The Volunteer Issue e must never lose sight of the fact that volunteers are not an interruption of our work,but rather our partners in accomplishing it.

W

While perhaps an obvious sentiment, I think it’s a worthwhile reminder that our sector cannot function without them: we need volunteers to run programs and deliver services; we need them to help us fundraise and generate revenue; and we need them to govern our organizations as board members. We turn our attention in this edition of Philanthropic Trends Quarterly to volunteers, with a particular focus on the areas of governance and fundraising. We do so not only because of their importance, but also because we are finding ourselves more and more often working with our clients in areas related to their volunteers. Whether developing a volunteer structure for their campaigns, coaching them on how to create volunteer impact or reviewing their governance mandate, we are seeing that this is an area of much growth and change. And what are volunteers looking for in their involvement with non-profit organizations? Clues to answering that question can be found by understanding why volunteers stop volunteering! The Volunteer Management Capacity Study, which was conducted in the US by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Urban Institute and the UPS Foundation uncovered five main reasons: • Not Matching Volunteers’ Skills with Assignments • Failing to Recognize Volunteers’ Contributions • Not Measuring the Value of Volunteers • Failing to Train and Invest in Volunteers

• Staff Failing to Provide Strong Leadership

volunteers to the level of true partnership.

These findings are a wakeup call for the sector. As you will see in this edition, volunteers are taking their roles very seriously and we need to respond in kind. We have to be very strategic about our volunteers – how we recruit them, how we make use of their contributions of time and skill, and, how we recognize and steward them. And as you will also see, leading organizations not only do all of that, they have also taken their relationship with their

Hope you find lots of food for thought in this edition…have a wonderful fall! Marnie Spears President and CEO

The evolving role of the volunteer T

he impact of volunteers in Canada is enormously telling!

first realistically assess what your needs are in both functions.

A 2009 report from Volunteer Canada estimates the contribution made by volunteers to the Canadian economy to be 2 billion volunteer hours per year. Citing the National Survey of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Organizations (NSNVO), the report states that the majority (54%) of the organizations that make up the non-profit and voluntary sector are operated entirely by volunteers. In addition, almost 12 million Canadians (or 45% of the population aged 15 years and older) report that they volunteer. And the economic value of this contribution? Statistics Canada places it at around $14 billion dollars!

Based on his observations and experience in his 25 years in the business, Innes van Nostrand, Vice Principal, Upper Canada College, describes what he believes are three phases of evolution with respect to involvement of volunteers in fundraising. “Each stage has its own set of characteristics that prescribe the model for volunteer involvement best suited to a particular organization,” says van Nostrand “and it behooves all organizations to understand their particular situation when determining the best way to involve volunteers in activities.”

No one size fits all When it comes to models and structures related to volunteer management, there is no one size fits all. In order to determine the governance and fundraising structures that are best for your organization, it is critical to

2

FALL 2010

In Phase 1, the “Inception Phase”, organizations are in “start up mode” with very little, if any, development staff. As a result, the organization relies heavily on volunteers, who do the bulk, if not all, of the fundraising for the organization. Phase 2 could be classified as the “Small

Shop Phase”, where the organization has grown to having staff involved in fundraising. This is also when the organization probably begins to develop its major gift fundraising or when it undertakes its first capital campaign. However, volunteers are still generally the primary “fundraisers” involved in solicitation. And finally, the “Mature Phase”, where the fundraising approach tends to be much more staff-driven and professional staff, including senior institutional leadership, play a much more significant role. Even at this stage, charities strive to find the right balance of volunteer involvement, and it is not uncommon for them to shift back and forth based on calibre of the available volunteer pool, attitudes of the CEO, and relationships with the donors. Role clarity This model aptly illustrates that volunteer requirements change as organizations grow and evolve. But, regardless of the phase in

Unfortunately, a 2009 study by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Ohio University found this is often not the case. Their survey of 219 CEOs and 249 board members shows that role ambiguity is still commonplace in the non-profit sector and most board members receive neither training nor feedback about their activities. This lack of information leads to confusion about what their role is, which in turn dampens their commitment to the board. Some of this role ambiguity is undoubtedly driven by fear that too much transparency will negatively impact the organization’s ability to recruit volunteers, particularly if the role involves raising money. But, the experience of the Toronto General & Western Hospital Foundation proves this doesn’t have to be the case. When recruiting new members to its board, the Foundation is very clear about the role that board members are expected to play. And it’s a big role. In addition to activities related to governance, every Foundation board member is actively involved in fundraising for the Hospital. “UHN completed its last ‘campaign’ five years ago and since then has run a series of ‘mini-campaigns’ to support hospital projects and priorities. As volunteers join the board, they are asked to select a project for which they can help raise funds,” says Tennys Hanson, President & CEO. And if you’re thinking that they must have a hard time recruiting board members, you’d be wrong. “We actually now have more candidates than board positions,” says Hanson. An enviable position for any organization to be in, let alone one whose primary mandate is to raise funds! The TGWH Foundation also makes no apology for the high level of expectation it has of its board members, citing that it is needed in order for it to be the best organization it can be. But it’s important to note that this orientation is backed up by the high degree of professionalism with which the organization

“

...attention on accountability has translated into an even stronger sense of responsibility on the part of board members. They are asking tougher questions of management and want to understand all relevant aspects of the organization and its decisions...

“

which your organization finds itself, one thing is vital – clarity about the role you want volunteers to play.

is run. And this level of professionalism is becoming essential throughout the sector, as volunteers are taking their roles much more seriously than in the past. “There has been so much scrutiny and conversation of late related to accountability in the non-profit sector,” says Ruth Armstrong, Founder of VISION Management Services and Adjunct Faculty Member at York University’s Schulich School of Business, MBA Program, where she teaches non-profit governance and accountability. “All this attention on accountability has translated into an even stronger sense of

responsibility on the part of board members. They are asking tougher questions of management and want to understand all relevant aspects of the organization and its decisions.” One of the most senior and well respected businessmen and volunteers in Montreal confirms that assessment. Norman Hébert is President of Park Avenue Group and Chairman of Societé des Alcools in his professional life. But his volunteer career has been equally illustrious. He is currently a member of Concordia University’s Board of Governors , the Advisory Board of the John Molson School of Business, Campaign Cabinet Member of IRCM Foundation and Campaign Co-Chair of both the CharlesLeMoyne Hospital Foundation and the 2010 Centraide Montreal Campaign. “Over the years, I have noticed a change in the way volunteers approach their roles as well as how they choose the organizations that they want to be involved with,” Hébert says. “Before people agree to volunteer, they do their due diligence by asking questions about the organization’s strategy, budget, governance model and reputation.” He goes on to say that in his experience with volunteer recruitment, success is two-thirds preparation and one third execution. So it is absolutely critical for organizations to ensure that their “house is in order” before approaching prospective volunteers to request their involvement. Investing and measuring value In addition to role clarity, another characteristic of best in class organizations is recognizing volunteers as strategic assets that require care, nurturing and investment in order to make the most of what they bring to the table. And maximizing that investment starts with the approach taken to recruitment and nominations. Unfortunately, our experience confirms that without a thoughtful recruitment strategy matched to overall organizational needs, organizations can become burdened by an ineffectual team of volunteers. The Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre Foundation in Halifax is a case study in best practice when it comes to the

FALL 2010

3

How organizations are using volunteers in fundraising Volunteers continue to be How are you currently using volunteers in fundraising? heavily involved with the fundraising activities of charitable Identifying prospects 74 % organizations. The results of a Opening doors spring 2010 KCI poll conduct88 % to prospects ed among a cross-section of Prospective donor 76 % clients revealed that the most cultivation activities common use of volunteers in Solicitation activities 70 % fundraising continues to be Stewardship 64 % ‘opening doors to prospects’ activities with 88% of respondents indi12 % Other cating that they engage their volunteers in this activity. A 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 20 % 0% majority also use volunteers to identify prospects (74%), cultivate which volunteers are least often involved, prospects (76%) and solicit prospects but still 64% of respondents were using (70%). Stewardship was the activity in volunteers in this way.

process it follows to recruit new volunteers. “We are now spending much more time on our nominating process with careful consideration paid to the skill sets and demographics that we need around our Board table,” says Bill Bean, President and CEO. In some instances, their recommendations involve a fairly long time horizon in their deliberations. “We approach board recruitment similarly to how we think about donors,” Bean says. “We identify candidates and, in some cases, enter into a long term cultivation strategy before inviting them to become a member.” While a significant investment of time is required to make this strategy work, Bean believes it is critical to organizational success. Of course, when an investment is made, smart organizations set up processes to measure the return they are getting on that investment. And key to that is measuring performance. More and more organizations are beginning to develop performance measurement programs for their volunteers, aligned with ones that are created for staff.

Marnie A. Spears President and CEO

Nicole Nakoneshny Senior Consultant & Editor, Philanthropic Trends Quarterly

Volunteers, whether board or fundraising, should be taken through an exercise to identify their annual goals and objectives as well as the accompanying metrics that will be used to measure progress. Some organizations are considering the development of individual scorecards for each volunteer, which can include metrics like attendance, participation in special events, participation as a donor as well as number of potential donors identified and number of calls completed. Whatever metrics are chosen, the key is that they tie back to the role that the volunteer is playing for the organization. Power of partnership A trend that has been noted for many years is a shift to what has been termed ‘staffdriven’ fundraising. While there is no denying that professional fundraising staff play a much greater role in activities like cultivation, solicitation and stewardship than they used to, the movement now is toward a ‘partnership model’. While the staff-driven approach often saw volunteers take a sec-

ondary role in setting and executing strategy, the partnership model brings into balance the role that staff and volunteers play in accomplishing these activities. And many believe that this evolution will yield tremendous results. McMaster University’s recently completed ‘Campaign for McMaster University’, with its final achievement of $473 million on a $400 million goal, is a testament to the power of partnership between volunteers and staff. “There was a different tenor to the involvement of our volunteers in this campaign compared to our previous campaigns,”says Roger Trull, McMaster’s Vice President Advancement, “as our professional staff played a much bigger role than in the past, including a wider swath of our senior institutional leadership. But rather than simply utilizing volunteers as door-openers, we took a partnership-based approach to setting strategy. Working together in this way allowed us to harness the combined power of our professional staff’s skill and expertise with the knowledge and experience of our volunteers.” And as evidenced by the campaign’s final achievement, this tactic generated very strong results. Just as valuing donors for more than their money is critical to establishing a culture of philanthropy so, too, is viewing volunteers as organizational partners that require attention and investment. And no matter what stage of development your organization is in with respect to its volunteer needs, adopting this philosophy is guaranteed to reap you significant tangible impact.

Next issue: Watch for our next edition in early December that will focus on trends in communications.

Philanthropic Trends Quarterly© is published by KCI. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution without attribution is prohibited. Philanthropic Trends Quarterly© is intended to provide an anecdotal ‘snapshot’ of philanthropy in Canada. We hope it will serve as a useful overview for observers of the charitable and nonprofit scene. Aussi disponible en français. Illustrations by Rocco Baviera

214 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 508, TORONTO, ON M5H 3S6 t: 416.340.9710 f: 416.340.9755 e: [email protected] www.kciphilanthropy.com TORONTO OT TAWA MONTREAL CALGARY VA N CO U V E R H A L I FA X EDMONTON

2010: Issue 3

web content

. . . . . Trends in Governance Governance is a hot topic these days and many organizations are reviewing their governance model and board structure to ensure they are working as well as possible.

2010 Through her work with many public, private and non-profit organizations across Canada, Ruth Armstrong, founder of VISION Management Services, has a firsthand view of many of the emerging trends related to governance. KCI recently had the chance to speak with Ms. Armstrong and the following is a summary of some of the most notable trends that she sees in the non-profit sector. Governance model – According to Armstrong, Policy Governance is still the most popular model in Canada’s nonprofit sector. Also known as the Carver model, the defining characteristic of this model is the differentiation between the role of the board (governance) and the role of management (operations). The application of this philosophy and framework strives to keep the board’s focus at the strategic level of the organization. While the Carver model continues to be predominant, Armstrong notes there is growing interest in the “Governance as Leadership” concept. By thinking of the work of the board in three modes – fiduciary, strategic and generative – this concept reframes governance and leads to an evolution in thinking. Fiduciary duties and activities focus on “compliance” and embrace the familiar “board work” of financial oversight and legal responsibility. The strategic role focuses on organizational performance and direction setting. Activities falling into this category include problem solving and strategic thinking and planning. Finally, the generative role invites boards to partner with executives in framing problems and making sense of ambiguous situations, which in turn shape strategies, plans and decisions. Proponents of this concept maintain that by applying this approach, organizations will experience greater board engagement and more effective governance. Board Size – With respect to board size, Armstrong says that the trend is to smaller boards, noting that the average now seems to be between 12 and 16 members. Grant Thornton’s 2010 National Board Governance Survey for Notfor-Profit Organizations confirms these findings. While the most common board size from their study was between 16 and 30 (39% of respondents), a very close second is a board size of between 6 and 15 (37% of responses). Only 15% of organizations had a board size between 31 and 50, while a mere 5% indicated their boards had more than 50 members. cont’d

: Bullet

. . . . . How many directors/trustees serve on your board?

3% 6%

1-5

15%

6-15 37%

16-30 31-50 >50

39%

Source: Grant Thornton’s National Board Governance Survey for Not-for-Profit Organizations. While the trend is to smaller boards, KCI does continue to see organizations that purposefully choose to have large boards, which is often the case when the board plays a key role in fundraising. Committee Structure – Accompanying the trend to smaller boards is the tendency to have fewer standing committees. Instead, organizations are establishing more ad hoc task forces on an as needed basis. Armstrong believes that this trend is driven, at least partly, by the challenge of keeping board members engaged in standing committees that may or may not have a clear and critical function. “There is a definite desire on the part of savvy organizations to find ways to engage board members in meaningful activities,” says Armstrong, noting that the key word here is ‘meaningful’. “The work of a task force is to deal with emerging issues as requested by the board; this timelimited and well-defined work is often more meaningful to those involved due to the relevance and urgency of the subject being tackled.” The following results of the Grant Thornton Survey illustrate that the Executive Committee is the most common committee with 88% of respondents indicating its existence in their structure. Not surprisingly, committees related to finance and accounting were a close second with 83% indicating the existence of a Finance Committee and 65% indicating an Audit Committee (separate from Finance). Nominating (58%) and Development/Fundraising (55%) round out the Top 5 most common committees. cont’d

. . . . . Which of the following board committees does your organization have?*

88 %

Executive committee

83 %

Finance committee

65 %

Audit committee (separate from...

58 %

Nominating committee

55 %

Development/fundraising committee

42 %

Investment committee

39 %

Program committee

35 %

Compensation committee Strategic planning committee

32 %

Governance committee

31 %

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

*Respondents were able to select more than one answer Source: Grant Thornton’s National Board Governance Survey for Not-for-Profit Organizations. Complementing the move to fewer committees is the trend to fulfilling the fiduciary responsibilities in a more automatic way and doing more governance work as a committee of the whole. One of the ways in which boards are able to maintain their productivity despite these changes is by using a consent agenda. A consent agenda is the bundling up of items/reports into a package that can be voted on without discussion. It differentiates between routine matters not needing any dialogue and more complex issues needing examination. The main purpose of a consent agenda is to liberate board meetings from administrative details, routine information, and distractions. Consent agendas allow the board to regularly dig deeper into fewer strategic issues rather than superficially reviewing many issues.

2010: Issue 3

web content

. . . . . Campaign trends The involvement of volunteers in campaigns is an area that has shown a great deal of change over the last several years. The following is a summary of some of the trends noted by KCI along with some thoughts about the characteristics required to make them successful.

2010 : Bullet

Flatter Volunteer Structures – While there are still many examples of a traditional campaign structure being used in campaigns today (Cabinet, Lead Gifts Committee, Major Gifts Committee etc.), we are also seeing a number of non-traditional models. A defining characteristic of each of them is a flatter, less hierarchical structure. One example is the Executive Committee/Cabinet model. This model uses an Executive Committee, which is a core team of senior volunteers and staff, to oversee the management of the campaign and set its strategy. It usually consists of the Campaign Chair, CEOs and Board Chairs, (institution and foundation), senior fundraising staff and one or two other campaign volunteers. Standard protocol is to meet quarterly. The Cabinet in this model is usually a larger group of volunteers who are involved in prospect identification, cultivation and solicitation activities. The Cabinet generally meets only once or twice a year and the tone of the meeting is motivational instead of monitoring and reporting, activities which are generally done one-on-one by staff throughout the year. Another model gaining popularity is the Case Component Model, wherein the volunteer structure is organized according to case component. Under this model, there is usually an overall Campaign Chair as well as Chairs for each of the project components. In addition, the project components generally have teams of volunteers associated with them. This model is popular in situations where there are multiple campaign elements that have unique prospect bases for each. When using this model, prospect clearance needs to be very well managed. One area that hasn’t shown much change is the involvement of Honorary Chairs and Committees, an activity that is still very much in vogue. Organizations continue to find it helpful to involve certain volunteers in an honorary capacity and volunteers continue to be happy to be involved in this way. cont’d

. . . . . To Chair or not to Chair – Whereas in earlier years it would have been heresy to consider a campaign without a Chair, there are now numerous examples where this is precisely the case. While still not the first choice when it comes to executing campaigns, some organizations have successfully used this model when securing a Campaign Chair proved too challenging. This model tends to be very staff driven and requires a very strong and influential institutional CEO to be successful. The Co-Chair model, while not new, is growing in popularity. Organizations find recruitment less challenging under this model as it lightens the load for the volunteers and is a great way to reach out to different constituencies. A spinoff of this model is the idea of rotating campaign leadership, wherein different individuals take on the chairmanship of the campaign at different points in time. Involving the Board – While involving the board, both foundation and institution, is an increasingly popular method of engaging volunteers in fundraising between campaigns, we’ve also noted this trend during campaigns. Most often, this is the case with organizations that are either trying to build their major gifts prospect base from scratch or that are going into campaign for the second and third time. Whereas in the past, boards generally downloaded responsibility for the campaign to the campaign volunteers, there is now a push on the part of organizations to involve their boards in campaign fundraising in order to broaden the base of prospective donors. Less is more – This tendency holds true with respect to both meetings and information. More and more, volunteers are telling organizations that they don’t have the inclination or the time to participate in a lot of meetings or read emails with non-critical information. And so, models and tactics are being adjusted to accommodate this trend while still maximizing the involvement of the volunteer, including more one-on-one meetings with the volunteers to strategize their calls, provide them with coaching and monitor their activities. Standard protocol used to be to provide volunteers with as much information as possible about the organization, its needs and the campaign. Again, the trend is away from that philosophy and moving toward providing volunteers with succinct but valuable information, including the five or six key messages they need to know about the organization and its campaign.