I lead a non profit tutor/mentor program in Chicago and network with the Big Brothers/Big Sisters in our area. I think your article reflects some of the realities of non profits, but would like to see the same story written by someone working with a local non profit that has a fraction of the resources of a large national network like BBBS. Every challenge you mentioned is magnified in the small non profit because instead of farming out the work to paid contractors, we have to farm it out to volunteers. The only advantage we have is that being small, we often have less people in the decision-making mix. If we get an idea, and can find some volunteers and/or donors, we can move the idea forward. In some respects I think this is a parallel to small companies competing for business with big companies, using the internet to innovate ways to develop new products and reach new customers faster and better than slower moving organizations.

I’ve posted messages on Boxes and Arrows and other IT networking sites in the past because I feel that there is a huge opportunity that has not yet been maximized. There are more than 200 different volunteer-based tutoring and/or mentoring programs in the Chicago region. Each has a need to market itself and draw volunteers and donors; each has a need to find ways to use technology to support staff, volunteers and students, or create a learning environment where each member draws upon the resources of the network. Finally, each needs to find ways to demonstrate it’s impact, both from an internal process improvement purpose, and from an external goal of showing donors the value of the work.

That means there is redundant work, and costs, built into this system. I feel that if IT volunteers, or networks, who share the same passion for a cause, were to take an intermediary, or capacity building role, they could help non profits throughout a geographic area, or a charity sector that is common in many cities, get volunteers, donors, training, etc. more consistently and at less cost, than can each of the volunteer organizations on their own.

I’ve mapped out this thinking at http://cmapspublic.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1178301962705_378512451_14531&partName=htmltext and use my participation in social networking sites like this to invite others to duplicate this type of concept mapping, and/or volunteer time to help me in what I’m trying to do.

Imagine if volunteers from Boxes and Arrows were creating concept maps to show how BBBS programs were connecting kids with mentors, and the result of this was ….what? Or that they were showing how other non profits were mobilizing resources, or building networks, to end hunger, or reduce teen pregnancy, or reduce poverty around inner city hospitals. Non profits can’t do this type of work on their own, but could benefit from groups like this using their talent to create blueprints of action strategies that others might follow.

In my work with not-for-profit organisations I have noticed: 1) the challenge of too many objectives, 2) under-capitalisation, 3) competitive pressures, and 4) built-in community.

1) As you say, there are many stakeholders. Charities are often trying to reach a huge swath of people with greatly varied needs – from donors, to aid recipients, to sponsors, to scientific/professional audiences, and on. This can lead them to over-extend their strategy and to try to be all things for all those people. Focusing on what they can do well, and what the interactive media can do best is important, when there is no single bottom line. Sounds like you were helping them with the hard job of determining value.

2) Like other organisations, not for profits want to use the internet for exciting things like social networking and efficiency improving things like web-based business processes. But designing and building these well can take time and money. Often not-for-profits often don’t have the resources to invest in doing this sort of thing well. And because of their economics, they tend to see building a web site (for example) as a cost, rather than an investment. That’s why Daniell’s call for cooperative efforts and shared resources makes sense.

3) Unfortunately, not-for-profits can be as competitive as for-profits. Within a sector, they compete for donors, resources, members, etc. So finding a platform for sharing can be hard. Typically it seems to work for organisations of the same type that serve different geographies. Again, IAs and the like can help the organisations find who they can best serve and share with.

4) Many not-for-profits have built in communities … they take to messaging, forums, and sharing very easily, and they provide access to people who will willingly and enthusiastically help test designs and development work.

So, in some ways not-for’s are not dissimilar from other types of organisations, but they have unique challenges and opportunities that make them particularly interesting and rewarding to work with.

It’s awesome to see my friends popping up on the web. Good luck to you and the team at GHC!

BC

Keith: Your idea that the title of the article should read “Designing WITH Nonprofits” makes sense.

Daniel: Thank you so much for sharing your map! You’re exactly right that if we were to analyze and map how whole areas of our society work we would better understand where the problems and benefits lie. Most importantly, we would understand where we need to make changes. Also, your comment– “Every challenge you mentioned is magnified in the small non profit because instead of farming out the work to paid contractors, we have to farm it out to volunteers.”– is not addressed here because all of the nonprofits I worked with were large national organizations. There is so much more that can be written on this subject.

Alexandra: This is perfectly stated–”…it’s so vital to always keep in mind the mindset of the outside audience visiting for the site for the first time with the intent to donate or volunteer.”

Avi: I’m so glad you included number three in your list–”3) Unfortunately, not-for-profits can be as competitive as for-profits. Within a sector, they compete for donors, resources, members, etc. So finding a platform for sharing can be hard. Typically it seems to work for organizations of the same type that serve different geographies. Again, IAs and the like can help the organizations find who they can best serve and share with.”–as it is important to note that nonprofits are competing for dollars from the same audience.

BC: It’s great to hear from you. Thanks for your kind thoughts.

As the lead in developing websites and web campaigns, I have worked with the larger CMSs, and agree wholeheartedly that nonprofits believe that those investments will lead to more donors or members. The trouble is, that most do not have the resources/time or content creators/moderators to implement the tools.

In your experience, what were the primary tools that helped you to “sell” good UX design to your nonprofit clients. And what of your forprofit experience were they most interested in learning about. Do you provide any competitive analysis, metrics analysis, mulitvariate testing etc. In my experience, it seems nonprofits respond more to data than to “creative” expertise.