I use Twitter for work, and my work is all about the social sector. So I assume my followers form a cross section of the sector. A typical follower of mine is following 500 people. The all-time Twitter-holic on my list is following me plus 37,695 others. The most followed individual in my orbit who is not a politician or an institution has 340,757 followers. This made me stop and think – how do you follow 37,000 people on Twitter? For that matter, how do you follow even a mere 500?

Let’s break it down. Assuming you sleep, eat, and work a few hours each day you have at most 12 hours to hang out on Twitter. If you follow 500 people and each of them posts one tweet a day that means you have to read about 41 tweets an hour for each and every one of those 12 hours, every day. Most tweets appear deceptively short. You only have 140 characters to work with, but in my informal survey the number of easily readable tweets such as this one from Robert Egger

“Looking forward to working with you tomorrow David!!!”

are far outweighed by the number of tweets requiring a significant investment of time. Like this one from Nonprofit Quarterly, NPQ:

“Al Sharpton’s nonprofit @NationalAction faces financial troubles owl.li/7ZX8op”.

In order to get anything out of this tweet (beyond a bit of gossip) I have to click the link and then read the article. That took a good five minutes.

My point is that no one who is following 500 people is actually following much of what those 500 people are saying. Social sector Twitteratti seem to be using Twitter mostly to flog things on their own web sites, as NPQ does in the tweet above, or to let everyone know of a cool new resource or tool they have found. But how many people are actually reading all of this? It seems to me we are all just trying to collect followers for some purpose other than having them read our tweets.

So I have 3 suggested don’ts to help the social sector use Twitter more effectively:

1. Think twice before retweeting – is this something others will not be able to find if you don’t retweet it?
2. No superfluous tweets “It’s a beautiful day in Mazatlan” being one of my favorites in this useless category. Especially since I was freezing my anatomy in a blizzard in NYC last winter when I read this.
3. No ads like FFMW’s recent post “Don’t forget to sign up for our eNewsletter list for news, updates, and funding opportunities”.

If you are wondering what these don’ts leave to actually tweet about, that’s a very good question. Start with things you might want to actually read yourself. Remember it’s almost a haiku – short and pithy. Speak from your heart; don’t just troll the Internet for interesting articles and then tweet them to the masses – say things that would be worth reading.

I will be leading the keynote at the Ohio Grantmakers Forum Annual Conference in October on the topic of Nonprofit Strategy in the New Abnormal and check out my recent guest blog at the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Tell me what you think. Is any of this new or normal?

But I was drawn back into the discussion when he told a story from his childhood – one about he and other neighborhood kids who competed to see how high they could swing, standing up, hoping to get enough velocity to swing the whole way around.  While attempting one of these standing 360 feats a piece of the swing broke and he fell.  He noted that he got pretty scraped up, but no attorneys got involved, there wasn’t a petition to close the playground, he (and other neighborhood kids) were just back on the swings the next day – standing – trying to swing up and over the swing set.

I thought about my own experiences (and the scars still visible on my hand and both knees) from my own childhood mishaps while at play.  But I also thought about the feeling of swinging over a creek on a vine – and making it to the other side – or those perfect summer days playing a pick-up game of ball.  In fact, most of our play was on the street or in empty lots rather than an actual playground.

It was a long drive so this took my mind to the way in which nonprofits have had to create a dynamic in which there is a BIG PROBLEM that has to be defined in order to capture donors and volunteers.  Hammond defined a “play deficit” and the “play deserts” that cause physical, emotional, and intellectual harm to our children.  He connected these to increasing rates of childhood obesity and poor school behavior and performance.  I don’t doubt this.  Play is not only about learning to get along with people, physical activity, and creativity – it’s also about risk taking and pushing the limits.  KaBOOM! has done a brilliant job of bringing a lot of resources to building playgrounds in places that need one.

However, creating this negative frame of reference always bothered me when I was running a community-based organization.  Sure, my communities were some of the poorest in the region – communities that had lost their economic heart and a lot of young residents when the steel mills closed.  But they weren’t communities without good people, good ideas, and a willingness to work.

The calamity that hit them was created by much bigger international market forces and reverberated throughout western Pennsylvania – and other steel-making places around the country.  But to get the resources needed to reshape still viable residential neighborhoods and support the remaining core of small manufacturers in the region meant defining the negatives – the deficits and deserts – and pushing the assets far down the list.

I remember a drive through one of those communities – Rankin – with Paul Grogan, who was then the President of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC).  Paul noted that the housing stock didn’t look that bad compared to some of the other places that LISC was working.   That comment really frustrated me.  (Sorry, Paul.)  I think I answered with something like, “Does a neighborhood have to reach rock bottom before it’s worth investment?  Wouldn’t we be better off intervening while there’s still some decent housing and a neighborhood to build on?”  (LISC decided that the answer to that was “yes.”)

All of us are looking at a very difficult funding environment in which these critical questions come up every day.  More and more often foundations are asking for the ROI when they make a grant – or less elegantly – where’s the biggest bang for the buck? How big is the problem and how creative the solution?  Do you go to the biggest problems that require the most significant time and resources?  How long do you sustain the investment?  Does that influence the approach?

All big questions – and ones that make me appreciate the challenges in making these decisions.

What’s your experience been like as a grantseeker or grantmaker?  Do the deserts get all the attention at the expense of the gardens that may be facing a temporary drought and just need some water to bloom again or are the deserts so vast they can’t be ignored?

My colleague David La Piana and I have both observed the dynamic of parallel process within the sector. This Nonprofit Paradox has been defined as, “what an organization seeks to solve or resolve in society, they recreate as a problem internally”. We see this as not only an issue among staff, but unfortunately in the way we in the sector can treat candidates for positions with our organizations.

I have had the pleasure to teach in the nonprofit graduate program at the University of San Francisco. You meet some great dedicated professionals in the field. I am fortunate enough that some of them keep in touch, or drop me a note about where they are and what they are doing.

Recently, a former student of mine shared her experiences of searching for a job in the field.  We all know that it is tough market, that more nonprofits are laying people off than hiring, and that there are some very talented, committed people looking for work.  That can make organizations a little cocky- sitting in the power position of having the option of choosing the cream of the cream.

Since December of 2010 this young woman has applied to over 50 jobs and has had over 30 interviews, either over the phone or in-person.

She shared with me the following experiences:

• One interviewer fell asleep in our interview.
• Another was so rude that I got home and called their HR director to complain and retract my app. Their director of programs later called me to try and convince me to go back in because the rude interviewer/potential supervisor only liked me out of their candidates.
• An org turned me down via email and in the next paragraph asked me to volunteer my time with the department that wouldn’t even interview me.
• Feedback from another was that I need to cut my hair (it’s long, but groomed and just fine).

She went on to list the number of organizations that simply canceled the position, put hiring on hold, did not make a decision or simply never responded to her.

We have to do better. We have to treat candidates with respect that they deserve.  There is vulnerability to those who are seeking work and opening themselves up to the possibilities, as well as the probabilities of not getting the job.

I will let my former student speak for herself:

Simply, if they can’t send a basic email to inform candidates of their search progress or that they aren’t advancing to the next round, they should revise their operations and staffing capacity in recruiting. They are giving their organization a bad reputation and limiting future partnerships. And I know that I’m not the only person with a list like this.

So, if you’re looking for a job and not having luck, understand that companies don’t have it together right now. Keep at it and don’t be too critical of yourself.

Tell us what you think.  Do you have any advice to add?

Brown’s camp accused the League of siding with a “liberal” agenda, while McCaskill and other Democrats also cried foul, calling the ads “not helpful.” But beneath the predictable campaign damage control lies the fact that those on both sides of the political aisle were so utterly shocked that an organization like the League of Women Voters would take such a direct approach.

Accustomed to the League’s more comforting strategies of publishing voter guides and politely issuing position statements, even some League members themselves were taken aback when the organization finally raised its voice to be heard over the noise in the modern political arena.

It was this break in character, in fact, that made the ads so powerful.

I’ve experienced this myself, on a personal level. With a quiet demeanor and a tendency to listen and analyze information in group settings rather than express every idea that comes into my head, it’s a rarity when I speak up, drive home a point, or voice frustration or dissent. But when I do, you can bet I have the ears of the group. And I also understand that with that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely, lest I lose it.

The League of Women Voters’ recent decision to step outside of its own comfort zone, and to risk its image in the minds of others who prefer its more passive persona, is one that I was glad to see it make – not only because it seemed to confirm that the organization does have power at its disposal, but because as League advocacy committee chairwoman Judy Duffy said to the Times, it honors the activism of its founding mothers, who “were not shrinking violets.” At the same time, I hope that it continues to wield this power judiciously, in a way that strengthens its identity, rallies its constituents, and advances its mission.

In what ways might your organization – or you as a professional – consider judiciously stepping outside your box to take a stand, flex your power, or make your voice heard?

It strikes me that when municipal governments start looking to local nonprofits for help with public sector financial problems the end of civilization cannot be far off. What’s next, the mayor standing in line at the soup kitchen?

This phenomenon reminds me of a story I heard from a client who worked for a tech company. He claimed he could track his company’s fortunes by the prices at the soda vending machine in the lunchroom. When he first started at the company the vending machine was left open and the sodas were free. As the economy tightened a modest charge was imposed at the vending machine, basically to cover the cost of the drinks. “But,” he told me, “when they raised the prices again and I figured out that the vending machine was now being viewed as a profit center, I knew the company was in trouble.”

Viewing nonprofits as a revenue source for local government strikes me as the “vending machine as profit center” way of thinking.  The entire tax system is off, yet we look to nonprofits rather than to tax reform. The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world – yet many large companies pay nothing at all. Let’s look to close those loopholes before we start asking the local community hospital to contribute to the city’s coffers.

As I was listening to NPR today, however, it hit me what conservatives may find too “liberal” about public broadcasting. I think it comes down to what might be termed “a slavish deference to the facts.”

For example, on NPR’s popular Science Friday show evolution is treated as a solid scientific basis for discussion, not a theory that should be debated on an equal footing with a religious theory: creationism. Ira Flatow regularly talks with scientists about discoveries that assume the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Doing so, he doesn’t question the assumption that the universe is billions of years old. To scientists this makes perfect sense, but to ideologues who would mix a religious theory with a scientific one, it is a clear sign of bias.

Another thing that must rankle conservatives is NPR and PBS treating controversial issues as just that: controversial. Abortion battles, the struggle for gay rights, immigration reform, and similar hot-button issues are all covered fairly with each side given almost a second-by-second parity. Conservatives accustomed to a sneer at liberal positions on these and other issues from their reliable Fox anchors can be forgiven for mistaking neutrality for a liberal bias.

Political discourse in this country has become so polarized that anyone airing the opposing side’s view of an issue is assumed to agree with that side. All this says to me is that we need more debate, more objectivity, and a greater reliance on the facts, not less. We need public broadcasting.

We had over 200 applicants for 3 Senior Associate positions but our first hire came about from my direct outreach to someone I had long admired. Marco Montenegro joins us as a Senior Associate, based in the Bay Area. Marco was previously Director of Programs and External Relations for National Community Development Institute, a national intermediary building capacity in communities of color. Marco has a long history in nonprofit management, community organizing and activism which positions him well for his new responsibilities. He hit the ground running two weeks ago and was immediately assigned to our new strategy project with the NAACP. Marco was born in Mexico City and grew up in San Francisco. He lives on the Peninsula with his wife and twin daughters.

Amari Romero-Thomas joins us as a Bay Area-based Senior Associate after a distinguished career as a nonprofit manager and consultant. Most recently she was Senior Vice President in charge of grantee relations and grantmaking at United Way Silicon Valley. Previously she was a nonprofit executive director and did extensive consulting on human resource and strategy issues through the firm Drake Beam Morin. Amari was born in Santiago, Chile, attended college in the U.S. and lives with her husband in Silicon Valley.

Maria Markham will also join the firm next week as a Senior Associate based in Washington, D.C. Maria has been an independent consultant for the past 7 years working with clients ranging from HUD to the Annie E. Casey Foundation to the U.S. – Mexico Border Philanthropy Partnership. She has also worked as an executive director and a development director in both the arts and health subsectors. Maria lives in Maryland with her husband and two young children. She was born, raised, and educated in Ireland.

The final new member of our team is Ann Mayo, Program Assistant. Ann has a diverse experience in client services, project coordination and administration across sectors. Prior to joining La Piana Consulting, Ann served the Chief Mission Delivery Officer of the American Cancer Society, California Division. Today she is an invaluable member of our operations team, providing support to consultants in a wide range of ways from survey management to meeting logistics.  Ann is a Bay Area native, a 6th generation Californian, and she always welcomes a good challenge, just like her distant relatives who were the first settlers to successfully pass through the Sierra Nevada mountain range after the Donner Party incident, while other relatives stayed behind in the Midwest to found the Mayo Clinic.

With these wonderful new colleagues the firm is ready to continue to provide great service to our clients in 2011 and beyond.

1.    Home foreclosures are still going gangbusters. Until this trend eases there will be no incentive to buy a house that is not in distress and with 10 houses on the market for every buyer prices will continue to drop. States where the housing market is an important part of the economy, and the tax base, will continue to suffer.

2.    Employment is stagnant and what new jobs we are seeing are largely temporary, with no benefits or security. The continuation of the perfect poverty storm – more people needing more services just when there are fewer tax and donor dollars to pay for them – is assured for the next year.

3.    The federal government just passed the largest package of tax breaks in recent history yet is “firmly committed” to deficit reduction. How does that work? By cutting discretionary spending. Since they can’t cut Social Security and Medicare, and they won’t cut the military, that leaves relatively small pockets of social program spending – pockets which nonprofits depend upon – to take deep cuts.

4.    The states are in real trouble. Many are nearing insolvency. Unlike the feds they can’t just print more money, and most have a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. The quickest way to electoral defeat is to mention the possibility of raising taxes, and states too have entitlements that must be met. That means those few dollars spent on discretionary social programs are going to be squeezed even more tightly, and  even required programs like health care for the poor are going to be pared down to the bone. In California, where counties deliver the bulk of human services, we have already seen health and social services authorities both “lengthen the line and thin the soup.”  The pot will soon be empty.

5.    No one cares. In times of economic difficulty it is normal for people to look to their own needs first. And with jobs dicey, homes under water, and the general gloomy economic environment, “compassion fatigue” is in full swing.

Lest I leave you with no hope – let’s remember that this whole period of deep misery is temporary. The economy will improve, employers will begin adding jobs again, and we’ll return to the normal moderate level of misery. We just need to keep being smart, doing what we can, and finding creative solutions – to get us through 2011.

At one point I raised the possibility of networked activity replacing the function of some nonprofits. This is the dreaded disintermediation we all wince when hearing about.

If an artist can sell his or her work through an easily-constructed web site, why do we need art centers and galleries? If a volunteer can surf the net for places to give time, what role do volunteer centers play?

There are certainly value added activities associated with each of these entities so I don’t mean to imply that they can be readily replaced tomorrow.

On the other hand we should not delude ourselves that there is something sacrosanct about our current line-up of nonprofits. If major cities and small towns alike can lose their newspapers they can also lose their once-cherished nonprofits.

As I made this point a young woman commented that she was not sure there was reason to mourn the loss of these groups if they were made irrelevant by advances in technology, changing community needs or generational preferences.

My initial reaction was that people who had worked or volunteered on behalf of these organizations for major portions of their lives might feel differently. But I immediately realized that was a defensive reaction.

There is a classic case of nonprofit law involving cy pres, a legal doctrine which asserts that if a donor’s intent can no longer be met his or her gift should be devoted to another cause “as close as possible” to the original cause.

The case I’m thinking of involved a lighthouse in Boston Harbor. A trust had been established to bring the local newspapers to the lighthouse keeper from Boston each week by boat. Eventually the lighthouse was automated and the keeper retired. Through this technological advance there was no way for the trust’s original intent to continue to be pursued. The court determined that delivering newspapers to an old sailors’ home was close enough and the trust’s purpose was shifted. Here is a hundred-year-old case of technology impacting a nonprofit’s purpose and fundamentally altering it.

I assume no one cried over the loss, but then again, the lighthouse no longer had any employees to shed those tears.