Since 1999, the Mott Foundation has supported efforts to build the capacity of nonprofit organizations working to conserve freshwater ecosystems in the Great Lakes basin and portions of the southeastern United States through its Environment program. In 2003, the Foundation commissioned LaPiana Associates, Inc. of Piedmont, California, to conduct a survey [1.01 MB] of more than 750 nonprofit environmental organizations in those regions to learn about their internal capacity in areas such as governance, financial management, planning, human resources, communications, and technology.
In a recent interview, Lois DeBacker, associate vice president - programs (Civil Society and Environment) for the Mott Foundation, discusses some of the survey's findings, how the region-specific information can benefit the broader environmental community, and what the Foundation plans to do with the survey results.
Mott: Briefly explain what is meant by “organizational capacity building” and why the Mott Foundation’s Environment program funds in this area.
Lois DeBacker (LD): Nonprofit organizations that are successful in their work tend to share certain characteristics. They have good governance mechanisms, clear program priorities, committed supporters and volunteers, a diverse funding base, and effective means of communicating their work, among other things. Organizational capacity building is about helping groups become strong in these areas.
While the leadership of dedicated individuals with vision is critical to the success of a nonprofit’s work, that alone can’t sustain the group over time. Because there are no quick fixes for many of the issues Mott grantees work on, it’s critically important to build stable and sustainable organizations that can remain effectively engaged over the years. That’s why we support organizational capacity building.
Mott: Please review what you thought were some of the most significant findings of the LaPiana survey.
LD: What was most striking for me were the differences in responses between staffed and all-volunteer groups. Some of the differences weren’t a surprise – such as the fact that the all-volunteer groups tended to have far smaller budgets than groups with staff.
I found the contrasts between staffed and all volunteer groups very interesting with respect to how the groups assessed change over time on a number of capacity indicators. Whereas, the vast majority of staffed organizations rated themselves as "somewhat" or "much" stronger in 2003 than in 1998 on nine different indicators of capacity, the all-volunteer organizations reported gains to a lesser extent. This made me reflect on the particular challenges that all-volunteer groups face.
There were some findings that I found disappointing. For example, less than half of the boards of staffed organizations had conducted a formal performance review of their executive director in the past year. Also, only 40 percent of the staffed organizations had received financial contributions from all their board members during the past year, and more than 10 percent of the staffed organizations had no board members contribute financially.
Mott: Mott and other foundations fund capacity-building technical assistance for nonprofits. What did the respondents report as their highest priority needs for technical assistance? Did staffed and all-volunteer groups report different needs?
LD: Not surprisingly, both sets of respondents placed a high priority on technical assistance related to fundraising. Three of the five highest priorities for organizations with paid staff had to do with fundraising (major donor solicitation, fundraising planning, and membership development), and four of the five highest priorities for all-volunteer organizations had to do with fundraising (fundraising planning, membership development, grant writing, and major donor solicitation).
Staffed organizations also rated technical assistance on board skills and strategic planning as priorities. For all-volunteer organizations, the highest priority was for technical assistance with respect to volunteer recruitment/development, which makes sense because all their work is accomplished by volunteers.
Mott: Many of the findings were region-specific. How can this information have value for the broader environmental community?
LD: The survey was limited to the binational Great Lakes basin and portions of the southeastern United States, because those are the regions in which Mott funds freshwater ecosystem conservation efforts. There is no reason to believe that environmental groups in those regions are all that different from groups elsewhere in the United States. I think the “snapshot” of the environmental nonprofit community that emerges from the survey could be instructive for individuals interested in the organizational capacity of that sector generally.
Mott: How will the information gleaned from this survey be incorporated into Mott’s future grantmaking?
LD: We’re still thinking that through. I’m eager to see how folks react to the data whether there are aspects of the findings that are of particular interest to others. My hope is that the findings will stimulate some useful discussions among environmental nonprofits and capacity builders active in the Great Lakes and Southeast. I hope this survey might encourage additional organizations to assess how they’re doing and prompt them to have some conversations at the staff or board level about areas they might commit to improve. It’s important. We need strong and vital environmental groups – now more than ever.