.
Facilitation and Process, LLC is celebrating its first year anniversary as a consulting firm. Over the last year, I have had the privilege of working with clients from the social sector including: nonprofits, philanthropic organizations and government agencies. This year confirmed for me that “change” is the new normal for the social sector and that, for many organizations, the old tired solutions are no longer strategic and forward-thinking. Those contacting me over the last year have often expressed frustration that they have been to “the local workshops,” attended the right “networks” and have tried cookie cutter templates and yet their organizations are stagnant with their resources and impact continuing to erode. The clear and consistent message is that those organizations seeking to make a difference are ready for the fresh, imaginative and objective. There is a need for Strategic Facilitation. Strategic Process. Together.
.
The concept of facilitation and process was the genesis of my firm and during this first year my work with almost a dozen clients has made it increasingly clear that agencies need solutions in the space where nonprofits, philanthropic organizations and government agencies meet.
.
So as my firm moves into its second year, I have partnerships with many organizations in our community and my work has given me a clearer focus. When considering the local the social sector, the common challenge of nonprofits, philanthropic organizations and government agencies is not simply the need to operate more effectively in an environment of less. Rather, the social sector is being challenged to fundamentally rethink assumptions about theories of change, leverage and scale. At this moment in time, there is an unprecedented need for nonprofit, government, and philanthropic organizations to work differently to achieve a more sustainable and systemic impact on the compelling social needs in our community. In helping you to meet this need, Facilitation & Process, LLC is your partner. Creating a better tomorrow. Together.
.
Across the entire social sector, today’s strategy requires thinking differently and deeper. Expertise and experience. Strategic facilitation and strategic process. Facilitation & Process, offers leading-edge and future-oriented perspectives on social impact: vision, strategy, and leadership. As partners we offer you:
.
Facilitation Services: Fresh and imaginative strategic facilitation services blending a range of theoretical foundations customized and tailored to your needs.
.
Strategic Thinking: Leading-edge understanding and approaches to nonprofit strategy, collaboration, training, technical assistance and knowledge management.
.
Cross-Sector Experience: Clarity and objectivity direct from the social service sector though real-time relationships and experience with community, government, philanthropic, and nonprofit agencies and organizations.
.
Innovative Strategy planning and design services that are grounded on the frameworks of collaboration, social impact and social venture planning and rooted in theories of developmental evaluation, scale and replication.
.
In the coming weeks I will be relaunching Facilitation and Process, llc – Version 2.0. I will be re-introducing my firm as a local brand that you can trust. My website will be redesigned and my blog will shift its focus to developing themes related to the local social sector ecology. Expect us to begin to present survey work, analysis, and advocate for change. I’ll be launching a series of l learning webinars and an electronic newsletter. And, as in my first year of practice, you can always count on quality services. Customized approaches for your success. Tailored to your needs.
.
As always, your thoughts are welcome.
.
.
This post is one of a continuing series on strategic planning and is based on my work facilitating strategic planning with nonprofit agencies. In strategic planning one of my initial conversations with an agency executive director will invariably include a discussion about the use of the strategic plan following its development. The savvy executive director will describe the concrete ways in which the plan will be used to support agency governance. S/he will describe the use of performance measures connected to the plan goals and strategies and the specific tools that help the board and staff manage their progress on implementing the plan. More common however, the the executive director that laments how the exercise of strategic planning rarely impacts the agency in a deep and substantive way. In this scenario, I am often asked, “how can this strategic planning process be different?” In this post, I wanted to review the fundamentals of how use the process of strategic planning to increase organizational capacity.
.
The obvious direct impact of strategic planning is the written strategy that is created. At its most basic level in creation of a strategic plan is the DNA of capacity development. Done well, a strategic plan offers a roadmap for the growth and development of an organization. With intentional effort to keep the plan present and alive using simple performance monitoring tools, (like a dashboard or scorecard) an agency directly benefits from its investment in strategic planning. However, I believe the face value of a strategic plan is only the beginning of the use of a strategic plan. Some other layers of using strategic planning to build capacity include the following:
.
Board, Staff and Stakeholder Development: While textbook strategic planning can be a very pedestrian process of assessing the current internal and external environment, developing priorities and strategies, and writing a document, I believe the potential of strategic planning is to use the process to develop the energy, passion, skills and knowledge of board, staff and stakeholders. Strategic planning is about engagement and focus of people and not just about data. In planning a strategic planning effort, one of the framing questions should be “at the end of this process, how will out staff, board and stakeholders be different?” If this question is pursued intentionally then strategic planning offers and agency to develop the understanding, passion, and commitment of board, staff and stakeholders. In this context, the planning process can and should include empowerment and learning community approaches. Indeed, a strategic planning process is successful to the degree that it creates a deeper understanding of the role and function of the agency in solving compelling social needs.
.
Strategic Dialogue: Having facilitated the development of numerous strategic plans, I find some of the greatest energy in the process comes as I work with an organization to gather “outside” perspectives. While not commonly done, I am a strong believer that organizations benefit from seeking advice and perspective from outside of the agency. Insights coming from other agencies working on the same issue, from funders, donors, community partners and even agency clients, yield not only valuable strategic planning insights but often begins the process of dialogue. Once the strategic plan is developed, I encourage agencies to continue the conversation with their funders, donors, community partners, and clients by sharing the strategic directions of the plan. Some agencies bristle at the concept of sharing such sensitive, internal knowledge and reference the for profit sector’s contention that strategy is proprietary and needs to be guarded. I would counter that being transparent about strategy is actually strategic in the social sector. Sharing knowledge about strategy makes explicit the position, direction and focus of an agency and can be used to define a larger community or regional agenda. Engaging in such a dialogue with partners, funders, donors, clients and the community at large fosters collaboration and increases the potential of creating a network of strategies that can improve the collective social impact of all stakeholders.
.
Field Building: Paired with the concept of strategic dialogue, a third use of a strategic plan is that it holds the potential to improve the field of practice. Strategic Planning offers a unique and compressed exercise in evaluation, innovation and system design. When strategic planning is resourced, well-designed and not simply a rote exercise it is a laboratory experience that has both internal and external dimensions. Too often a strategic planning process is myopically inward content with asking the question, “how do we succeed in fulfilling our mission?” While there is no denying that strategic planning is designed to create an organizational future, strategic planning also influences the collective future of the field of practice in which the agency operates. In addition to how does the organizational “we” succeed there is also a dimension of how does the collective “we” succeed. One outcome of strategic planning could be the free sharing of lessons learned. By giving away your knowledge, you enable the the social sector to collectively enhance the knowledge base and field of practice.
.
Taken together, strategic planning becomes a layered process of developing capacity. Clearly and unequivocally the foundation of strategic planning is the creation of an organizational pathway to the future. However, if layers of “human capital” development, strategic dialogue, and field building are added to the foundation of strategy, a strategic plan becomes a powerful tool to expand agency capacity. Facilitating a strategic planning process is more than following one of any number of strategic planning textbooks. Strategic planning is large, shaping and capacity-building and it is the responsibility of facilitators to “bring life” to a strategic planning process. I believe, it is only through this larger lens of capacity development do nonprofits build meaningful strategic plans.
.
As always, your comments are welcome.
.
As a facilitator I work with a range of social sector organizations on strategic and business planning processes. In my work, I often encounter ambiguity about the difference between a vision and mission statement. In some cases, I will hear an executive director or board chair say something like, “Our vision and mission are so closely related we don’t distinguish between the two.” On one occasion an executive quipped, “to create our vision statement we just randomly removed words from our mission statement until we had a vague sounding lofty goal.” While a quick search of the web will reference dozens of blog posts and websites offering the conceptual differences between vision and mission, there is often little discussion of the practical difference between mission and vision. As I see it, the problem is that in a typical planning process the mission and vision (along with values) are lumped together as a first step in plan. It is almost as if they are a hurdle to surmount before a team or agency can “get to work on what needs to be done.” In this post, I want to describe why the differentiation between vision and mission is important and how the two concepts need to be uncoupled in the planning process.
At the risk of over generalizing, many references and books discussing vision and mission have the tendency to describe the two concepts as if they were distinguishing between goals and objectives. I have written about the differences between goals and objectives and suggested that a goal is the “upstream activities” necessary to create “change that matters” and that an objective is the work in front of you that gets you to start moving towards your goal. While there is a parallel short-term and long-term thinking associated with the discussion of vision and mission, it would be a mistake to use the paired concepts interchangeably.
There was a time when a vision might have been thought of as nothing more than a lofty goal. In the business sector such a mission might have been something like, “We want to be the first choice for luxury cars purchased in America,” or in the social service sector such a vision/goal might have been, “We strive to be the preeminent substance abuse treatment provider in the region.” However, I firmly believe that equating a vision with a lofty goal is inadequate to clearly define the aspirations of an organization today. In the private sector “vision” is increasingly framed in the language of a triple bottom line, “people, profits and planet.” In the nonprofit and social service sectors, a vision of organizational success must give way to the larger “upstream” thinking that boldly proclaims the deep social impact created by the agency.
As a result, a facilitator needs to assist the organization of today in identifying a clear and compelling vision statement. Such a vision is the response to the social need and context in which an agency operates. For example, if an agency is working to decrease the “youth violence” then a vision statement is about more than providing youth diversion activities because the prevention of youth violence inherently is not only about youth “behavior.” In addition to behavior, youth violence is also about many socio-economic and geopolitical disparities which also need to be within the organization’s “field of vision.” I have written previously about strategies for facilitating the development of a social impact model, but the point applicable here is that a compelling vision starts with a current and urgent social need and tells the story of how the social need of tomorrow will be different than it is today.
So if the function of an organizational vision is to declare the future social impact of the organization, what purpose is served by the organizational mission? A mission is also connected to the social need but is the proximal response the changing landscape. While the core of a strong mission is grounded in the principles and values of the organization, it also references the strategies that are used to confront the compelling social needs. A mission statement is the head and the heart of an organization and serves as the lens through which organizational programs and strategies are viewed. As such, a mission statement should be closer to the social need rather than the visionary social impact. A mission statement evolves as the social need evolves while also remaining anchored to the vision. In this context, a facilitator also has a role for helping an organization understand its mission as well as its vision. This need to clearly define and differentiate between the concepts of vision and mission becomes apparent when one introduces program strategies.
In between the mission and vision, is the “white space” where the organization builds its program strategies. The following illustration creates the linear process:
Social Need ==> Mission ==> Programs/Strategies ==> Vision of Social Impact.
While a bit oversimplified (there are feedback loops and outcomes in the model), the point that I wanted to make is that there is conceptual “distance” between a vision and mission. For those engaged in strategic and business planning, this spatial relationship is entirely practical. By situating the mission close to the social need and anchoring the vision to the social impact, a facilitator has the room to help an agency orient its programs and services more strategically. The program strategies become the link between the organizational mission and the organizational vision. By placing program strategies between mission and vision, the strategies can be more effectively assessed relative to how they well they serve as a the causal link between two. In other words, it is only if you are clear about the social need, the mission and the vision, can one assess the appropriateness of the program strategies.
Again, as I scanned some of the blogs and websites that discussed the differences between Vision and Mission I was struck by how often the differentiation between the concepts was ignored or oversimplified. I have contended in many of my posts that the highly effective nonprofit organizations think systemically and strategically. Facilitating meaningful differences between Vision and Mission is a critical dimension of a systemic and strategic facilitation process. Mission, supported by strategic programming moves an organization towards their true vision and, in the end, such movement is the core of a strong facilitation process.
As always your feedback is welcome.
For many nonprofit organizations this is time of the year where the board and staff turn their attention to drafting a budget to guide business operations for the next fiscal year. For many agencies, this annual ritual simply starts with taking last year’s budget and incrementally scaling the numbers up or down depending on the known and likely commitments of funding for the next year. While this method is reliable when continuity between years is strong, an increasing number of nonprofits are still facing volatile economic environments. For organizations confronting “revenue uncertainty” cutting and pasting from last year’s budget is likely inadequate preparation for the year, or years, ahead. Organizations’ seeking not only to survive but thrive need to develop an intentional process to facilitate the development of a long-term budget strategy. Having many years experience creating and managing budgets in career, consultant, and volunteer positions (across nonprofit agencies of all shapes and sizes) I would like to suggest five elements of a facilitation process that will strengthen a strategic budget planning process.
Define your Funding Model: It likely comes as no surprise that the agency budget framework for many small to midsize nonprofit organizations is simply the amalgamation of the individual program budgets that have been built in response to specific grants and/or contracts received by organization. Unfortunately, even some larger organizations fall prey to this “Lego Approach” to budget development. As new grants, contracts or donations are obtained, the resources are snapped into place to fill budget holes or to expand programs as required by the funding restrictions tied to the new revenues. Agencies that would raise their hands if asked if they use the “Lego Approach,” would do well to consider convening their board for a strategic conversation about developing an intentional framework to guide the budget process.
In recent years, there have been a number emerging perspectives in nonprofit fiscal management and philanthropy that, taken together, help nonprofits develop a strategic perspective for long-term revenue development. Several articles and books are referenced at the end of this post, however, some of the key concepts that form the basis of the conversation should include: a) a review of Pratt’s funding archetypes and the ten funding models recently presented in an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review; b) exploration of revenue autonomy, reliability and concentration, and c) operational overhead. The goal of this conversation is to develop a working understanding of the concepts and prepare the board to apply these principles to creating a strategic framework for their organization.
Assess your Overhead Costs: One unfortunate legacy that plagues nonprofit organizations is that efficiency is often measured by overhead cost. The assumption is that nonprofit overhead is a proxy measure of efficiency, in essence, suggesting that the lower the nonprofit overhead costs, the more efficient the nonprofit is assumed to be. This perspective is reinforced by many funding agencies who cap operational overhead at an arbitrary number (like 8%, 10% or 15%) when awarding grants and contracts. However, over the last few years several studies have begun to challenge this conventional thinking with a growing chorus of voices suggesting that the antiquated approach to efficiency actually sets up a nonprofit “starvation cycle.” Creating a strategic approach to resource development and budgeting will require boards to develop an accurate administrative overhead budget. This exploration by the board will need to account for both current administrative costs and costs associated with capital investments that need to be made in such areas as human resource, technology, fiscal, that have been deferred expenses. The resources listed below offer several good starting places for developing an accurate administrative overhead budget. Having a realistic understanding the true agency overhead costs will help your organization develop realistic plans to align revenues with true costs.
Value your Staff: A third component of a strategic budget process is to create a compensation system that values and rewards staff. Much akin to the under-investing in agency overhead and infrastructure, under-investing in staff is another strategic hurdle that nonprofit agencies need to understand and overcome. Again, conventional wisdom suggests that nonprofit employees work for intrinsic rather than extrinsic value, which translates into lower salaries and benefits. Unfortunately, when a critical mass of nonprofit agencies operates under this assumption it creates a market that supports under-compensating staff. On more than one occasion, I have heard a well-intentioned board member say, “Our employee pay and benefits are at the market rate.” Unfortunately the benchmark should not be “market rate” but should be oriented around the equity of a living wage and incentives that foster the recruitment and retention of high performing employees. Again, the goal of building a compensation model is to create a resource development goal for an organization that can be supported by intentional objectives to be pursued in a priority sequence. For example, I know of an agency that laid out a strategic agenda to sequentially develop a living wage structure, strengthen the insurance options, increase retirement contributions and add an employee assistance program and educational benefits. The organization is supporting this strategy with a specific multi-year resource development plan focused on strengthening compensation.
Start from Zero: For those organizations locked into program grants and contracts, many budget decisions were established when the grant or contract proposal was submitted. For those programs that have been funded over multiple funding cycles, the budgets (and ideally work scope) have expanded or contracted based on available funds. However, even if a program budget is set, it is a very productive exercise to start from zero and rebuild a program budget. In other words, suspending the current program budget, if you were to create an ideal budget for the program services being delivered, what would that budget look like? If staff compensation was fully loaded and the appropriate overhead was charged to the program, how much money would it really take to run the program? Creating a zero-based budget allows you to compare where you should be (relative to the revenue and expenses) to where you actually are today. The variances identified are the program budget gaps that are being absorbed or ignored at the peril of your agency’s fiscal health. Creating zero budget comparisons across program areas would help bring into focus the gaps between revenues and expenses and would become the groundwork for a facilitated discussion about program priorities and where your agency is appropriately investing, over-investing and under-investing in programs that help the organization meet its social goals and objectives.
Think About Governance: Another part of the process is to be intentional about governance. At the most basic level, governance asks the big three questions is a) is it allowable, b) is it approved and c) is it something that will advance your mission? In more detailed thinking about governance, your board needs to create a process to ensure that the budget process protects donor intent, appropriately allocates expenses and ensure the agency’s fiscal and legal advisors review the budget strategy for accuracy and legality. Finally the governance component of budget planning requires attention to risk management and contingency planning, to minimize disruption of programs and services should budget projections not be met.
Taken together, these five facets of strategic budget planning suggest a staged process that includes: a) coming to agreement on a funding model for your agency that serves as the organizer for strategy, b) being clear about the true cost of your services, c) recognizing your resource gaps, and d) creating a strategic resource development plan to address the resource gap. It is important to recognize that re-engineering an agency’s approach to resource development will take time and the first iteration of a strategic budgeting process will likely yield two working documents. The first document is the strategic resource development plan is a long-term (3-5 years) that defines how your agency will reshape its approach to growing revenue streams over time. The second working document is the short-term “compromised” budget to address the coming programmatic year that juggles the anticipated expenses with your projected committed and likely revenues. However, this initial mixed result of “the pragmatic” and “the strategic” will only be a temporary stage as the subsequent iterations of the strategic budget process will be oriented more and more toward the strategic goals and objectives of your plan.
What is becoming clear in the social service sector of today is that that nonprofit organizations can’t simply rely on the momentum of the past. Strategic thinking and systems thinking need to be core competencies of the leadership and boards of nonprofit organizations. Even as I write this blog, a new resource came through a “tweet” that made this statement, “Leaders who are determined to have their organizations thrive in these new and challenging times must reevaluate their potentially outdated ways of thinking, prioritizing, investing, and acting. (external link)” For budget planning and the larger concept of strategic resource planning, I could not agree more.
As always your thoughts are welcome.
Resources:
- Kramer M. (Fall, 2009) Catalytic Philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review
- Landes Foster, W., Kim, P., & Christiansen , B. (Spring, 2009). Ten Nonprofit Funding Models. Stanford Social Innovation Review
- Pratt J. (Summer 2004). Analyzing the Dynamics of Funding: Reliability and Autonomy. Nonprofit Quarterly
- Companion spreadsheet to Pratt Article
- Raymond S (2010) Nonprofit Finance for hard Times. John Wiley & Sones, Hoboken, NJ.
- Sussman C. (N.D.) Building Adaptive Capacity: The Quest for Improved Organizational Performance.
- Goggins & Howard (Fall 2009) The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review
- Urban Institute & Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Fundraising and Administrative Costs Website
The economic downturn that occurred in the last couple of years has been unquestionably harsh on most nonprofit agencies. The increases in service demand, coupled with the decreases in revenues have created organizational strains and fractures that will linger for years to come. If there is any silver lining to this recent crisis, it is that has it forced many nonprofits to question their very foundations of mission, vision and operation. In this context, the exploration of capacity and capacity building has increased in prominence and profile across many organizations. To that end, innovative and adaptable organizations are using this crisis to fundamentally rethink capacity and are linking strategy to capacity.
I recently attended a panel discussion geared towards grant makers on the topic of nonprofit capacity building. The panel discussed capacity assessments, the role of training, coaching and consulting and evaluating capacity building efforts. As with many lunch presentations there was much more content than time, however, it was interesting to hear the “30,000 foot view” of capacity from funding agencies’ perspectives. As one who has worked with nonprofits in capacity building for many years, the discussion of tactics by the panel revealed little new information. However, what was interesting in the presentation was the discussion of the “disconnect in thinking” between funding agencies and nonprofit agencies around the concept of capacity. The disconnect in thinking can be summed up in this way: When nonprofit agencies think about capacity building, especially in the context of seeking a capacity building grant, they really are asking for operating support for specific projects. When grant makers talk about capacity building, they are talking about developing infrastructure. Adapting an illustration that one participant gave, it is like a vegetable garden where the nonprofit is concerned about a particular plant in the garden and the grant makers are increasingly interested in the root system and soil that supports the entire garden. In previous posts I have discussed the concept of initiating a capacity building conversation and also discussed capacity building in the context of resource development planning. In this post I want to discuss facilitating an organizational capacity planning process.
Before discussing the process, we first need to define what is meant when we discuss capacity and capacity building. As we are reminded in that now classic primer on nonprofit jargon “in other words,” (external link) capacity is one of those “vague, quasi-occult terms” that evokes the need for outside “expert” consultants who understand the deep mysteries of the concept. The unfortunate byproduct of such a misunderstood word is that the ambiguity of the term makes the concept of capacity and capacity building seem daunting to an organization. So as an opening premise, I would like to suggest a clear and concise definition of capacity as “the sum total of the strategy, management, staffing, infrastructure, resources and operation of an organization.” The process of capacity building then becomes the deliberate assessment and improvement of those core elements of capacity. The following is a suggested facilitated process for capacity building.
Assessment: As with most organization development and performance improvement projects, the first step in the process is to take a systematic assessment of where you are right now. There are several nonprofit organizational capacity assessment tools that can be found with a simple web search. The grandfather of tools was developed for Venture Philanthropy Partners by the mega consulting firm of McKinsey & Company (external link). This tool has been adapted by Marguerite Casey Foundation (external link) and has also been adapted by Social Venture Partners International (SVPI) and is available as an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (external link). Taking the SVP tool as an example the rubric addresses: financial management, fund development, information technology, marketing and communications, program design and evaluation, human resources, mission, vision, strategy and planning, legal affairs, leadership development, board leadership. Future versions of the SVP tool will address cultural competency and policy advocacy as additional areas. My experience (and the experiences of a few colleagues) in using the SVP tool has been that the level of depth of the tool may be less relevant for smaller or grassroots organizations. In these cases, another useful tool to consider is a “Tool for Assessing Startup Organizations” that was designed to be a due diligence supplement for grant makers (external link). As I suggested, a web search will help identify additional approaches to capacity assessment. The point of drawing attention to several tools is less about “what tool to use” and is more about illustrating the need for a framework for systematically assessing your agency capacity.
Once you decide on an approach, implementing a capacity assessment ideally takes a 360 degree approach that solicits relevant input from staff, board, clients, funding agencies and other stakeholders. The wider and more inclusive the process, the wider and more inclusive will be the insights on capacity. Note: I would be remiss to point out that online surveys can be an effective way to conduct an assessment.
Dialogue and Planning: The second stage of a capacity building process to create and intentional dialogue around the findings with three important goals that include: a) creating a shared understanding of where the agency is starting from and where it is going, b) deepening the spirit of community and commitment to strengthening the organization, and c) creating workplans that support capacity building. While workplan development can be a time intensive process as I have suggested elsewhere I do want to underscore that reflecting on a capacity assessment should also be a time of building community and commitment. The dialogue and planning process lends itself well to an “intensive” like a board and/or staff retreat, but also could be the basis for a “learning community” process that spans 4-6 months and includes spaces for homework and reflection.
Action: The third stage of is the action stage of implementing capacity building workplans. Recognizing that capacity building is an ongoing commitment to continuous improvement, there needs to be the intentional structures to manage and monitor progress over time. Since capacity building is really about improving an entire system is also useful to think of implementation as a series of “rapid cycle tests” using a model such as the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PSDA). There are a number of good primers for this model online, (external link). Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the action stage will likely taking an agency into new organizational territory and will likely require some investments in the professional development of the agency’s staff and board.
Leverage: The final step in a capacity building process is to be intentional about leveraging your efforts for capacity building. This brings us back to my opening discussion of grant makers’ perspectives on capacity building. The organization that invests in the systematic planning for capacity building is uniquely positioning itself to pursue a capacity development grant. For example, I know of one agency that received a three-year capacity building grant after taking an entire year to asses and begin to implement a plan to build capacity that the entire board stood behind. Based on the demonstrated movement towards capacity, the agency was well positioned to seek a capacity building grant. A grant-writing acquaintance once stated that when it comes to capacity building grants that funding agencies “want to improve organizations –not rescue them,” and so it is imperative for organizations to start from a position of strength. I believe that the leverage of capacity building grants is most effective when agencies are already engaged in the forward motion of capacity building.
I recently read a great article titled “On not letting a crisis go to waste: an innovation agenda for Canada’s community sector” (external link) that reinforced the concept that the nonprofit community/social sector is being tempered as we continue to struggle out of the economic recession of the last several years. Implied and stated in the article is that agencies demonstrating vision, leadership, adaptability and innovation are the ones who will not only strengthen themselves but help strengthen and reinvent the social service and community sector. For many nonprofits this journey of innovation and opportunity begins with an intentional facilitation of a capacity building process.
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
GooglePlus