First, tell us about your organization.

Community Case Management is a program that works alongside the local 2-1-1 to provide a centralized intake staff for households experiencing homelessness and requesting emergency housing.  We work with a coalition of seven active housing providers to provide them with a potential client pool.

What are the biggest obstacles that community organizations face when it comes to managing their clients’ information?

Ensuring client confidentiality and negotiating the different policies and interpretations of all involved organizations while providing customer service.  For example, the different opinions of what should require written consent are always a difficult policy decision to deal with in a phone-based, web-based system.

Technology changes fairly quickly. How do you manage the balance between meeting today’s technology needs in your organization and preparing for the future? 

I rely on ClientTrack software updates to better design our system to meet the changing needs of our community.  I also take some outside classes for training.  We also try to offer simple changes to our program, such as introducing an electronic intake form for providers that we designed and email check-in for clients.

Your organization works with various stakeholders, including funders, the community at large, board members, or political representatives. Each of these groups may need different types of information about your organization. What recommendations or suggestions do you have for other system administrators about how to best meet these various information needs? 

Create a standard system of reporting that you can easily duplicate upon demand. We also found that creating our own website and uploading our reports is much more efficient than responding to individual requests in general.  Also understanding what data the various stakeholders are looking for is important to highlighting the value of your program.  For example, political reps are generally very interested in their direct constituency so creating reports based on state representative areas would be very valuable to a political entity but not so much to a community organization.

Do you have any lessons learned or stories that you could share with others about effectively meeting the technology needs of a community organization?

I learned that you really need to have a detailed plan written down when starting to design a database to meet your client service needs as well as the organizations involved with the program.  We did not have much of anything documented (data sharing agreements, scripts, access to assessments) when I took over the role of program manager in May of 2009 and as a result it made things difficult at times to understand how decisions were made.  As we move forward with designing a new system based on a new partnership with HMIS, we are trying to start things off the correct way to avoid replicating some of the issues I have run into due to the lack of documentation.

Finally, are you using ClientTrack in any particularly innovative ways in your organization? 

      Sam Taylor really helped when I went through the training last winter on CT 2010.  We designed some Data Explorer tools to allow me to provide greater quality assurance in a much more efficient way then my predecessors were able to do.  As I have become more confident in using the database to better respond to providers needs in finding appropriate clients, I find the ability to customize ClientTrack very beneficial to resolving these differences and better serving our mutual clients.

This means a few things to me. First, data standards, data integrity, and data practices relevant to LIHEAP will be likely to change in the coming year. Fortunately, reporting upgrades in ClientTrack happen very quickly, and at no extra cost to our clients.

Second, organizations need good security practices around how they administer various programs, such as LIHEAP. What this means to me is that organizations need to be able to restrict access to certain types of data, but also need to be able to ensure that the information they are collecting is complete and as accurate as possible. Fortunately, reducing data duplication and requiring collection of specified data elements is also a part of ClientTrack.

All in all, I agree with Secretary Sebelius: we need to do what we can to prevent fraud and abuse. And, a critical part of that which she failed to mention is the role that good technology can play in that process.

So, here's the gist of the article. I've studied metaphors and their impact on our perceptions. My own research, along with countless other scholars, has provided support about the influence metaphors exert on the way people think and how they make sense of the world. When I first began working with DSI, I heard references to multiple metaphors about the economic climate for nonprofit organizations: "a perfect storm," "lean times," and "unhealthy organizations" were a few of the phrases that seemed to dominate. Their use seemed casual in many instances--not being casual about the challenges, but casual about considering the full impact of using these metaphors. And, quite frankly, I believe the metaphors we are using are helping to perpetuate struggles.

Let me explain. My consternation is three-fold. First, I am concerned about the literal implications of the metaphorical representations. Each of these metaphors implies an expected, literal course of action (e.g., in a storm, you "hunker down," wait for it to blow over, then come out again).  However, the implied responses of these dominant metaphors is not necessarily what is required at this point. The game has fundamentally changed for nonprofits, and leaders who believe they can continue to do what they've always done will find that this storm is not simply here to pass. They must make fundamental changes in how they operate.

My second concern is how un-empowering these metaphors are. They tend to rob organizations of their ability to act efficiently by promoting the belief that the current financial situation is full of factors that are too far beyond their power to control. Yes, there are external realities at play. But, those should not overshadow what nonprofits are capable of doing: initiating creative collaborations, conducting an autopsy on organizational practices, streamlining services where possible, and more.  

My third and final concern about the current metaphors is a general sense of doom versus hope. If efforts can't change the situation, there is not much motivation to act or do anything to try. By presenting an array of hopeless phrases, nonprofit leaders run the risk of interpreting the current economy as a black hole with no escape. That is not the kind of leadership we need right now. We need leaders whose optimism and good judgment will carry them far above the immediate "storms" (to borrow the metaphor) to see the 50,000 foot view, and to guide their organizations to the bright spots that attract most nonprofit workers: making a difference, giving of one's self, and leaving the world a better place than a person found it.

By lending attention to the metaphors we use, we can create new solutions, and make sense of the world in a new way. The NPQ Spring 2010 cover shows blossoms of yellow, among green grasses, in the forefront of a grey, somewhat ominous background. In white letters is written the word "Renewal." An appropriate metaphor, with new hope, empowerment, and undertones of effort and growth. That's the kind of metaphor we need to foster.

What do you think about this? What metaphors best describe to you what is happening in the nonprofit world as a result of the economy? I'd love to hear your feedback. 

I was interested in this article, first from a perspective of hearing an "on the ground" account of individuals losing services. With children's day care up in the air, many of the families relying on the program were required to seek elsewhere. Lots of lives were affected. The second point I got was about the balance between being hopeful to get more funding, and simultaneously addressing shortfalls by trimming back services, as needed. This ability to forecast the environment is critical and relies on understanding financial trends sufficiently to make informed management decisions. 

In the nonprofit world, the reality is that finding new funds and cutting services are not always separate activities. For organizations feeling the pinch, both avenues need to be pursued at the same time. That is, they need ways to impress their funders (e.g., outcomes, good research), while at the same time being able to streamline their services and, where necessary, cut out the fluff that doesn't really matter to their operations. In other words, organizations need to be attentive to efficiency. In the end, one way to impress funders is by providing the numbers and stories that demonstrate an organization's commitment to use their money wisely. This is one place where ClientTrack software can certainly help.

if an [tax-exempt] organization does not file as required for three consecutive years, the law provides that it automatically loses its tax-exempt status. Loss of exempt status means an organization must file income tax returns and pay income tax, and its contributors will not be able to deduct their donations (see http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=217087,00.html).

If necessary, the IRS provides the procedures for requesting a time extension at http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=210780,00.html If you have not done so, we strongly encourage you to take the necessary actions to ensure that your organization can continue to provide the great services you offer in your communities. 

Guidestar (see http://bit.ly/cV5771) estimates that an astounding "350,000 to 400,000 nonprofits are in danger of losing their exemptions." To learn which organizations are potentially at risk, see http://nccs.urban.org/ or go directly to http://tinyurl.com/3a6qlrj to look up the information.

I appreciate Guidestar and others calling attention to this matter. If your exempt status is revoked, you may have to reapply for exempt status, which could be both time-consuming and costly.

I find this story to be a striking example of "real-life" organizations facing "real-life" funding challenge, and a case scenario where an organization's ability to prove their value to a funding source is directly relevant to its bottom line. This is where the rubber of organizational outcomes meets the road of federal funding and decisions about who gets what.

In these circumstances, what can decision-makers and organizations seeking funds do to optimize their outcomes?

For Decision-Makers

For decision-makers, I'm not implying that these decisions are easy. They are challenging, particularly because they are ethical decisions. Is the AIDS organization any more or less deserving of funds than the homelessness initiative, or the initiative to empower young girls?

Develop and Prioritize Objective Evaluative Criteria

When any kind of ethical decision must be made, the first step is to develop and prioritize the criteria that will used to guide the decision making process. If you've ever done those exercises where 10 people are alive, but only 5 can survive and you need to decide who is best, you may have a sense of what this process is like (see HERE for a similar type of example).

Once decision-making organizations have prioritized the values that will drive their decisions, the process of making the decisions becomes fairly mechanical, and a matter of evaluating each organization according to the criteria--assigning a number (e.g., 1-5), adding up the numbers, and letting the summed data tell the rest of the story and make the decision. If this rational approach is NOT adhered to, countless emotional appeals will make the decisions excruciatingly difficult. 

Honor the Emotional and Financial Reality

When decisions have been reached about who gets what money, two realities must be honored by decision-makers: the financial reality that drove the decision, and the emotional reality that drives service providers to meet their missions. This looks something like this: "The financial climate is difficult. All of the local organizations have requested $150,000. We only have $50,000 available. To make our decisions, we used these criteria...[X,Y,Z]. We wish we could meet all of your needs, because we believe in your missions and know you matter to our communities."

 Fund-Seeking Organizations

For organizations seeking funds, the task is straightforward: do everything that is ethically and legally within your power to get what funds you can. What does this entail?

Be Armed with "Surface" Persuasive Tactics

Fund-seeking organizations need to be able to pull out all the stops. A goodly portion of these "stops" include the ability to play to decision-makers cognitive deficits. I'm not attacking decision-makers here, but rather the limitations that ALL of us have when it comes to processing information. We cannot (or don't want to) process every bit of information that comes our way. In such circumstances, we often make decisions based on cognitive shortcuts or "rules of thumb", also known as "heuristics", "peripheral processing", or "Type I" processing. According to Cialdini, these include social proof, authority, reciprocity, previous and current commitments, liking and similarity, and scarcity. Fund-seeking organizations need to leverage these persuasive tactics to their benefit; bring 500 clients to a rally (social proof); find Doctors, Lawyers, Professors, Celebrities, and others to promote your cause (authority); offer legally-appropriate kindnesses (reciprocity); know what decisions people have made in the past and help them see how the current decision will help them be consistent with prior decisions (commitment); make the appeal "real" and tap into your joint identities to increase liking (similarity and liking); or emphasize how unique your program is and how your services are not being addressed anywhere else (scarcity).

Be Armed with "Substantial" Persuasive Tactics

"Surface" appeals are sure-fire by any means. Many people will want more proof of your impact and the value of your services. Your messages will be carefully scrutinized and criticized for their inherent value. What do you do in these circumstances?

There is no adequate replacement for numbers and measurable outcomes when it comes to telling your stories persuasively. Emotional appeals and the "surface" tactics will generally get you in the door. But, at some point, you need to have solid logic and arguments, and numbers, graphs, and charts often fit the bill and withstand scrutiny. Best-practices require that you be able to substantiate your value with outcomes, not output. Output is simple "we saw this many people," while outcomes are "this many people saw a 16% increase in their self-sufficiency." With numbers and outcomes at your disposal, you are prepared to broadcast your story effectively and compellingly. This is one function ClientTrack completes extremely well, allowing you to create standard reports, as well as ad hoc analyses and charts and tables to be used in advocacy, community awareness, and fund-seeking. Your organization's survival may very well depend on your ability to tell your story, and your ability to tell your story must include solid outcomes and measurements.

Because of limited funding, funding organizations need to be very clear about the priorities of the criteria that drive their decisions. Fund-seeking organizations, on the other hand, need to be prepared with multiple persuasive strategies--surface and substantial--that can influence fund-providers and allow them to see the validity, necessity, and credibility of their organizations. With optimal strategies on both sides, optimal outcomes are more likely to be achieved.

What other strategies do you recommend? What have you seen is most valuable for funders to be aware of, or for fund-seeking organizations to know?

My dad used to say, "Buy right the first time and you only cry once." What he meant was that buying nice things was usually painful at the beginning because of the cost, but generally paid off and saved a lot of pain in the long run because of the quality. I've seen time and again how my children's cheap plastic toys get broken within days, if not hours, while the better quality toys have provided years of enjoyment. Knowing that the cheap plastic toys will only have a limited lifespan, why do I still consider buying them for my children at all?

This process of deciding between "settling" for a "good enough" solution and getting the best solution is one that nonprofits face when addressing their technology needs. Should nonprofit organizations with very limited funds look for "good enough" software to limitedly meet the immediate needs, or should they do what it takes to find the best software possible to address longer term needs?

A publication recently put out by the Rotman School of Management provides some thoughts relevant to nonprofit organizations as they consider implementing software. The publication contained an article about our "want self" and our "should self." Essentially, the "want self" looks for short-term pleasures and gratifications, while the "should self" is considerate of long-term interests. When making decisions, individuals (and I would add organizations) will tend to decide based on responses to the "want" or "should" self. However, the decision making process can be greatly influenced by a few factors, namely, value and timing, which may harm or help the process.

Short versus Long-Term Value

When organizations are considering new software, they must consider both the immediate and long-term value of the software. The immediate value of a software program may be the ability to keep case notes in a computerized format. The long-term value or "future utility," however, may be to create required compliance reports. In some cases, it may be easier to see and buy into the immediate value of the software than the long term value. The real problem here, however, is that decisions may also be based solely on considering the immediate value. In such a situation, an organization may make a decision that meets their needs today, but will not be able to meet their needs tomorrow. In the computer world, systems that cannot keep up with the times are known as "legacy systems," and generally require replacement.

One great example comes to mind. A client of ours recently indicated that our ClientTrack product actually lowers the total long-term cost of managing client information. The observation caught me off guard, but is a great example of considering short-term versus long-term value. As I thought through our client's comment, it made more sense. Managing a single client's information (collecting, using, and reporting) from beginning to end comes at a cost to the organization. From the secretary who is paid to take information on the phone, to the case worker's time, to the administrator's time compiling data and creating reports, there is a monetary cost of services to that one client. An organization should be able to say "On average, it costs [X] dollars to collect, use, and report data for each client." Consider the total cost of managing information if it were to reflect time spent filling out paper forms, duplicated information gathering, manual information gathering, and reports completed by hand in a spreadsheet computer program. In contrast, consider the total cost of managing client information if many of these same processes were automated (for example, from 20 hours a month putting reports together to 20 minutes, as our clients have said). It should be readily apparent that the long-term value of an automated software would outweigh the short term value, in monetary terms.

The key here is to carefully consider short-term AND long-term value, and to weigh them out appropriately.

Short versus Long-Term Time

A second factor that can affect decision making is time. When time is limited, individuals are more likely to satisfy their "want self" than their "should self." The implications of this are significant. Consider, for example, a program director who intends to only be with an organization for a few more months or even years. Or, think about the organization that only has one month to make a software decision based on price. Under these time-limited circumstances, the tendency may be to seek the solution that will meet the immediate needs, that is, to match the tenure of the program director, or go with the lease expensive program (given that money may be a significant immediate factor). When considering the overall benefit of a program--as compared to the benefits that meet immediate needs--the time provided to make a decision becomes critical. Without sufficient time, consideration of the overall benefits (i.e, the future utility) are not carefully considered, and decisions generally revert to meet the immediate needs. The key here is to provide yourself with enough time to carefully consider your immediate and long-term needs before rendering a decision.

In summary, organizations must decide between a "good enough" solution, or the "best solution" possible. Short term and long term values and benefits must be considered under both scenarios. Returning to my kids' toys, maybe it really won't matter a year from now that their new plastic toy will be sitting in a landfill somewhere. And, in the same breath, it may matter in 25 years when my grandchildren can play with the same durable toys their parents played with. So, is "good enough" really "good enough," or does it need to be the "best"? What are your thoughts?

"The Accidental Techie"

This was the first time I encountered this phrase, but it spoke volumes to me. I saw it first at http://www.mnaonline.org/conferences.asp , then googled it to see there is a book titled with the same name. The basic idea is that the "accidental techie" is the social service professional who was the "last to raise his/her hand," and was subsequently nominated to oversee technical matters for a given nonprofit organization. I'm aware this happens in many organizations, but not clear about the extent to which it happens. And, in a related vein, I wonder how well prepared these accidental techies are to assume the responsibilities in front of them. Are you an "accidental techie"? If so, I'd love to hear from you. How were you nominated to the responsibility? How has the transition been? What's been the best advice you've received (or the worse)? What resources have been most helpful?

You refuse to make excuses. Instead, you make progress.

Your personal company, or any company, can increase its bottom-line profits in one or more of three ways.

First, the company can increase its sales and revenues, holding costs constant.

Second, the company can decrease its costs, holding sales and revenues constant.

Or

Third, the company can do something else altogether where one or both of the first two are possible.

As the president of your own company, these are your three options as well.

Identify the things that you can do that are more valuable and important than all the others. You then discipline yourself to focus all of your energy and attention on those specific tasks. You just say “No!” to any activity or demand on your time that is not consistent with the most valuable work you can possibly be doing at that moment. You are responsible.

Whatever You Concentrate On, Grows in Your Life

Life is the study of attention.

Where your attention goes, your heart goes also.

Your ability to direct your attention away from activities of lower value to activities of higher value is central to everything you accomplish in life.

She referenced me to a piece she wrote about "Data Starved" nonprofits. I was absolutely impressed with her insights. In a relatively small piece of writing, she eloquently summed up the struggles many agencies have related to how they manage their client information, as well as information about their organizational operations. She references many of the largest and most prominent agencies nationwide that "are not using 'best in class' applications, and instead rely on a combination of mandated databases, excel and paper." Her observations seem to align very closely with what I have observed since I have been here with Data Systems International.

What was particularly striking to me, however, was to see her portrayal of the need for good data in crystal clear terms, and to see how cleanly those needs map onto the solutions offered by ClientTrack. For example, it IS possible to track client outcomes across multiple agencies. This is what the AIDS Foundation of Chicago is actively pursuing and accomplishing across 60+ affiliated organizations (see my interview with Amy Sample Ward or an AFC Case Study for more info about it). Barbara also mentioned the "affordability" piece. Again, referring back to my interview with Amy, there's an example of three of our client organizations that came together to receive funding to implement a software solution of the caliber referenced by Barbara. Even though the three organizations (all Community Action Agencies) are NOT sharing client data, they are sharing the ClientTrack system, and are able to tailor the system to meet their specific needs. Through collaboration, they are able to accomplish what they could not accomplish alone.

Barbara's term of "Data Starved" is a very apt metaphor. But it doesn't have to be the metaphor nonprofits need to live by. Instead, there ARE solutions available that can transform a "Data Starved" agency into a "Data Satiated" agency. ClientTrack is definitely capable of facilitating such transformations. Thank you, Barbara, for your insights.

Our booth is located next to Microsoft (they were lucky enough to be placed by our booth!). Our interactions with the Microsoft representative have been very productive, and she was able to point out some wonderful resources. The one resource I want to make sure nonprofits are aware of is techsoup.org I've known of this site, but never delved into it significantly up to this point. The basic premise of the site is to provide software (e.g., Microsoft, Adobe) to nonprofit organizations at incredible discounts. I'm referring to programs like Word, Excel, PowerPoint and the like. So, again, just to make sure you are aware of it. Your nonprofit doesn't need to be without what I consider the "basics" of any organizations computer resources.

I would sum up our experience here so far in two words: resources and flexibility.

Let me speak to resources first. While many novel resources of technology have been introduced here (from video conferencing to mobile applications to donor management to various CRM's and more), what I am most impressed with are the resources of people. I've talked with a few people who have expanded my vision of what is out there. It is great to put a face to a name. I've developed a few relationships in online communities, and now it is fun to meet those individuals in person. They seem like "old friends." As I've stated elsewhere, our biggest resource is people. It's not products.

The second part of our experience entails flexibility. This is one of those consistent rules in life. Flexibility is required when plans go awry. What you had planned is no longer relevant. Regardless of the frustration, there are really only two options: get upset and angry, or move on. Our outreach plans were changed. We had planned on having lots of keys available that would unlock some prizes. Our keys showed up (later than planned), and when they did, all we could do was laugh. We waited in anticipation for the keys, and finally, Anna (from NTEN) gave us the good news that a package had arrived. When she showed up to the Grand Ballroom, she said it well: "I have good news, and bad news." The good news: the package had arrived and she had the box. The bad news: somewhere between here (Atlanta) and Salt Lake City, the box had split open and ALL of the keys fell out. The package was empty. So, as life requires, we needed to be flexible and make other plans. This will certainly be one of the memories from this conference.

So, checking out live from Atlanta (I feel like a CNN anchor...reasonably so, given that we are in the shadows of the CNN center), this is Scott Anderson.