Search

By Andy Cummings

If you have a flood of incoming grant requests, you need a solution that makes it as simple as possible to collect the right information, route requests through the organization for approval and payment, and report on your program results. Still, more than 75 percent of foundation executives don’t fully understand the benefits of technology, according to the Grants Managers Network (GMN) and Technology Affinity Group’s (TAG) 2014 Grantmakers Information Technology Survey Report.

What is holding them back? Like any habit or process you have become accustomed to, the change of adopting a new system or technology with perceived complexity can cause hesitation.

At my company, Versaic, we understand this fear of change. We have worked with hundreds of companies, from small to Fortune 500 and across a spectrum of industries, developing a wealth of best practices and insights. Let us debunk the following fear-inducing myths about grants-management systems:

1. It’s too expensive

The truth is many grants-management platforms are too expensive. This is because they fail to share the hidden costs of implementation of their software. With these systems, when the program goes live and changes need to be made, the company will then charge significant fees to incorporate these changes or add new features to their modules.

Before selecting a grants-management system, make sure there is a dedicated client-service team behind the software at no additional cost. This allows for ongoing product improvement based on your feedback, which saves you time and money.

2. Implementation will be a long and difficult process

Software companies don’t always have the best reputation for making implementation a painless process. Who wants a slow, painful process when you're already super busy? It is paramount that software providers focus on client’s needs and goals during implementation.

Research what the software provider's current clients say about their implementation experience. What we hear from Versaic clients is that they care about making their teams as productive as possible, as quickly as possible. Thus, the Versaic system is typically implemented from start to finish within about a month. That’s no different if you’re switching over from another vendor (in fact, in most cases it is much quicker).

3. Extensive IT involvement will be required to administer the system

There are many grant solutions out there, but not many that value a partnership approach as an integral component of their system. Packaged solutions have more of a do-it-yourself (or have-IT-do-it) model.  A versatile software platform and an expert client-success team are necessary ingredients for impact.  Make sure to look for a software provider that partners with you, ensuring your system is up to date and reflecting any and all changes and updates that need to be made.This eliminates the need for your IT team to get involved in either the set-up or ongoing management of the system.

So there you have it. There is no reason to fear an online grants-management system that works the way you work. In fact, an online system allows you to better align your grants program with the mission of your organization and engage more effectively with your community and stakeholders in a way that is accessible, transparent and responsive. In turn, you are able to make better philanthropic investment decisions and gain insights about your impact on the community.

Image credit: Pixabay

Andy Cummings has been with Versaic since 2003 and has been instrumental in building Versaic’s leadership position in the sponsorship and philanthropy markets. Over the years, through his extensive knowledge of Versaic’s product architecture and thousands of conversations with clients, Andy has built a solid understanding of how the Versaic platform can be adapted to create the most relevant applications and client solutions.You can reach out to Versaic via Twitter (@Versaic) and Instagram.

To learn more about how Versaic's software can help your corporation gain insights, save time, and build your brand email info@versaic.com or call 877-712-9495.

By Leah Garces, USA Executive Director for Compassion in World Farming —

Earlier last month in New York, a meeting took place that would have seemed implausible only a few years ago.  High in a skyscraper on Third Avenue, influential investment institutions such as Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Boston Common Asset Management joined with NGOs and leading food companies to discuss how issues such as the close confinement of farm animals or transparency in our food system might impact the value of their portfolios.

The roundtable event was organized by the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW), the leading global measure of company performance on farm animal welfare, and its partners Compassion in World Farming, World Animal Protection and Coller Capital.  Attendees also included Tyson Foods, Compass Group USA, Nestlé and Sodexo.

BBFAW ranks how 90 of the world’s leading food companies are managing and reporting their farm animal welfare practices. Before it came along in 2012, it’s fair to say that animal welfare was not on the agenda of global investors, other than perhaps featuring on negative screening lists for some specialist ethical investors.  By and large, big mainstream investors paid little or no attention to it. Fast forward to 2016 however and a coalition of 18 major investors from the UK, the USA, Australia, the Netherlands, France and Canada have joined forces to engage with companies around their performance on the BBFAW. We’ve also seen initiatives such as the Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return (FAIRR) Initiative attract investors with over $750bn of assets under management.

So what is now driving large investors to care about something normally seen as one for the ‘NGO world’?

Farm standards as a business risk

The main driver undoubtedly is to do with risk management.  Most investors will have exposure to food companies and they recognize that food and farming companies who do not monitor and manage farm animal welfare issues in their supply chain are less likely to succeed over time.  In recent years we’ve seen health pandemics such as the outbreak of avian flu and farm pollution not only damage human health, the environment, and farm animals, but also company value.

For example, research by the FAIRR Initiative showed how the outbreak of H1N1 swine flu in 2009 led to over 14,000 deaths and saw companies such as US-based Smithfield Foods experience a dramatic 12.8% decline in share price when swine flu was reported in humans. 

Improving standards as a flag for investors

Animal welfare standards also present investors with an opportunity to improve the companies they own too. The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare is now in its fifth year and the proportion of companies with a published farm animal welfare policy has increased from 46% in 2012 to 69% in 2015, while the proportion with published objectives and targets for farm animal welfare has increased from 26% in 2012 to 54% in 2015.

Many investors see animal welfare as a proxy measure to help judge management quality. Investors are now clearly seeing a correlation between food companies with a good grasp of animal welfare issues and those companies that understand how to manage a complex supply chain.

It is these sorts of hardnosed business instincts that are getting financiers to look much more closely at companies whose business involves farm animals. We should welcome that and hope that this month’s roundtable in New York is the first of many.

Leah Garces is USA Executive Director for Compassion in World Farming, the leading farm animal welfare non-profit, with a mission to end factory farming.

 

We know that we need to keep the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Now, a new project from the University of Arizona shows us exactly where we need to keep these fuels in the ground.

The Climate Alliance Mapping Project (CAMP) is a huge undertaking, aiming to be a resource that includes quantitative and qualitative data. From the Public Political Ecology Lab blog:

"The map displays four layers of data: fossil fuel reserves, protected areas, indigenous territory, and digital stories from communities on the front lines of fossil fuel extraction. By highlighting zones of overlap between these layers, CAMP suggests that ecologically and culturally sensitive regions are priority zones for keeping fossil fuels in the ground."

The map now covers the Amazon river basin – one of the most crucial habitats on the planet, where, frankly, there should be absolutely no drilling or mining for fossil fuels. But the developers plan to expand CAMP to cover the entire Americas, with all of North America coming in phase two. If resources allow, the development team hopes to expand the project globally.

This is an invaluable resource, as it makes the connection clear between the agreed-upon global climate goals and the fossil fuels we need to keep in the ground. CAMP also makes it clear that the huge valuations in most fossil fuels companies are based on false promises. There is no way we can drill or mine all of that oil, gas and coal. If we do, we'll face certain economic disaster from climate change, which would also hurt these very companies.

This is why the divestment movement is calling on more institutions to avoid this risk -- and pull their money from fossil fuel companies.

Thankfully, an entire movement has emerged focused on this sole goal: to keep it in the ground.

“Anyone who does the math of climate change knows we need to keep most fossil fuel underground,” Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, said in a press statement. This past February, 350.org joined with other environmental groups and several members of Congress to introduce an aptly titled Keep It In the Ground Act, which would prohibit new leases for coal, oil and gas on all United States federal lands and waters.

“We have a concrete plan to help meet the climate goals set in Paris and accelerate our transition onto clean, renewable energy," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune in a press statement. "We should seize this opportunity, and lead the world in the fight against climate disruption by keeping dirty fuels where they belong -- in the ground."

With CAMP, the increasing data connecting this year's record warmth to climate change, and the Paris Agreement, we really have no excuse anymore. It's time to commit -- nationally and globally -- to #KeepItInTheGround.

Image credit: Nestor Galina via Wikimedia Commons, Screenshot from Public Political Ecology Lab

Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia now have laws on the books that legalize marijuana in some form. Most regulate consumption of marijuana for medical needs; only Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington have legalized pot for recreational use. Despite the fact that many local law enforcement officials believe any focus on marijuana prevents them from working on more pressing community needs, ingesting cannabis in any form is still a crime under federal law.

Marijuana use is still an offense within the world of professional sports; just about every professional league or athletics association says cannabis is a no-no under their blanket policies related to drug use. The absurdity reached a fever pitch during the 1998 Winter Olympic Games in Nagano, Japan, when snowboarder Ross Rebagliati of Canada almost lost his gold medal because he tested positive for marijuana use. Rebagliati kept his medal, but he was not allowed to enter the U.S. for years because of his affinity for pot.

While the world tut-tutted, some observers sneered that telling snowboarders to avoid pot was akin to lecturing surfers to avoid waves; others wondered what the point was of banning a substance that in many cases would have no effect on, or may even impede, athletic performance rather than improve it. Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 88,000 Americans die annually due to alcohol abuse — but no one has ever been suspended after testing positive for downing a few cold ones before a match. Such a rule would infuriate the likes of AB Inbev, as its iconic brand, Budweiser, is a sponsor of many a sporting event.

Rebagliati now wants to sell medical marijuana in Canada, and he's speaking out aggressively after being shamed into silence for years. And south of the border, another star athlete, once highly touted then widely mocked, also wants the sporting world -- and society at large -- to accept cannabis for what he and his allies say are its health benefits.

Ricky Williams was a standout at the University of Texas, where he won the Heisman Trophy in 1998. Legendary coach Mike Ditka traded all of the New Orleans’ Saints 1999 draft picks to select Williams in that year’s National Football League draft. Williams had some success in New Orleans, but was traded to the Miami Dolphins after a few years. Then in 2004, Williams tested positive for marijuana, for which he was suspended from play and paid a massive fine. Rumored to have failed another test, he retired later that year. Williams spent a year out of the NFL, enrolled in an ayurvedic medical course in California and traveled the world. He eventually returned, got caught again, was suspended for year, then eventually played football in Canada and again for the Baltimore Ravens before retiring for good in 2012.

Despite his muscular build, clean-cut looks and overall appearance that hardly imparts that he is a “stoner,”  columnists and Internet trolls alike have ridiculed his marijuana use for years.

Williams has been quoted in the media time and again saying that marijuana helped him cope with depression, social anxiety disorder and the physical pain resulting from playing football. And now he is seeking to make marijuana use mainstream for athletes, and in reality, anyone.

First, Williams has become the spokesman for the Four-Twenty Games, a series of athletic events due to relaunch this summer that will strive to prove that marijuana users are not the stereotypical flannel-wearing stoners who are lazy and unmotivated. The organizers of these events, who started with a small gathering in 2014 that attracted 200 people, say they will bring as many as 10,000 participants to six cities in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington.

In addition, Williams also partnered with another investor, Jim McAlpine, to open what this group describes as the world’s “First Cannabis Gym” in San Francisco. Scheduled to open this autumn, Power Plant Fitness will integrate athletic workouts with mind training and well being. Members will be permitted to consume marijuana in any form during their workouts. The gym’s staff will also offer a product line of “athletic edibles” for both exercise preparation and post-workout physical recovery.

To that end, writer Joel Warner called out the NFL for its puritanism (and the kerfuffle over draft pick Laremy Tunsil’s apparent loss of $8 million after a video clip of him wielding a bong hit Twitter), while praising Williams as staying true to himself and opening a venue where those who use marijuana can feel welcome, not ostracized.

So will this gym be, pardon the pun, a hit? The world of athletics has long been one riddled with hypocrisy, as its ambassadors tout patriotism, clean living and on-field heroics while glossing over life-threatening injuries, numerous individual bankruptcies, the emotional blackmailing of cities so that they will publicly fund underused stadiums, and domestic violence.

But attitudes are changing. Even politicians have realized that the obsession with criminalizing a plant has caused society more grief than gain. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who has long ditched the Republicans and could be a factor in this year’s presidential race as a Libertarian candidate, boasted about his investments in -- and consumption of -- marijuana. We have come a long way from the days when Hillary Clinton’s husband told the world he “didn’t inhale.” To many cannabis users, it is now time for professional sports to grow up, too.

Image credit: Four-Twenty Games

The National Academy of Sciences has some conclusions to share about genetically-engineered foods -- 420 pages worth. And no matter which side of the fence you stand on when it comes to this divisive topic, you probably aren't going to like what the nonprofit has to say.

The report, Genetically Engineered Organisms: Experiences and Prospects, was released last week online amid a flurry of news articles that attempted to breathlessly summarize the findings in a few short sentences. Some expressed disappointment in the authors' inconclusive findings; many others attempted to pin a final yea-or-nay viewpoint on the Academy's nine-chapter investigation.

But it seems reasonable to assume, with a title that takes neither side captive, that wasn't the intent of the Academy's report.

Too often, scientific analysis gets boiled down to a for-or-against summary. And no subject more exemplifies that fallacy, says the Academy, than the GMO debate. Determining whether herbicide resistant (HR) crops have a place in the production of the world's major food sources -- and whether science can actually increase yields by modifying the way that insects respond to the crop and reducing the growth of weeds -- deserves a balanced answer that is based on clinical results, the authors said.

But avoiding simple conclusions, it would seem, is harder than it looks. In the report's chapter on agronomic effects of genetically-engineered (GE) crops, the authors pointed out that after over 20 years of genetic engineering, scientists still aren't really sure whether HR technology actually helps reduce the amount of herbicide that is needed in a farmer's field. Results from previous studies varied from year to year, the authors determined, and researchers zeroed-in on that point when they published their conclusions.

Rather than conclude that the earlier data suggested GE technology might not be as helpful as proponents suggest and that this finding had valuable worth, the National Academy authors criticized prior researchers for publishing inconclusive findings. "Researchers should be discouraged," the authors recommended, "from simply publishing the total number of kilograms of herbicide used per hectare per year because such data can mislead readers." The authors did not suggest how researchers should determine whether the claims of the product (which includes reducing the amount of herbicide) should be investigated.

For those readers who felt that the country's flagship science academy would be able to drill down and find conclusive evidence as to whether GE technology contributes to health problems like cancer, diabetes, food allergies or obesity, they will be disappointed. The authors note at outset of this topic that "there are limits to what can be known of the health effects of any food." This is a significant divergence from the position that the GE industry has taken, which tries to point to the lack of a verifiable link between rising cancer rates and two decades of GMO production.

But apart from this caveat, the report appears to be more focused on reassuring readers against the ill effects of GE technology than asking probing questions that have, so far, not been asked about the nation's health status.

And that is perhaps because delving beyond already published findings isn't the point of this report. The authors open by stating that they are following a standard research methodology that takes into account what was already published and experienced. Their job isn't to ask probing questions that haven't been asked, but to interview, compile, interpret and summarize for readers what has been already published.

That said, there's a benefit to the even-handed approach when it comes to controversial topics like this. It helps to remind both investigators and readers that there is always at least two sides to every story. And oftentimes, even when we don't expect it, there are two different results to a lab test. A summary suggesting that previous studies haven't found conclusive evidence that HR technology is harmful doesn't prove that it isn't. It just means that studies on GMO foods aren't conclusive, and the global scientific community has an opportunity -- and an obligation -- to prove that the technology is safe.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Cliff; 2) Flickr/Orin Hargraves

How many times do you smile on the way to work? Every day would be the answer if you rode the newly-released GenZe 2.0 all-electric scooter. It is zero-emissions fun.

The GenZe 2.0 is designed as a solution to urban pollution and gridlock. From Atlanta to Beijing, the world’s cities have hit the wall in terms of cramming more fossil-fueled vehicles into their borders. Sitting in traffic and blowing out fumes is now a high and unnecessary urban cost measured by lost human productivity and health impacts. The growing number of electric vehicles like the GenZe 2.0 offer cost-effective, and fun, solutions.

Made in America for Americans

I test-drove the GenZe 2.0 at ScooterWest to gauge if Americans are really ready for electric scooters. One thing this vehicle has going for it is that it is manufactured in Michigan. The design is rock solid built around a cast aluminum frame. The GenZe 2.0 boasts large suspension springs and substantial tires. It’s not a Harley or a full-size pick-up, but there is nothing wimpy about this machine’s design and construction.

The GenZe 2.0 also addresses the American need to haul a lot of stuff. Its best-in-class, 75-pound payload storage bay is what drew me to test-drive it. A backpack loaded with computer gear easily fits inside the storage area located behind the seat. Or you can load two carry bags of groceries. The GenZe 2.0 is the pick-up truck of scooters.

Cool with a purpose

Cool with a purpose defines the millennial generation. It also defines what sells in terms of green products. The GenZe 2.0 is definitely cool with a purpose.

Just starting it is cool. The scooter is operated through a touchscreen pad on the handle bar. You punch in a personal code to access the scooter just like you would your smartphone. The display provides a digital dashboard and a digital owners manual. And, of course, there's an app to access the scooter remotely. Everything you need to know about, or do, with this scooter is digitally accessed.

The GenZe 2.0’s obvious purpose is to provide low-cost, zero-emissions transportation. This scooter costs less than $3,000, or a tenth of the average retail price for a car. And it costs about 17 cents using California’s high electricity rates for a 30-mile trip. Insurance is only a couple of hundred dollars a year. In short: The GenZe 2.0 is a zero-emission, cost-effective solution for urban trips.

Electric fueling is plug-and-play easy

Let’s face it, fueling an electric car can be a pain. Finding a recharging station often ranges from an inconvenience to a challenge. Recharging often takes more time than we Americans want to spend.

I love the GenZe 2.0’s solution. The battery pack can be easily unlocked from the frame. It is the size and weight of a heavy briefcase. Recharging it is as simple as carrying it to a standard 110-volt outlet. It only takes about an hour and a half to fully recharge. I can image those who use the GenZe 2.0 for daily commuting will just walk their battery inside their work location and plug it into an electrical outlet. When the work day is over, they will carry the battery back to the scooter, insert the fully-charged battery and take off.

GenZe limitations

The GenZe 2.0's obvious limitation is the idea of riding a scooter. We like our vehicles large and enclosed. We like them fast. And we like a driving range that is longer than our bladders can last after drinking a Big Gulp. So, our inherent biases will be the biggest limitation to GenZe 2.0 sales.

That’s too bad, because it's is a fun way to get around town. I had a blast riding it around San Diego. I felt safe. The GenZe 2.0 is a very stable platform. The ride is comfortable. Even riding it on San Diego’s infamous pot-holed streets was not uncomfortable. There is no gear shifting. Just turn the throttle and smile. This clumsy old economist never felt like I was going to fall off. I am probably safer riding the GenZe 2.0 than my mountain bike.

But the GenZe 2.0 does have significant negatives. It does not protect the driver from inclement weather. Plus it only has a 30-mile battery range, and 30 miles per hour is the top speed.

The GenZe 2.0 is perfect for short urban commutes on nice days. For a town like San Diego, the GenZe 2.0 is a breakthrough in urban transportation. If you live in Detroit, it will be a fun way to do urban trips for about half the year.

GenZe 2.0 and smart cities

Cities across the nation and around the world are "defaulting to green" to achieve cleaner air and gain competitive efficiencies. The push toward smart cities is based on integrating renewable energy, artificial intelligence and Internet-of-Things technologies to accelerate economic growth while reducing environmental impacts on human health.

The GenZe 2.0 is part of this smart-city tech revolution. Its zero emissions obviously align with smart-city goals. So does its ability to move people with a lower space footprint. It is an enabling technology that will fit inside community-scale tech systems that move people efficiently and cleanly. And the fact that those who use the GenZe 2.0 will be smiling and having fun is the definition of cool with a purpose.

Image credits: Bill Roth

While Brazil attracts attention for the social, political and public-health chaos it faces with only two months to go before the 2016 Summer Olympics, France is also seeing its share of struggles. After several months of tense labor negotiations and job walkouts, massive strikes have swept across the country in response to proposed changes in labor laws.

Conflict between labor unions and the French government accelerated last week when workers at refineries walked off their jobs -- and were soon joined by nuclear power plant employees. Clashes between striking workers and police continued into this week, with rail workers joining the fray yesterday. Air France pilots also say they will soon join the strike.

The conflict has split French society, with a slight plurality of 46 percent polled in a recent survey saying they want the reforms withdrawn. And, as is the case in Brazil, the timing could not be worse as France is set to host Euro 2016, one of the world’s most popular global soccer tournaments, in less than two weeks.

At the core of this dispute is President François Hollande and his administration’s proposal to reform France’s labor laws, which the government says will give businesses more flexibility in negotiating with employees on pay and job benefits. Analysts have long insisted that France’s labor laws, which make it almost impossible to fire workers, have contributed to the country’s persistent unemployment rate — one that more than doubles that of neighboring Germany. The country’s rigid regulations applied to the workplace have long been faulted for France’s almost non-existent labor mobility, which in turn contributes to a youth unemployment rate that stubbornly fluctuates between 20 and 25 percent.

The argument is that by making it extremely difficult to get rid of deadbeat workers and hire younger workers who are hungry and therefore could be more productive on the job, the result has been an economy that has long staggered. The difficulty many young French citizens face in finding gainful employment contributed to the riots over a decade ago in the economically depressed banlieues surrounding Paris. France’s then-Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, however, branded the rioters (many of whom were ethnic minorities of Middle Eastern or African descent), as violent “scum” who were part of a “thugocracy.” The riots were eventually quelled, which is in part why Sarkozy was elected France’s 23rd president in 2007 as he was seen a leader who could get things done.

But Sarkozy was judged by many French as unlikeable and indecisive, and he lost his re-election bid to the milquetoast Hollande in 2012. In almost no time, after fumbling on policies and in his personal life, Hollande became deeply unpopular. With another election approaching next year and France’s economic performance still sputtering, Hollande has been forced to backtrack on policies long held sacred by his Socialist party. In addition to nixing his budget plan to hike taxes on businesses and the country’s wealthiest, labor market reform is now on the table.

But France’s powerful labor unions are not having it. Their leaders say the new law will dismantle French workers’ job security without any guarantee that the unemployment rate will fall. The 35-hour work week, which the Hollande administration wants to adjust when businesses face an extraordinary need, has been sacrosanct since it was implemented in 2000, and previous attempts to modify it have failed.

The French have long been dismissed by much of the working world as “having it easy.” But as a BBC analysis infers, the truth is nuanced. Workers who agree to longer workweeks can score even shorter workweeks in return. French workers on average make slightly more money than their German counterparts, but far less than British employees. For those who have jobs, the current workplace protections are seen as rights they have earned. But for the unemployed, especially youth, France’s byzantine labor code is getting in the way of the chance to build for a future, as companies are generally skittish of bringing on more employees if, in the end, they prove to be nearly impossible to fire.

The law will also be a test for French companies, which have long grappled with the perception that they are are not nearly as competitive in North America, Britain, Germany or Asia. France holds its own when it comes to grooming future business leaders, and its largest firms, such as Total in the energy sector, have thrived as they have invested across the globe. Total is also one example of a company that boasts about its employees’ working conditions, which of course are in part possible due to France’s labor code.

If the labor law does change, even in a form vastly different from the one that Hollande proposed, these companies will have a lot on their plate as they seek to convince citizens that they can still be trusted. Like many workers abroad, France’s citizens feel the deck is stacked against them in a world where solid middle-class jobs are becoming increasingly hard to find.

Image credit: Olivier Ortelpa/Wiki Commons

By Steven Page

Volunteer engagement is an ever-changing field. It no longer makes sense for nonprofits to simply take whoever wants to volunteer. In order to actually grow your organization, you want to make sure you choose qualified volunteers with special skills that can be utilized. Don’t be afraid to say “no” when someone is not the right fit for your organization.

How do you know if they are the right fit?

Set your expectations early on and write clear position descriptions the same way you would for any job, so they know what they are getting into from the beginning.

More and more, especially in the millennial generation, people are choosing to volunteer at organizations where they can use their specialized skills rather than just finding a cause that interests them. They want to feel like they are doing something useful and valuable with their time. Giving volunteers options for skilled positions has become one of the key differentiators for successful nonprofits.

In the position description it is important to let prospective volunteers know:

• What skills are desired


• What training is needed


• What time commitment you are looking for

Many organizations receive emails or get people who come to their offices interested in volunteering. The organization will then try and find a place for them. This passive approach works in some cases, but it is much more effective if you proactively reach out for qualified candidates. Not only will you be able to specify and select candidates for exactly what you need, but you’ll be saving your organization a lot of time and headaches down the road.

Reaching and recruiting volunteers

Volunteers can really help your organization grow year after year. The key is keeping your volunteers engaged once you have clearly identified the roles they will be assigned.

How do you best do that?

You need to create a strategic plan for your volunteer program, which will initially take some of your resources—the biggest of which being time. Dedicating a few hours to nailing down the ways in which volunteers can serve your organization is necessary for success.

Your organization should also set up a time for volunteer appreciation activities such as managing and mentoring them, as well as volunteer-specific events. Don’t just let them come in and give them a little wave. A volunteer who feels under-appreciated will most likely leave, putting you back at square one. Bringing on volunteers and expecting them to fill gaps rarely works, so be sure to show them how much you care.

The most under-utilized way to recruit volunteers is word-of-mouth

Whether or not they are current volunteers, supporters of your organization should be able to serve as brand ambassadors to talk about the great work you are doing and the impact that you are having. Positive word-of-mouth will inspire other people who want to get involved and give back. And remember, a really good volunteer experience goes a long way. If people have a negative experience with you, they are going to talk about it. If they have a positive experience they are going to talk about it as well.

As in person, online word-of-mouth is powerful—perhaps even more powerful—as it will live online for all to see. Encourage volunteers and supporters to share your message, volunteer programs, videos, and photos on social media. The more supporters you have, the larger the network your organization will reach.

Importance of mobile in recruiting volunteers

More than 71 percent of people use mobile to access social media. So the messaging, online forms, and website your supporters share will be seen by the majority of people that are on mobile.

When a person clicks to donate, register for an event, or wants to sign up to volunteer, you don’t want them to have a poor mobile experience. This creates a barrier and will likely cause them to leave your form or website and lose interest, causing you to run the risk of losing that contact forever.

To overcome this obstacle, be sure that your website and online forms are mobile-friendly. This gives potential volunteers a great mobile experience and creates an increase in form submissions, creating a positive start to their impression of your organization.

If you are looking to find more volunteers, check out Taproot Foundation, WomenOnCall, VolunteerMatch and Catchafire.

Partnering with for-profit corporations

It is becoming more and more of a trend for companies to give back in more ways than just writing a check to a nonprofit. Businesses are seeing the benefits of encouraging their employees to volunteer at different kinds of fundraising events.

Benefits include:

• Team building


• Skills development


• A positive workplace experience

More and more companies are reaching out to nonprofits to form partnerships, host volunteer events, and even set up volunteer grant programs. This a huge benefit to both parties but it is also takes a lot of work.

Quick tips for partnering with corporations:

• Be sure you have the capacity to support the program


• Meet with the company ahead of time


• Lay out the groundwork for what’s going to happen


• Ensure partner expectations are clear


• Make sure you have a backup plan (for low turnout, weather, etc.)

Here are seven companies that make employee volunteering a priority.

Truths about volunteering

The importance of planning your volunteer program ahead of time, showing volunteer appreciation, and empowering your volunteers to share your message can’t be stressed enough. You must equip them with knowledge and talking points but also make sure that you are creating positive experiences that they’ll want to share.

Remember these key points:

• Creating a volunteer strategy ensures that you set yourself up for success


• A healthy base of volunteers will accelerate all aspects of your mission


• Effective nonprofits recognize volunteers and highlight the importance of their impact


• Volunteers with great experiences are likely to become long-term advocates and donors

That last point is very important. Too many nonprofits put volunteers and donors into two separate silos, when the reality is that there’s a huge potential for overlap. People who volunteer with an organization are far more likely to donate when asked than people who haven’t volunteered, meaning a positive volunteer experience is even more important to your organization as it has the added benefit of helping you grow your donor base.

When someone supports your organization they support it because your mission resonates with them, meaning they are going to want to help in any way they can. The main motivator that makes a volunteer choose your organization over another is their passion about your cause. Keep this in mind as you are planning your volunteer outreach and experience, and be sure to let them know just how important they are!

Image credit: Flickr/Daniel Thornton

Steve Page is a marketer and webmaster for MobileCause, the world’s leading mobile and online fundraising platform. Follow MobileCause on Facebook or Twitter.

By Drew Bonfiglio

The word and concept of leadership is hard to nail down, much-less the practice in today's ever-evolving, increasingly purpose-driven workplace.

In 0.51 seconds, Google found 751,000,000 results for the word “leadership." The Wikipedia page for leadership has 99 reference notes. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

There exist authoritative, democratic, delegative, collaborative, authentic, coaching, coercive, pace setting, idealistic, pragmatic and -- in my words -- responsible leaders. The purpose of this post is to help you, whatever kind of leader you are, not feel overwhelmed, but to just consider a few simple ways you can better lead a purpose-driven workforce.

The modern day workplace is being inundated with millennials who see a gap between what business’ purpose should be and what it is perceived to be. Being a leader in this changing environment is not a simple task. You can position yourself for a better shot at success by considering the following:

1. Value your purpose-oriented employees

These are the people who are really invested in what your organization is doing. Your business is their “why." Recognize, reward, encourage, and invest in them. It will pay off. NYU and Imperative recently produced a study of the U.S. workforce and found that purpose-oriented employees have a 20 percent longer tenure and are 47 percent more likely to be promoters of their employers than peers.

28 percent of the 150 million-member U.S. workforce defines the role of work in their lives primarily as a source of personal fulfillment and a way to help others. These purpose-oriented workers, roughly 42 million strong, not only seek out purpose in their work, they create it and as a result, outperform the rest of the workforce.

2. Be honest with yourself about the organization’s priorities

If you look at this 2x2 and are honest with yourself, where would you put your company? Your ability to successfully lead a team and retain purpose-driven talent depends on the organization’s profile as well as your leadership and managerial skills. If you find yourself on the left side, bottom half, or both, it’s time to think about whether or not your organization is actually purpose-driven or just giving lip service. Stay tuned for future posts on the 15 tensions of the modern day workplace where I’ll get into these and more.

3. Don’t get caught in the “millennials trap”

There are lots of people -- millennials and otherwise -- who care deeply about finding meaning at work and the company’s investment in them, the community, and the environment. The NYU/Imperative study found that people over 55 are more likely to be purpose-oriented. Other studies have show millennials may care more. Just because we talk more about purpose more as it pertains to young people, we would be making a huge mistake to forget about the other around two-thirds of the workforce who are not millennials. I talk more about how to leverage this group here.

4. Invest in manager-employee relationships

If you’re a manager, the level of employee engagement is highly dictated by you. Gallup found that 70 percent of employee engagement variance was driven by an individual’s direct manager. There is a long conversation to be had about how to do this. For now, awareness is the first step. If you manage people, you matter. A lot. And even more in a purpose-driven organization. Imagine a project or even personal value that you are incredibly passionate about. Now imagine that your boss doesn’t “get it” at all. You feel like you’re running uphill every day. Eventually you get tired and start looking for an easier jog. Don't increase the incline for your team members.

Bonus: If you’re thinking even further ahead, check out this blog from one of Emzingo’s interns about Gen Z.

5. Make the connection between every job and the company’s purpose explicit and visible

How does the average employee know how her/his job is related to the overarching purpose of the company?

Let’s start simple. Tell them. Make it obvious. Emphasize it in onboarding like Zappos. Share success stories from the field by highlighting success stories in staff meetings. You may find some additional inspiration from the CEO of RedHat. Just don’t assume that people will get it.

These isn't a magic bullet to make an individual a superb leader of purpose-driven employees. You can, however, start to move the needle with these few simple steps.

Images courtesy of Emzingo

Drew Bonfiglio is co-founder and managing partner of Emzingo. Born in Jamestown, New York, Andrew has had the opportunity to live and work on 5 continents. During this time, he discovered his motivation and energy come from improving processes, and working in teams with inspiring people. He is obsessed with unlocking potential in individuals and businesses. At Emzingo, aside from managing the internal processes he supports Field Partner Development and Curriculum Design. Andrew graduated from Cornell’s College of Engineering and holds an MBA from IE Business School in Madrid.

The 5^th GRI Global Conference 2016, held in Amsterdam 18- 20 May, convened 1,500 sustainability leaders to exchange information about best practices, innovation, and trends. Alyson Slater, head of GRI’s Knowledge Unit, outlines the mission behind the event. Interview by Kelly Eisenhardt.

KE: Sustainability issues are not just limited to GHG-emissions and water use. What are some of GRI’s priority program areas and what outcomes do they generate?

AS: There are many priorities for GRI to focus on these days. It’s important that GRI concentrate on what is most material to the companies and stakeholders that participate including investor communities. New factors such as the Paris climate deal and the release of the UN Sustainable Development Goals make materiality and the alignment of resources and priorities critical.

Prioritizing enables us to understand how to push the needle forward on megatrends like climate change and human rights.

With access to so much data, we want to decipher how data can be unlocked and used to better assess risk management, improve strategies, increase stakeholder relations, and enhance company performance.

KE: In what ways did the GRI Global Conference 2016 showcase the full spectrum of sustainability issues, particularly in relation to the UN SDGs?

AS: Companies are grappling with so many emerging issues. The challenge in front of us is to determine what role businesses play in supporting the UN SDGs. Most businesses are unsure of how they can contribute in a tangible way and what role they might play. This causes hesitation and uncertainty when deciding to contribute their resources to achieving the goals.

We need to help companies define how the goals relate to their business. We suggest a company begin by peering down their supply chain to determine the conditions and sourcing of how their products are made. It is important to understand each level of the supply chain and the practices instituted.

When considering a major food producer or retailer, it is likely that you will find women who are working in fields and factories. Many times, there is a struggle with labor conditions, pay equality, and access to education. More often than not, these women are supporting families and lack the opportunities to advance themselves and by default their families.

When matching up the SDG with the issues, we see that the goals that align most are SDG number 5 for gender equality and SDG number 8 regarding decent work.

It’s important that GRI help companies understand their value chain from a sustainability perspective. Along the value chain there are risks and impacts. Those risks and impacts are where GRI can raise awareness and provide tools so that businesses can address the concerns fully.

At the conference, we conducted deep dives with attendees on topics like supply chain management and sourcing, gender equality, anti-corruption, land tenure, and human rights to name only a few.

KE: This was the 5th GRI Global Conference. Each one has had a different theme that reflected the current state of sustainability. This year's theme is Empowering Sustainable Decisions. What does that say about where we are now?

AS: Front and center is the need for alignment with the Paris agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It is a massive undertaking for the public, private, and governmental sectors to interpret the requirements and build actionable and measurable plans to support them.

We lined up the most inspirational speakers for the conference. Our plan was to provide spaces and opportunities for attendees to work together and inspire one another. The freedom to share not only best practices but real and true challenges faced by each company will be the biggest takeaway benefit for attendees.