I was driving along the edge of Lake Erie the other day, listening to an interview with Darell Hammond about KaBOOM! I was momentarily distracted when he said “we work with the grassroots and the grasstops to address the play deficit.”  At first, all I could think was, “where are the jargon police when you need them?”

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?

The nonprofit sector prides itself on our commitment to justice and societal transformation. We speak of working to provide access, equity, opportunity and dignity to those who are either powerless or on the down side of power relationships.

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?