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?

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?

I cringe every time I read about a celebrity joining the board of an organization.  Board members are trustees and each board member is equally accountable for insuring that the organization is properly governed. These roles include:

• Determining the Organization’s Mission and Purpose
• Selecting the Executive
• Supporting the Executive and Reviewing His or Her Performance
• Ensuring Effective Organizational Planning
• Ensuring Adequate Resources
• Manage Resources Effectively
• Determine and Monitor the Organization’s Programs and Services

I doubt if most celebrities realize that if the organizations fails to pay its payroll taxes the individual board members are legally liable or if the organization is in debt and has to close, the board is the body to blame.  If an organization wants to engage a celebrity they should consider asking them to be on an honorary board or co-chair of an advisory body to the board.

Americans over 55 are an influential force with the highest voter registration and voting rate compared to other age groups.  They hold a disproportionate amount of wealth and over 50% of those between 50 and 70 are interested in taking jobs now or in retirement that help improve the quality in their communities.

Older adults are not sitting back and letting life pass them by.  On the contrary, seniors are flexing their voting power, consumer rights and civic responsibilities.  Powerful political advocates, philanthropists, volunteers and consumers of nonprofit services, older adults are a major component of the nonprofit sector.

If older Americans are central to the nonprofit sector as policy changers, board members, volunteers, donors and employees what are we doing in the nonprofit sector to attract, educate and engage this group?  Much buzz exists around technology, electronic social networking and other new ways to reach people to various causes.  Are these approaches viable across all age cohorts?  How do we assure that in our latest rush to catch up that we don’t leave anyone behind?

Anyone working in a well run nonprofit organization understands and appreciates the fact that one size does not fit all.  As people of different genders, ethnicities, sexual orientation and religious preferences view, access and utilize services differently, so do members of contrasting age segments.

Older adults perhaps respond to a combined approach of personal contact, written resources and technology.  Technology has tremendous benefits for individuals who may have functional limitations which hamper the frequency and duration of activities outside of the home.  However, technology has challenges for those with visual impairments or decreased fine motor skills.  Cost of equipment and education and training to use technology may prevent many from attempting to join in.  Fortunately, many nonprofits are helping seniors access equipment and training and are helping connect people with needed assistive devices so that technology can be fully employed.

Innovation, true innovation, must have the capacity to impact people across all levels in order to move our communities forward.

All of these were on display at a civic engagement workshop I attended that utilized a very creative format called “FutureLab.” The tone was set when the group of 60 + attendees, gathered in concentric circles in the middle of a huge room, were urged by the facilitator (in a delightfully thick Italian accent) to participate fully. The only two rules were: 1) ignore your cell phones/blackberries, and 2) stay for the entirety of the 90 minute workshop (it ended up lasting 110 and not a single person left).

After listening to three minute, rapid-fire issue overviews by three thought leaders in the field, participants were randomly placed in groups of five and given a white cardboard box, markers, and instructions to design an experiment that would significantly increase civic participation by 2020. New age electronic music and an artist painting on the walls around us helped stimulate an atmosphere of creativity.

While our group was not able – in the time allotted – to fully develop the details of our social experiment, we engaged in deep, passionate conversation about the core principles needed to bring civic participation to life: the creation of physical spaces at the local level to enable people to gather, build trust and relationships, and engage in dialogue about the issues that matter – and bind us together – as a community.

During the entertaining and inspiring report-out at the end, I learned that other groups had been more successful in bringing their experiments to life, including a concept for engaging local theater groups from a small town in central Michigan to write and perform stories of the community successfully addressing the town’s three most pressing community problems.

Formats such as this – that engage the intellect, creativity, and passions of members of our sector in innovative problem solving – are needed now more than ever to help stimulate and circulate the big ideas that will allow us to rescue ourselves from irrelevancy. Innovation often is not supported in our organizations unless there is a sense of urgency, and despite the magnitude of the problems we collectively face, many of us still lack that sense of urgency. What are you prepared to do to stimulate these types of forward-looking interactions inside and outside of your organization?

The passion of the Independent Sector is readily evident here, as is the desire to really roll up our collective sleeves and tackle the big problems facing our country and our world.  Just a few of the quotes that have struck me these last few days:

 “…focus on common moral imperatives.  Don’t go left, don’t go right – go deeper.” – Jim Wallis, Sojourners

“As long as we set organization-level goals, as opposed to community level or national-level goals, we won’t succeed.  How can we claim institutional success if the community is crumbling around us?” – Brian Gallagher, United Way Worldwide

What is needed for this type of community-level collaboration?  “Identify your friends and engage them,” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, of the NAACP.  For me this really highlighted the value of social network mapping.  Who else is out there, working on this issue, or related issues?  Who else works in your community, period?  Who can you engage in a strategic discussion about to really make a difference?

Collaborative funding, or “strategic co-funding” as REDF has referred to it – seems like another imperative for the sector.  Our problems are big, and we need real investment.  Last year, 10 foundations pledged a total of $100 million over eight years to help restructure Detroit’s economy and position the city for the future.  Why isn’t that happening in every major city?  On every major issue?

Download the Podcast with Beth Kanter and Michael Hoffman (.mp3, 4.5 mb) and tell us what you think.

How might networks of social benefit organizations work together to make that more feasible for each one individually?