You Should Have Your Head Examined!

18 Nov You Should Have Your Head Examined!

19 November 2024

By David Allen, Development for Conservation

Last week on Friday, I participated in part two of a medical study designed to test the use of several different kinds of ultrasound to image blood vessels in the neck (carotid artery). The researchers were looking for a build-up of plaque and artery stiffness. The idea is that this non-invasive test may contribute to the early detection of risks from stroke and dementia later on. The full battery of testing included extensive bloodwork, an MRI of my brain, an oral test of cognitive reasoning, and a 60-minute recording of the blood flowing through my head. They got a willing test subject. I got important baseline information for future health scans and $300.

In a very literal way, I had my head examined. (Some have told me I needed that for many years – OK so most of them have been family.)

The experience got me thinking about external “independent” review of all kinds. Before consulting full-time, I worked for Sand County Foundation – a nonprofit conservation organization basing its programs on modern applications of Aldo Leopold’s life and teaching. About every four or five years, we would hire a team of program evaluators chosen from our partners. They would come in and “audit” our programs from soup to nuts over the course of about three days. They would ask questions about what was working and how we knew. They would challenge our assumptions and make us think in new ways about what we were doing. And if nothing else, they provided baseline information against which we could measure future progress. As a predicate to strategic planning, it was invaluable.

A similar process is available for Nature Centers through the Association of Nature Center Administrators. There, multidisciplinary teams of three or four spend two or three days combing through administrative and programmatic processes of a specific nature center and deliver a written and oral report.

Most of us understand and accept independent review of our financial statements. Those in academia understand independent review of research and published papers. And while some might find the processes tedious, we also accept that there is value even in having our work periodically validated.

Afterward, their work is appreciated in subtle ways. The Board has greater confidence in the overall organizational management, funders have a better understanding of how the organization works and the degree to which it is positioned for success, and deficiencies (and inefficiencies) are addressed and improved.

Even better if these independent reviewers can catch early signs of organizational plaque before they become more serious risks of stroke and dementia, we’d all be better off.

To a certain extent, the accreditation process provides some of this feedback, but at least for fundraising, I have found it inadequate. Important questions are rarely asked. Such as:

• Are you raising enough money to meet the needs of your strategic plan?
• Are you overly dependent on a few larger gifts or revenue streams to the point that it is putting the organization at risk?
• Are your revenue streams sustainable?
• Are your Board directors well-prepared to represent the land trust in public?
• Can interested donors easily find critical information to leave the land trust in their will?
• How are your Key Performance Indicators (KPI) changing over time and what can that tell you about future growth?
• If you had to raise two or three times as much in a short window for a special project, could you meet that opportunity? If not, what would it take to get ready?
• Are you overly dependent on a single fundraiser to the point where the sudden loss of that person would result in a two- or three-year recovery period?

As a paid consultant, I am often called in to help evaluate or assess fundraising programs for land trusts and other conservation groups. So, to a large extent this is a barber talking about the need for haircuts.

But is hiring a consultant absolutely necessary? No. The consultant brings objectivity, years of professional experience, and current information from other organizations. But of these benefits, it is the objectivity that is the most critical. In lieu of hiring a consultant, find someone in your local community with fundraising experience and walk them through everything you are doing to raise money. Or trade the review service with a sister organization where you conduct the audit for them, and they return the favor.

There are several important benefits to this kind of independent review in fundraising, beginning with helping Board directors better understand fundraising systems and their role, as directors, in raising money. Development audits and assessments provide baseline information from which to measure improving results over time. Small changes that save time and money without compromising results can have big impacts. And assessments can help refocus organizational volunteer and staff time on the most productive efforts, such as major donor development.

Your current donors are your most important asset, and the time you spend reflecting on how they experience your organization is time well spent. Independent review – however that gets done – provides an important structure for that reflection.

And next time someone suggests I have my head examined, I can tell them I already have.

Cheers, and Have a great week!

-da

PS: Your comments on these posts are welcomed and warmly requested. If you have not posted a comment before, or if you are using a new email address, please know that there may be a delay in seeing your posted comment. That’s my SPAM defense at work. I approve all comments as soon as I am able during the day.

Photo by Nick the Photographer courtesy of Pixaby.