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