I took a hiatus from blogging as I settled into my job as executive director of the Roy A. Hunt Foundation earlier this year.  I continued commenting on the world of philanthropy through on Twitter and LinkedIn.  I’ll continue to use those outlets more frequently but will pick back up on occasional blogs.  My viewpoints on all three accounts continue to be my own and not the official viewpoint of the Hunt family or their foundation.  Thanks for “tuning in,” and as always, I welcome your feedback.

What does effective neighborhood empowerment have to do with effective, meaningful giving? It turns out more than I thought.

I recently re-read “Neighbor Power:  Building Community the Seattle Way.”  The 2004 book describes the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods’ work in empowering citizens to improve their blocks and neighborhoods.  Author Jim Diers is the former director of the department and evangelist for grassroots-up approaches to community development.  I confess that I share Diers’ fundamental belief in the power of citizens-first, grassroots-up community improvement strategies.

Diers shares lessons from his experience working at the intersection of government and grassroots groups.  I think many of the lessons are great guidance for donors and foundations as they work with nonprofits, small and large:

1. Start where the people are and build on their assets – sometimes funders forget to listen to nonprofit and community leaders with open minds and “fresh ears.”  I know from experience it is too easy to mentally race ahead to the foundation’s own agenda and guidelines, forgetting that the person on the other side of the table may have different experiences or passions to work from.  Starting from those perspectives may lead to a more meaningful, effective grant for both parties.  See guides by the Center for Effective Philanthropy and Asset-Based Community Development Institute for more good info.
2. Organize people around issues that are immediate, concrete, and achievable – nonprofits and donors often convene to solve complex systems, policy, and practice issues.  But we sometimes forget that collaborative groups also need short-term wins to build confidence and problem-solving skills.  And, concrete and achievable wins are the best way to engage a broader community in the issue (see #1), leading to more sustainable results.
3. Build the organization – Diers worked from the basic principles of not doing for people or organizations what they can do for themselves, and not letting one person’s leadership get in the way of growing more strong leaders and organizations.  Donors and foundations are more often pursuing capacity-building, catalytic philanthropy, and community leadership strategies to produce better, faster community change.  I’m not necessarily opposed to the strategies – I’ve planned and staffed them.  However, they unfortunately can be pursued in ways that don’t actually strengthen the long-term ability of nonprofits or community leaders to manage community change on their own.  It is those nonprofits and citizens that have to carry on after a foundation is through with an initiative or when donors and foundations aren’t there to begin with.  See Heifetz and Linsky’s work on adaptive leadership for a possible solution.
4. Small grants make a big difference – Seattle offers grants to groups of neighbors and community organizations to improve their communities, matched by neighbors’ cash and volunteerism.  The grants were often in the hundreds or low thousands of dollars, had a fairly simple application process, and were decided within a month or so of application.  They produced both big physical and social change and launched innovative ideas that government or foundations would have never developed or pursued.  There’s as much power to small, quick money as there is to large grants.  More cities and foundations have joined in on the idea – see Grassroots Grantmakers (note, I’m a board member) and Janis Foster’s blog for great information on this strategy.

Do you think Diers’ neighborhood empowerment principles apply to effective giving and grants?

I recently finished the book “All for One” by client relationships guru Andrew Sobel.  Based on his research and years of experience, the book is full of good ideas for building trusted relationships with clients.  While written for professional services firms, it got me thinking about its applicability to nonprofits’ work with donors.

In one chapter, Sobel cites the work of authors Venkat Ramaswamy and Francis Gouillart on “experience co-creation.”  They note the business environment is increasingly driven by intensified competition, commoditization of products and services, and customers that are highly knowledgeable, demanding, and web-connected.

Sounds like the same environment that nonprofits and donor-advised fund managers face in building relationships with donors, right?

The result is that a customer’s perception of value is no longer associated with your products or services.  Increasingly, it is associated with co-creation – the “experiences around the purchasing, servicing, and the use of a product or service…The customer is becoming an active partner in seeking, creating, and extracting value.”

Sobel uses Ramaswamy and Gouillart’s DART model (Dialogue, Access, Risk, Transparency) to challenge his readers to think about opportunities for enhancing customer interactions and experiences:

1. Lack of Dialogue – What activities – like “sales pitches” – are one-sided?  What activities prevent your customer from engaging in dialogue with you that might lead to new ideas about value?
2. Lack of Access – What customer interactions are opaque because the right information isn’t available to either your customer or you?  Where can you increase information flow earlier?
3. Lack of Risk Management – Where is there an imbalance of risk or a lack of fully understanding the risk the other party is taking?
4. Lack of Transparency – What processes in your organization are mysterious or one-sided?  Could revealing those processes lead to trust and new customer opportunities?

For my friends in the nonprofit world, I think these are great questions for anyone working with donors.  Today’s donors want more information, want transparency, want interactive connections with a cause, and more often than not want their risk in donating lowered.  Sobel’s questions and the experience co-creation concept could be great fodder for planning donor stewardship and retention strategies.

For my friends in the funder world, these are great reminders in interacting with nonprofits.  How can the grant process be more of a two-way dialogue, be less opaque, be a better balance of risk and reward?

What do you think?  What would it look like to spend more time co-creating experiences with your customers?

I’ve just launched my consulting website and will try my hand at blogging about once a week.  I’ll be tracking news and resources in meaningful giving and achieving community results and likely reflecting on the work I’m doing.

I’d love to hear your feedback on things you agree or disagree with!