 to give grants. They must wait till the value of the fund returns to $100,000. This will affect the Local Community Foundation’s ability to make grants in 2010.

The Foundation Center reports that several factors lessened the decrease in giving: many grantmakers cut their operating expenses, a few key big grantmakers committed to giving more, and community supporters like Betty continued giving to foundations. This is good. But nonprofits should be aware that foundations may have fewer dollars available in 2010 and over the next couple of years. Communities should be aware that their arts promotion, social service, and youth-supporting nonprofits—among others—may be struggling to secure grants for even 20% of their budget, which may impact their ability to provide services.

With that in mind, individual donors should think about giving a little more to their favorite charitable organization this year, if they can.


Authors:  Amy Delamaide, Sarah Jolley, and Seth Bate

 Photo courtesy of Chet Thomas

Nonprofit Blogs I Read (and you should too!) | Amy Delamaide

Blogs I read

One of the reasons CCSR started blogging is because several of us on staff are readers of blogs. We thought CCSR could add to online content in our areas of expertise. We also admired the Kansas Leadership Center's efforts to blog and contribute to online content.

In an effort to share with readers of the CCSR blog which blogs we go to for ideas and new thinking, here is the first of posts about blogs we read. Mine are in alphabetical order, because that's how I have them organized in my Google reader.


Blogs on NP things I follow:

Bridgespan (all RSS feeds)
The Bridgespan Group is a nonprofit consulting firm out of Boston, New York, and San Francisco. The most recent article from them that I read was on Growing Global NGOs Effectively.  They have a number of articles and case studies available, some for free and some for purchase.

Center for Nonprofit Management
This Center is based in Bucks County, PA, north of Philadelphia. A recent post from them on the differences between hiring a consultant and hiring a facilitator for your planning work makes an interesting distinction, one we often debate at the CCSR. We tend more towards facilitating processes than providing consultation. From a client's perspective, defining which kind of support the organization needs or wants is crucial in finding the right person to support your planning efforts.

Don Griesmann's Nonprofit Blog
I started following this blog on the recommendation of my co-worker Sarah Jolley. His posts tend to be long and informative, with quite a few links in each posts for further reading.

Linksy on Leadership
Through work with the Kansas Leadership Center, I've had the opportunity to learn from Marty Linksy. He shared with me at a training session that he, as a Harvard man, was very familiar with the route from Cambridge to Wellesley College, where I went as an undergrad. His blog on leadership takes concepts developed in his books and applies them to current events.

The Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (NVSQ)
The quarterly publication of ARNOVA  (The Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action) is a treasure trove of scholarly articles on the NP sector. I subscribe to the RSS feed, but it's possible this is only available to me because of my university access. But go here and see if you can get it too. I usually read the abstracts, then click on the link and download the article to read later.

The Nonprofit QuarterlyNot to be confused with the NVSQ, the Nonprofit Quarterly is a Boston-based publication that actually prints on paper. From what I can tell, most of the articles are available online. It looks like they might have some political biases  I should be aware of. I haven't explored this blog/magazine very much.

Philantopic
I haven't explored this blog too much, because I just started following it. But it looks like it will provide articles and content from the Philanthropy News Digest, which could be useful.

Rosetta Thurman
Written by a young, DC-based African-American woman, this blog presents a perspective of a young professional who benefitted from the work of nonprofits as she was growing up in Cleveland and who now consults with nonprofits seeking social change. This post considers how young professionals in nonprofit jobs can build the brand recognition of both their organization and themselves.

TNT: The Network Thinker
Valdis Krebs does interesting research on and mapping of social networks. This blog doesn't get updated very often, but if you like infographics and find social networks interesting, this is worth a read.

Transformative Concepts
Written by Maaskelah Thomas, a leader in the Wichita community and former CCSR facilitator, this blog has a couple of thoughtful posts on what organizations should look for. This one on whether an organization should hire a grant-writer or a fund development coach makes some good points.

White Courtesy Telephone: News, Opinion and Commentary from Inside the Third Sector I don't have much information about the origins of this blog. I think I started following it on the recommendation of a co-worker. Looks like it has at least 6 contributing writers. This post on "Messing with the Poor" has some good food for thought about nonprofits and poverty prevention or alleviation.

Young Professionals of Wichita
Because I am young, a professional, and from Wichita, I follow the Young Professionals of Wichita. Are you a YP? Does your local YP group blog? Follow it.


Blogs on the arts and NPs:

Nonprofits that support or promote the arts are a particular kind of NP. I have an interest in working with arts organizations, so I follow a few blogs dedicated to these NPs.

The Kansas Arts Commission 
The KAC started blogging pretty recently (their archives go back to September 2009). Their posts are useful to find out about arts-related programming, grants, and capacity-building in Kansas.

Michael Kaiser
On November 19, 2009, I attended a session on the "Arts in Crisis" with Michael Kaiser. He is currently the President of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and he has written about his experience turning around major arts organizations. I follow the blog he writes for the Huffington Post: and the one he writes for Artsmanager. There is a bit of overlap between the two, and I could probably cull one of these. But they are written for slightly different audiences and sometimes that difference adds something to one stream or the other.

What blogs do you read to get the latest on the nonprofit sector? Let us know in the comments below.








Photo Courtesy of Moriza

"So what is it that you DO exactly?" | Amy Delamaide

The task of describing to others the work that CCSR does can be daunting.

My co-worker Kevin Bomhoff tells a story about the time his son asked him what he did. He wanted to be able to tell his friends that his dad was a lawyer, or a doctor, or an engineer. After hearing Kevin's lengthy explanation, his son said, "I think it would be easier if I just tell them you work for the CIA."

When I first started working at CCSR three years ago, it took me about five minutes to describe my job. I would have to include examples. "Well, I work with organizations. They could be coalitions, or nonprofits, or government entities, or something else. It could also be a combination of those things. And I help them figure out what they want to do and where to go. Right now, I’m working with a group of people creating a comprehensive early childhood plan for their community. And I’m also working with a nonprofit run by and for people with mental illness to improve their services."

If I talked to someone with a background in business, I could tell them that what I do is like management consulting, but for nonprofit organizations or government bodies.

If I talked to someone with a background in psychology, I could tell them that what I do is like being a shrink for an organization. I try to ask a series of questions that help the organization come to the own best solutions for their situation.

After a few months of working at CCSR, I realized that my job is to help organizations better serve the mission or people they are designed to serve. This means I work with organizations in a variety of fields--public health, education, social services, and more. While each of these settings is different, I can bring the same set of skills, tools, and questions to bear in each one. I have expertise in the process of getting a group from point A to point B.

CCSR’s Special Projects Assistant is working on materials to describe all the different services CCSR offers. Be on the lookout for these materials soon.

How do you describe the work of CCSR? Post your thoughts in the comments.

Photo Courtesy of Erik Charlton

State of the Solutions | Seth Bate

I admit to only half-listening to the coverage leading up to and following the State of the Union address on January 28, 2010. It’s just a speech, right?

Even so, a quote from Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell got my attention when I heard it on the radio – enough so that I went to his website to find it in an official press release.

“Americans aren’t happy with the administration’s approach,” McConnell said. “They want a step-by-step approach to our problems, not grand government experiments and schemes.”

What I heard was, “Americans want technical solutions, not adaptive responses.” And I have to agree with the Senator. That’s exactly what we want. Unfortunately, it’s not what the situation requires.

Over the last few years I have learned and in turn taught about the difference between technical and adaptive challenges. My first exposure was an article written by Ron Heifetz that a colleague shared with me, and it’s a concept that is central to the work of our partners at The Kansas Leadership Center.

McConnell’s statement points at a key distinction between the two kinds of challenges.

Technical challenges may be difficult and complicated, but they can be tackled with expertise that currently exists. If you get the right combination of brains, resources and influence, there may well be a step-by-step approach to these kinds of problems. Finding that approach is reassuring; if the administration could find it, Americans would likely be happier.

Adaptive challenges are also difficult and complicated, not to mention persistent. And there is no single entity with enough brains, resources or influence to fix them. As we’re reminded in the evolving Kansas Leadership Center Field Guide, these challenges “require learning to understand what is going on. The solutions also require learning to develop new tools, methodologies and practices.”

Job creation, health care and energy ― among other topics in the president’s speech and the Republican response – are adaptive challenges.

The only way to move forward on these enormous issues is to experiment, because no one yet knows what the answers are. Of course, we may disagree on the choice and scope of the experiments. Still, if we are ever to make progress, we have to give up our reliance on step-by-step approaches and embrace innovation, learning as we go.



Learn more about the properties of an adaptive challenge here (pgs. 19-22):

Photo courtesy of Philo Nordlund

Important Questions to Ask When Marketing Your Nonprofit | Robin Fertner

The word marketing usually conjures up images of over-worked advertising gurus poring over focus group data to create an award-winning campaign that will convince consumers once and for all that Coca-Cola is the superior beverage. Marketing may not seem like something a nonprofit should be worried about, but it is a crucial part of ensuring that your vision and mission are met to the best of your ability.

So, after lots of sweat, tears and IRS forms, you have your nonprofit up and running smoothly. You’ve developed your image, created a logo, and you’ve set up your website. So where do you go from here?  How do you start the daunting task of marketing?

This all may seem obvious, but these three important questions can easily be forgotten in the excitement of starting a campaign.


1.    WHY?
Why are you marketing your organization? What is your goal? Do you need more funds (well, of course you do – but are you actively looking to start a fundraising campaign)? Are you planning to expand your services? Do you just want the general public to know you exist?

Figure out what your organization needs most at this particular moment, and focus exclusively on that.  If your goal is solid, your message will be on target as well. You can always start a new campaign later on as your organization’s needs change.


2.    WHO?
Okay, before you blow your entire printing budget sending out postcards across the city/state/universe – take a moment to think about who your target audience is.  Who’s going to be most interested in what you have to say? Who is going to be most likely to give donations? Who has supported your organization in the past? Who do you want to support your organization in the future?

This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t target a broad audience – if that will best accomplish your goal. Social media offers a free/inexpensive way to reach the general populous.  Whether or not your entire state will care about what you have to say is up to you to decide.


3.    HOW?
Now that you know who you’re trying to reach, how are you planning to connect with them? This goes back a bit to the WHO question and knowing your target audience. If you’re looking to target seniors about your upcoming services, you may want to leave the Twitter out of this campaign.  If you’re looking to get support from the local art community, clip art and rainbow fonts aren’t going to cut it.

Think hard about who your target audience is, and what you want to convey to them. Figure out where they get their information, and what sources they find most trustworthy. Most importantly, keep track of your results – you may discover a better method for future endeavors.


Photo courtesy of Simple Insomnia

Staying on Top of Change: The Value of Research and Evaluation Part Three | Tara Gregory

My last post considered why it is important to measure if your program has made a difference. The second issue is the importance of evaluation in being accountable during times when funds are tight.

It may seem like a luxury to implement an evaluation when people are in need of services. But implementing an inappropriate, ineffective or damaging program is clearly not a good use of funds. A common problem for organizations is not tying their programs to clear needs or intended outcomes.

A formative evaluation (i.e., needs or asset assessment) for example can help an organization identify what issues need to be addressed, the population most affected, or the potential for change. This is always a crucial step but even more so when social conditions, and funding attached to such issues, are particularly unstable.

A summative evaluation (i.e., outcome evaluation) can provide evidence that the program—and the funding that supported it—made a difference in the lives of recipients and/or the community. Again, in times of economic and social uncertainty, an organization that can point to evidence of need and effectiveness has an advantage in making the case that these programs are sound investments.

In the last few posts, I’ve tried to make the case that organizations can help sustain themselves in the face of societal and economic shifts by evaluating the needs and outcomes of their service population. I recognize that, as the Research and Evaluation Coordinator, I might be a bit biased toward my area of interest and expertise. But change is inevitable, both societally and in the lives of those served by non-profit, faith and community-based organizations. Making evaluation part of any program helps ensure that change isn’t an unexpected obstacle or trauma…but evidence of good, well-informed work.



Photo courtesy of David M. Goehring

Staying on Top of Change: The Value of Research and Evaluation Part Two | Tara Gregory

Evaluation is directly connected to organizational effectiveness.

There are two issues that are particularly salient here – especially when there are larger societal changes swirling around organizations. First, just because an organization implements a program or activities doesn’t mean it has made a difference. Social services aren’t just about numbers i.e., the number of people served, the number of sessions held, the number of resources provided. Those things are easy to count, and some organizations look at these numbers as evidence of doing “a good job.” 

But without true evaluation—which looks at the actual impact on recipients and the resulting changes created in their lives—there’s no real measure as to whether those served are gaining anything of value. If changes DO take place, and there’s been no evaluation, it’s hard to tell if the program contributed.   What’s worse? Not knowing if it’s done something harmful. 

Providing services without knowing their impact on recipients is like a doctor doing a procedure without paying attention to whether it helped or hurt the patient. Just like diagnostic or follow-up exams, program evaluations help outline and document:

•    the need for and purpose of the program (needs assessment and outcomes identification):
•    How it was implemented (fidelity measures)
•    How recipients responded (process measures)
•    How they were changed (outcome measures)

All of these evaluation elements help increase the likelihood that programs stay true to their intended purpose, do no harm, and are changed appropriately when they’re off target. 

My next post will look at the second issue that is important to consider when planning your research and evaluation.


Photo courtesy of Yasser

Staying on Top of Change: The Value of Evaluation Part One | Tara Gregory

Like most people, I don’t really love change…especially when it comes at me unexpectedly. But for our Research and Evaluation team at CCSR, change is the currency of what we do. Whether we’re looking for change in individuals, settings, organizations, or communities, it’s an indicator that something is “working.” I use the term working because changes can be positive or negative, but either way implies that an action has had an effect.

Right now, nonprofits and agencies who work with CCSR are thinking about changes related to the effects of the economy on organizational stability and conditions for those they serve. In changing economic times, many organizations batten down the hatches by cutting activities that may seem superfluous or not of direct benefit to service recipients—evaluation activities are often the first to go.

However, evaluation that documents change, whether for individuals, the organization or community, is key to maintaining effectiveness and in proving an organization’s worth.


Photo courtesy of Mike Baird

Change Part 2 | Kevin Bomhoff

Last post, I shared the story of the startling change my daughter experienced in starting first grade. I also introduced the “Productive Zone of Disequilibrium,” the term Ron Heifetz uses for the zone that promotes learning and progress in systems.

When the “temperature” or level of discomfort is too great, the organism can explode or implode.  When the temperature is too low, the organism stops learning and adapting. The activity does not result in the organism “blowing up” nor does it “blow off” what needs to be done.

Reading the temperature of an organization requires a certain amount of data gathering and experimentation.   Based on observations, what are all the possible interpretations to be made?  We need input from internal and external stakeholders.

CCSR is in the midst a deliberate process our director, Dr. Scott Wituk, has deemed “Listen, Think, Act.” 


Listen
We have visited over 35 partners asking probing questions about their needs and experience with our services.

Think
Using this data, staff members are now adding their own reflections.   The information will be used to develop as many interpretations as possible about our current and future activities.

Act
We will design experiments – perhaps new approaches or different processes based on what we have learned.   These “Acts” will inevitably turn up the temperature as we experiment with new ways to define our organization and help our customers.

Sometimes, of course, the temperature needs to be turned down -- while avoiding complacency. This is its own challenge.  When an intervention works, system functioning improves and the temperature lowers.  When an intervention does not produce the desired outcome, it is critical that data is readily available to inform a timely “course correction” before serious damage occurs.

Adapting in a timely manner using formative data reduces the temperature as new, more productive interventions replace those that did not work.    Beginning with research and using “evidenced-based practices” can give the system a great head start but does not guarantee success.   Our assumptions about the application of such practices in new settings and our ability to accomplish fidelity to proven models must be tested.     

What’s all this got to do with a six-year-old kid who’s already had it with “systems change” on her first day of first grade?   Well, later that night the ice did thaw a bit, and her nasty observations were interpreted though her own eyes with a little input from stakeholders (mom and dad).   Some of these rules worked for her.   Some seem to be made for other kids who appeared to be “out of control.”   That could help her too – indirectly.  Some rules clearly needed to change and probably would as the year unfolded.  It was, after all, just the first day. The first day of the rest of her life - observing, interpreting and intervening as part of one system after another.                                                                         
     


“Productive Zone of Disequilibrium,” courtesy of the Kansas Leadership Center   |    Photo courtesy of Couchlearner

Change Part 1 | by Kevin Bomhoff

When my daughter (now grown and managing pension funds for hospitals and medical clinics) was six years old, I remember picking her up after her first day of first grade.   She had loved kindergarten and all available data confirmed our suspicions that she was indeed a genius.

The new first grader walked slowly to the car and climbed in without a word.  We belted in and I waited for a report.   More silence.  She peered straight ahead; I could see a small simmering hole forming in the dashboard.   “So, how’s first grade?” I asked.   The silence broke as she announced, “Dad, there are a lot of rules.”

Despite my efforts empathetically strike up a conversation, she sank back into reflective silence.   I tried to comprehend the enormity of her dreadful discovery:  The joy of kindergarten had been systematically destroyed by some uniformed autocrat.   Not only did the system impose unnecessary constraints, the length of the day had been doubled.  Twice as much fun - not a problem.   Double the tyranny – unacceptable.

Change.  Ronald Heifetz  talks about the “Pathway of Adaptive Change” using terms such as the “Productive Zone of Disequilibrium” and “managing the heat.”   

Change is life’s (and work’s) crucible.   Much energy is spent managing, avoiding or complaining about change.   At CCSR, we often get called when organizations are on the precipice of change:

•    Increased demand for services
•    Reduced resources
•    Seeking to collaborate with others to address a common concern
•    Need to prepare for what’s next  

The lesson from Heifetz is this:  there is a productive zone of disequilibrium in every system.     The “productive zone” is a place where observation, interpretation, and intervention take place in a cycle that promotes learning and progress.  

I invite you to come back next week for a look at how knowing about this zone is helping CCSR - and, we hope, other Kansas organizations - respond to change.



Photo courtesy of Rachel

Change | by Scott Wituk

Welcome to CCSR. 

Change.  It is everywhere.  One only needs to look at the daily paper, newscast, listserv, podcast, or other favorite media outlet to see that this past year has been marked by some of the greatest social, economic, and political changes.  We’ve elected the first African-American President, witnessed and chances are know someone who has lost a job, and flocked to new forms of communication like Twitter and Facebook.  Locally, we have seen aircraft companies drastically reduce their workforces, a new governor and our share of Kansas weather—well, some things never change!  CCSR, like many organizations, has had its fair share of changes this past year, including my appointment as Director. 


Change can come from external forces and decisions that can be a source of frustration, stress and uncertainty.  These types of changes leave us with some options.  First, we could watch the change go by and potentially be positively or negatively impacted by it.  I’ve certainly been in situations when I’ve thought “now is not the time to jump in” or “if I don’t do anything, maybe nothing will happen and this will all just blow over.”  Unfortunately, more times than not, things did happen and it did not just blow over.  These past experiences lead to a second option:  Recognize the change, determine how to proceed and potentially harness the momentum of change. 

It is with this in mind that CCSR is currently conducting our “Listen. Think. Act” planning process.  Due to changes at CCSR this past year, the staff, many close advisors, and I recognized that we wanted to determine our future.  We wanted not to be changed, but to create change—both for ourselves, our organization and Kansas communities.  “Listen. Think. Act.” is one way we are responding and already seeing significant impacts on our work.  A brief review of the “Listen. Think. Act.” process:

Listen.  CCSR embarked on its largest “listening campaign” in more than 10 years.  We interviewed approximately 40 Kansas community partners, some whom we had worked with in the past and some whom we had not.  Secondly, we held a series of CCSR retreats for CCSR staff and consultants to provide their insights and suggestions about our future.  Finally, our WSU Advisory Committee has been very helpful in actively participating and providing suggestions to CCSR as we help in serving WSU’s urban-serving mission.  I’ve enjoyed and appreciated the candid remarks and believe these conversations will serve as a healthy foundation for the planning process.

Think.  CCSR staff and consultants continue to review the comments from Kansas community partners and WSU advisors.  We are looking for connections across the comments and ideas that were previously shared.  We are considering our mission, vision, and organizational values, especially in light of the identified needs and opportunities in Kansas communities.  This review will help us focus our future efforts. 

Act.  This spring, CCSR will present a summary of our plan for the future.  It will include and describe the direction of CCSR and its services to Kansas communities.  This plan will serve as a starting point and guide for our work in future years.  CCSR staff are known for taking action, and I believe this process will end no differently.

As the planning process unfolds, I and others at CCSR will provide additional updates.  What information would be useful to you in these updates? Please share your thoughts and ideas by email: scott.wituk@wichita.edu.  


- Scott Wituk, Director


--Picture courtesy of Aussiegall

One Small Step into the Blogosphere

Welcome to the WSU Center
for Community Support and
Research blog.

A center of Wichita State University, the CCSR partners with communities and organizations to strengthen Kansas through education, leadership development, facilitation, and research. We work with communities and organizations across the state to achieve our vision that all Kansans use their talents and experiences to create thriving communities.

Our purpose in blogging is to discuss our work, to share about the trends we see affecting the nonprofit and public sectors, and to contribute to relevant blogosphere discussions. We expect to have several contributors from our staff as well as guest bloggers. As we add contributors we will post their information to our contributors list.

For more information about who we are, check out our website, follow us on twitter, become our fan on facebook—and keep reading this blog!

-CCSR Blog Team

Photo courtesy of Brian Henry Thompson