Nonprofits play a critical role in mobilizing campaigns for an accurate count, as do the many foundations that support them in these efforts. Last month, a New America Media news feature highlighted the importance of nonprofits’ participation in the Census when it raised concerns about the disadvantage faced by neighborhoods that lack an active local nonprofit presence. Drawing its example from two San Francisco neighborhoods with high concentrations of low-income households, significant numbers of immigrant residents, and historically low response rates, the article observes that even when there are nearby nonprofits, they are often already so strapped meeting the community’s needs that they have little additional capacity to take on Census related efforts—thus perpetuating the undercount and ensuing shortage of available resources.

Such challenges are compounded by efforts like that of Sen. David Vitter (Louisiana-R) to exclude illegal immigrants from the count. Although defeated in the Senate, this failed legislative tactic underscores the political implications of the battle over “who really counts.” At the same time, some activists like Rev. Miguel Rivera of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders are asking undocumented Latinos to boycott the Census in order to focus visibility on the issue of immigration reform. It’s not just big money that’s at stake—it’s also conflicting ideologies.

One group that’s committed to pulling out a win from Census 2010 is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, with its Queer the Census campaign. Like undocumented residents, whose participation in our economy and social fabric could be rendered invisible by efforts to limit their role in the Census, LGBT people are nowhere recognized as such on today’s Census forms, creating yet another “blind spot.”

As nonprofits work to boost Census participation and remedy the myopia that prevents us from truly “seeing” one another, will we also consider how we might better include those unseen faces and unheard voices in our everyday planning, decision making, leadership, and governance?

Nonprofits are often given kudos for their ability to work with diverse audiences.  Overall, the sector is good at translating materials, hiring staff to provide services in different languages, and creating programs directed at diverse audiences. However, the sector is also traditionally bad at promoting minorities into top leadership positions, as well as fully understanding what diverse communities need or how to best reach out to them.  

Why does this happen? Beyond the lack of resources, the reality is that many nonprofits seem to get very comfortable with what they know or think they know.  It is very easy to fall into the trap of addressing some of the needs of your clients, but not paying attention to how their needs have changed or even how your clients have changed.   

The reality is that despite good intentions many nonprofits fail to adapt to market changes in a timely manner or even understand  what  they should be doing to address today’s diverse population.  Some larger, national nonprofits have done a great job at moving forward with this, using their more substantial resources to better understand their respective markets. (Who are they? What do they need? How are they different?) Two organizations that have been highlighted for their diversity initiatives include the Boy Scouts of America and the YMCA (national).  Smaller and medium sized nonprofits primarily rely on general quantitative and syndicated demographic data, combined with anecdotal information gathered in the field, to make decisions. While this is a good start, generalized data will not provide an accurate picture of an individual organization’s clients— to really understand your clients, you need to speak with them.  Doing so can have a huge positive impact on your ability to serve them better, now and in the future.

What is the best way to do this?  While conducting in-depth market research may not be financially possible for many nonprofits, there are simpler alternatives.  Individual interviews or basic focus groups with a cross section of your clients can help put some context to other syndicated data about your market.  Or, one of my favorite techniques is to walk the neighborhoods being served and talk to and take pictures of the community and the clients being served. You would be surprised at the distinct picture you get when you talk to clients on their terms.

Ultimately, how you get a better picture of your clients is less important than the fact that you do it.  Demographic shifts are occurring faster than ever and you need to stay on top of them if you serve diverse communities.

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.

Although the study does not delve into attendant questions, such as how diversity in leadership impacts a nonprofit’s ability to effectively serve diverse populations, or what confluence of dynamics are behind the underrepresentation of leaders of color in one of the most diverse states in the nation, it is nevertheless valuable in providing basic quantitative benchmarks that seem to be lacking in the nonprofit sector as a whole. In a recent interview for our NonprofitNext research project, Michael Watson of Girl Scouts of the USA observed the dearth of baseline data on nonprofit diversity, both in staff leadership and in the board room. Whereas the corporate sector has long made a point to share demographic information about company leadership – recognizing what this means not only in terms of image but of real impact in the marketplace – the nonprofit sector has yet to be as transparent about its own diversity…or lack thereof, as the case may be.

The Urban Institute study is one small step toward assembling objective data that may enable the sector to better answer the question “How diverse are we?” But this quantitative approach cannot stand alone – only by understanding how diversity supports mission-driven work and helps make the sector more effective, responsive, and resilient does this data become truly meaningful.

Without a broader context, the numbers alone invite oversimplified and reactionary responses the likes of which have plagued us for decades of affirmative action pro/con debates (evident in reader comments on coverage of the report’s release in both the San Jose Mercury News and the Chronicle of Philanthropy) and are even less effective in advancing the dialog today. To help us move beyond the limitations of this “representational diversity” frame, we need to share compelling stories and experiences of how more diverse nonprofits contribute to a more dynamic, successful, and high-performing sector.

Download the Podcast with Adrienne Mansanares, Paul Schmitz, and Michael Watson and tell us what you think.