Are Nonprofits Ready for Volunteers? And Will Volunteers Help if They’re Not Ready?

Good questions, says Bethany Godsoe, ED of the Research Center for Leadership in Action at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. In an op-ed she penned for the Christian Science Monitor, Godsoe raises questions that some think are extremely important but that haven’t really been discussed and/or analyzed as much as, perhaps, they should be, given the amount of money that’s being proposed for various programs involving nonprofits and volunteers. A colleague who once served as a senior executive at the Corporation for National and Community Service, in fact, emailed me, pointing out that in 2002, soon after President Bush announced his call to service, which included a 50% increase in Americorps, the Washington Post did a story featuring the spokespeople for leading charities saying that “they didn’t know what they would do with all the volunteers the President was seeking to mobilize and that they’d prefer government money instead.” He asked whether that attitude has now changed—and if so, why?

Godsoe seems to agree with the Post piece, arguing that while it’s nice that forward-looking legislation has been passed to encourage citizens to serve (at “a time when the country needs it most”), she asserts that nonprofits, especially smaller organizations that have been the hardest hit by the economic turndown, may not “be equipped to handle the coming influx of well-intentioned helpers.”

A solution she proposes is, interestingly, one that many groups working to promote and practice more “citizen centered” approaches to civic engagement have recommended: Rather than simply add more slots or ask people to “plug into” existing programs (or new ones), perhaps service programs could give communities “a stake in and forum for setting priorities and conveying their needs,” so that community needs can be better matched with the resources and energy that volunteers can provide. Nonprofits can serve as important brokers and intermediaries for such planning and forums, which may be more strategic and effective than trying to scramble and figure out what to do with all the new volunteers.

Another important issue is the nonprofits’ ability to provide good training, oversight, and relationship-building with volunteers—activities that some nonprofits, again, especially the smaller ones, say will take away from “what we need to be doing.” Where do these groups get the resources to ensure that volunteers have quality and fulfilling experiences—factors that several research studies, including one by New York Cares, one of the country’s largest volunteer organizations, have found to be critical in retaining volunteers well beyond their initial service experience?

One auspicious development is New York City’s approach to its new service program. When developing this, New York officials spent (and will continue to spend) time meeting with and hearing from nearly 180 nonprofits—big AND small—and have since made one of their top priorities under their new program supporting nonprofits’ capacity to use volunteers more effectively and strategically. And, they’re committed to helping nonprofits measure what they’re doing rigorously. (See comprehensive report at http://www.nycservice.org/nyc_service_report.php)

There are also, as we know, several national efforts afoot to help nonprofits strengthen the ability to assume volunteers—among them, the Social Innovation Fund and a nonprofit capacity-building fund. To some nonprofit leaders, however, these efforts, while well-intentioned and auspicious—have yet to be carefully aligned with the Americorps expansion, meaning that they’re still not sure whether they will be of adequate help to building nonprofits’ capacity in this area. Others think that while these efforts are an important signal from the new administration that nonprofits are critical to solving problems—something that’s been missing for awhile—they are still relatively small compared to some of the big foundations (some of which spend $50 million every four days) or too “insider” for smaller nonprofits not as skilled in Beltway lobbying.

Whatever folks think, it’s clear that there’s a need to take a step back, perhaps, and think about some of these issues so that all of us who support national service, volunteering, civic engagement, and the nonprofit sector, can ensure that what’s being rolled out—and proposed—aligns in the most strategic and effective ways possible. Thoughts?

Is NP Executive Pay Getting Out of Hand?

A good friend called me last week, complaining about how his local public radio station was conducting an aggressive on-air fundraising campaign targeted to raising "at least $1 million" toward its programming. My friend was incensed because he'd looked up the executive director's salary and discovered it was nearing the $400K mark. "If this station is so determined to raise that amount of money," he said, "why can't the ED think about taking a cut in his exorbitant salary?"

Why not, indeed. There's been a debate simmering in the sector about whether nonprofit directors should be receiving salaries and benefits that some believe are just simply over the top, particularly for organizations that are not exactly drowning in funds, especially smaller and mid-sized groups. Shouldn't some of that funding be going to carrying out the mission these organizations profess to? Especially given the dire straits nonprofits are now in? Pablo Eisenberg, in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, provides a good summary of the rising compensation levels among various parts of the sector.

That doesn't mean nonprofit directors should be donning sackcloth and ashes, of course. Good and competent people should be compensated in ways that encourage and sustain talent in the sector's ranks. But the argument, which we increasingly hear, that "we have to pay top salaries to get top people" -- just doesn't fly with some of us who've seen countless folks grace the top of the roster who can claim little more than credentials that may look good on paper but don't necessarily translate into results, vision, and/or competence (something that's underrated in our sector). In short, the assumption that talent is somehow correlated with demands for million dollar salaries is a bit specious, if experience is any guide.

This growing penchant for allocating over-the-top salaries and benefits, some believe, is only going to become more prevalent as people from the corporate sector flock to nonprofits -- and boards continue to seek out and hire those who believe they're entitled to a hefty chunk of the hard-won funds that nonprofits scramble to secure.

Recently, the Montgomery City Council withheld funding from a local nonprofit that provides food to people with HIV/AIDS when it discovered that the E.D. was making more than $350K. Is that a strategy more funders should consider? I'm not sure about that but what I am sure about that this issue of compensation is going to become one that needs more discussion.