This approach to communications is one in which you publicize and promote your ideas and thereby your brand, your organization and your values in an indirect way. You go at it at an angle; by talking about ideas and by becoming a participant in public discourse through the media. You become a “talking head” or an op-ed writer – someone who plays a part in how journalism is practiced today.

From a communications point of view this is a strategy which allows you to benefit from what is called ‘the third party effect’, which means that rather than buying an ad on television, you, your organization and your point of view are essentially endorsed by a third party, a journalistic vehicle – a newspaper or a television or radio program.

This strategy translates into credibility. That’s why an op-ed is worth more than a paid ad in a newspaper; a guest appearance on a good program is worth more than an ad on television. The journalistic organization you contribute to positions you as credible and representing a legitimate point of view that the public should know about. You become a participant in public discourse.

Before I present my five good ideas, I would like to make three broad observations.

First, now more than ever, given the state of journalism in combination with factors in the broader society, there is an opportunity for a public affairs approach to communications and marketing.

The media environment has changed. At one time there was Nightline with Ted Koppel in the U.S. and The Journal with Barbara Frum in Canada, along with Canada AM in the non-prime time morning slot. Now, there are probably twenty times that number of interview format programs on television…all fighting for guests; all looking for ‘talking heads’.

A turning point was the creation CNN 25 years ago in June 1980. It was the first of the all news channels; there are now about 70 around the world. What CNN did was no less than change the nature of news. Instead of the traditional definition of news, that is, a report of an event, news became what had been called in journalistic jargon, current affairs or public affairs, an analysis of news or commentary about news.

Because the all news channels could not really deliver on the promise of real news for 24 hours a day, they turned to the interview format. The ‘talking head’ was born. It was cheaper to produce and filled a lot of airtime. It also worked with audiences; they liked this kind of programming. The ‘talking head’, previously limited to the domain of current affairs, became a mainstay of the news services and the distinction between news and current affairs largely disappeared. As an aside, it is worth noting that traditionally at CBC and the BBC the current affairs programming was, at least internally, recognized as the ‘political’ end of information programming. Current affairs strayed from news values by allowing for point-of-view and opinion and debate. Presented in a fair and balanced manner, it was, nonetheless, always handled with care. You can see how this blurring of news and current affairs may be at least a partial explanation for the loss in credibility experienced by news organizations in recent years.

The expansion of ‘talking heads’ created a great opportunity for people in think tanks, universities, professional organizations and non-profit organizations. The media began calling on them to appear on TV, radio and in print to present their views.

There was also a response by print journalism to these changes in broadcasting. Newspapers and magazines introduced more commentary and op-ed space, as well as more columnists and in some cases, expanded Letters to the Editor space. Opinion and debate flourished.

Along with the proliferation of talking heads and commentary journalism there has been another development that creates opportunities for nonprofit organizations to engage in public discourse. Corporate concentration in broadcasting and in newspapers has resulted in a new pressure for newsrooms to increase profits. Traditionally, in television, the newscast was not seen as a profit center but rather more of a public service. Increasingly news executives have come under pressure to make money. To do so they have cut costs on the editorial side both in the public and the private sector. This spring the BBC has embarked on a round of cutting aimed at substantially reducing staff. Last year, shortly after winning five Pulitzer prizes the Los Angeles Times cut 60 newsroom positions. Cuts at the CBC come in waves. The good news in all of this is that once again it creates an opening for citizens groups and people with ideas and knowledge to “fill the space”.

Second, communicating ideas is no longer a frill or an “add on” to your core business. In an information overloaded age where, unfortunately, perception is reality, communication is core to your business.

Changes in the media have taken place along with a social change in the larger society. Over the last decade or more there has been a demand for more openness about how powerful institutions work; for what is called ‘transparency’; for input from citizens. There has been, to use a series of clichés, “a rejection of ‘men in suits’ behind closed doors making decisions”; a rejection of rule by elites.

We saw this during the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord era in Canada. Arguably we have just seen this trend play out again in France and in Holland with the defeats of the referenda on the European Union constitution. So, for a variety of reasons, I think that the opportunity to use the media to put forward your views and participate in public discourse has never been greater.

And, thirdly, the conservative side of the social spectrum has used a public affairs approach to communications more successfully than the progressive side.

In the United States, the big Washington-based foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Institute began to appear regularly on television and in the op-ed pages in the late eighties. In Canada, The Business Council on National Issues and the Fraser Institute tended to dominate the scene. The Fraser Institute, which began in the early eighties in Vancouver, has grown to be the dominant Canadian ‘think-tank’ in the country.

As a number of recent articles have argued, the conservative movement recognized that it had to fight a battle of ideas while the more liberal institutions seemed media shy. Some say they were reluctant to politicize things and they did not engage in public discourse as effectively as the conservative side.

Lewis Lapham of Harper’s magazine wrote a provocative piece about this, called Tentacles of Rage: The Republican Propaganda Mill, A Brief History (September 2004).

Robert Kennedy Jr. also wrote a piece in the May 2005 issue of Vanity Fair called The Disinformation Society in which he argues that the Bush re-election can be traced to the American people being misinformed by news media that presented “propaganda disseminated by the right wing machine”.

A recent article, and in my view the best of these, by Andrew Rich in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (Spring 2005) argues that the right wing foundations and think-tanks have won the ‘war of ideas’ in the US not because they have more money than the liberal organizations, but because they spend it differently by spending more on communicating and marketing their ideas. The conservative movement recognized that they had to aggressively promote their ideas to politicians, journalists and the general public. To quote Rich: “Conservatives have found ways to package and market their ideas in more compelling ways, and their money is providing more bang for the buck”.

Rob Stein, a source for the Lapham piece, and a former Clinton official now with the Democracy Alliance says, “The right has done a marvelous job. They are strategic, coordinated, disciplined and well financed. And they’re well within their rights in a democracy to have done what they have done.”

Here in Canada the socially liberal voice has not engaged in public discourse through the media as effectively as the conservative voice. When journalists are looking for conservative ‘talkers’ they can always contact the Fraser Institute, the Business Council on National Issues, the Federation of Independent Business or the National Citizens Coalition. The NCC is a successful conservative think-tank where Stephen Harper worked before becoming the leader of the Conservative Party. When a journalist wants a more economically liberal view they can call the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives. This organization is not a household name in Canada except, perhaps in British Columbia where Seth Klein, their director, gets a lot of air time.

Who else? There are others from the socially progressive side of the debate who you do see and hear and read in the media – Elizabeth May from the environmental movement and the author Linda McQuaig – but the conservative side seems to be more organized. A new conservative think-tank is now being created, The Institute for Canadian Values with Mike Harris, Preston Manning and others.

So, what is my point?

Well, I am suggesting that the people and organizations engaged in the fight for social justice should join the fray. They should learn to promote their ideas and their values.
They should learn how to engage in public discourse through the media, to reach out beyond their own communities of interest, to talk to people who don’t yet agree with them, to learn to debate, to write and to use the media for the democratic purposes it was meant to serve.

Last December Bill Moyers, one of the great American liberal journalists, resigned from PBS – an institution under attack in the U.S. right now. Moyers said two important things.
He called the decline in American journalism ‘the biggest story of our time’ and he said “the quality of journalism and the quality of democracy are inextricably joined”.

I have no illusions about how the media is viewed by Canadians. One third of Canadians believe that “news reports are often inaccurate” and two-thirds think that “news is not often fair and balanced”. I am sure that this lack of confidence is reflected in the way social service organizations view the media. But I believe you can work with the media and you can build public support for your ideas through the media. The study I was just quoting from – the Canadian Media Research Consortium study, Examining Credibility in Canadian Journalism: A National Study of Public Attitudes about News, (http://cmrcccrm.ca/english/index.html) also concluded that “48% of Canadians believe the news media help society solve problems”. Nonprofit organizations need to be a part of that.

Here are five ways that your organization can become more effective in the media:

1. Invest in content; communicate ideas and study the issues in order to develop expertise.
People who work for not for profits and social service organizations know more than they think they do. They are experts and they’re worth hearing from. Everything you do has a policy issue behind it. One of the most successful US foundation directors, a funder of US conservative think tanks for over thirty years, says that one of their secrets has been their interest in abstract ideas. A typical conference they sponsored examined the legacy of Rousseau. The director says “the ideas have to be tended to; only after that can you tend to the policies.”

2. Train and practice the skills needed to become a talking head; be comfortable debating.
Very often people tell me that they did an interview on TV or radio and they weren’t very good. And often they weren’t. The main reason is that being good on the air is a lot like being good at most things; you have to practice. That means taking the time to think through your messages, research and draft frequently asked questions and rehearse. It takes work to get at the ideas behind the activities, to get at the content that makes your subject interesting and to learn to explain things that you take for granted.

3. Learn how the media works and how you fit into how they do their jobs.

This means following the news: reading and watching and listening. It means learning to think in story ideas. Every day journalists come to work looking for story ideas, for ‘angles’ on events and for guests to book on their programs. They want people who have a thesis; who have a ‘take’ or an ‘angle’ on an event or an issue. And they want new faces, they want what we call ‘diverse’ faces.

4. Jump on opportunities by taking advantage of the news cycle.
One of the most common missed opportunities is the failure to jump on news. There are opportune times in the news cycle for you to get your views and values out. For example, take the recent Supreme Court decision on private health insurance in Quebec. That was an opportunity. Who were the talkers who dominated? It was my impression that the discussion was dominated by the view that we need a parallel private health system and it was often well argued. I didn’t hear, see or read a really compelling solution offered from the pure public health point of view. Maybe I missed it. I am suggesting that your organization invest in monitoring the news of the day in order to flag opportunities. Think about creating a “quick response team”; a system that enables you to drop what you are doing and participate in public discourse when the opportunity arises. News happens at inconvenient times. You need someone in your organization – the person can rotate – whose job it is to flag opportunities.

5. Collaborate with each other in order to stretch resources and assets.
I appreciate the fact that most nonprofits are too small to spend the kind of resources I am talking about on this public affairs approach to communication. But if a group of anti-poverty organizations pooled their talent and efforts in a disciplined and systematic way it could happen. There has been some discussion of nonprofit organizations collaborating to form a newswire service where story ideas would be created to submit to national and local newspapers. Organizations could take turns monitoring for the quick response team. Two or three people could become experts about a particular issue and be prepared to take the lead when that issue is in the news. It will take effort. Start small. Pick a topic that makes news frequently, e.g. refugee and immigration policy. In the wake of 9/11 this topic is in the news in various forms nearly every week. Ultimately, you have to win the war of ideas; you have to explain and defend and bring people onboard or someone else will.

Good Resources on Telling your story to the media

Andrew Rich, War of Ideas, Why mainstream and liberal foundations and the think tanks they support are losing in the war of ideas in American politics in Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2005.

Lewis, H. Lapham, Tentacles of Rage, The Republican propaganda mill, a brief history in Harper’s Magazine, September 2004.

Peter Desbarats, Guide to Canadian News Media, Harcourt Brace & Co. Ltd, Canada, 1996.

www.impacs.ca

www.mediatransparency.org

Accountability is quite different. It involves responsibility for performance. In the past this word usually referred to financial performance, but now the term seems to be used much more broadly. Corporate accountability, environmental accountability, community accountability, personal accountability; it seems accountability is everywhere. And with that other commonly used word these days – transparency- there are few places to hide.

I am not going to talk about budgeting tools, ideas for establishing relationships with funders, public and private, tips for understanding financial reports, best board reporting formats – you will have to figure these things out for yourselves in the context of your own organizations. You are the experts there and you have to tell your own story. But telling your financial story is an integral part of that narrative, and hopefully, the following five ideas will help you do that.

1. Financial reporting is a form of communication. For it to be effective, users must understand it.
This first idea is perhaps the most important one and the one I would like you to remember. Financial reporting is a form of communication. For it to be effective, users must understand it. The normal methods such as financial statements, Board reports, annual reports, budgets, grant applications, etc. are all communications tools. These communications may use a language that is unfamiliar to many but it is a language nonetheless, with its own conventions and rules, a grammar if you like. Above all its purpose is to enable communication, communication between two people, between an organization and its public, between an organization and its funders. If you are not communicating well -and I am putting special emphasis on the financial part of your story – you have a problem.

This idea that we actually communicate might make some of us accountants a little bit uncomfortable. However, the reality these days is that much financial reporting would not pass a basic communications test. The financial part of your story must be comprehensible to the intended users, both internal users in your organization, and external users. What are the implications of this simple but radical idea? First, telling the financial part of your story necessarily involves your accountant, but cannot be left to your accountant operating in splendid isolation. Second, to be comprehensible to multiple audiences you need to tell your story in different ways. It is fine for accountants to talk to each other in technical shorthand, but plain language is needed for everyone else. Variations on the plain language story may be necessary. Some users need the long version, some want the executive summary.

This central idea – the importance of communicating your financial story – links to my other four ideas. I would like to suggest that there are at least four important perspectives to incorporate into your financial story. Specifically, the perspectives of the historian, the crystal ball forecaster, the wizard and the change agent.

2. The perspective of the historian grounds us in the present by understanding, to the best of our ability, where we have been.
When the historian speaks of the past it is not usually about a random selection of unconnected events. Choices are made from a multitude of possible options to extract the relevant bits. Patterns are discerned, trends are identified. Which facts and patterns are selected will depend on the perspective of the historian, suggesting that there are many pasts depending on who is telling the story. Pasts are constructed to support a purpose, objective or ideology, or to justify performance. Fairness and balance are often lacking, making understanding difficult. As citizens, how are we to make sense of our public accounts for example? It seems that $23 billion disappears out of Ontario every year, and $6 or even $10 billion leaves Toronto. Where do these numbers come from and do they make any sense? How do we hold politicians accountable when they use and abuse financial statistics daily?

By invoking an historical perspective, my objective is to ask you to think about your own financial story. Do you understand it and how do you incorporate it into your story? Do you have a really good sense of where you have been, what your real costs are, where you are allocating your resources? Is pressure for greater efficiency causing you to compromise on the quality of your service and what are the implications of this? Many nonprofits have some form of service as their primary mandate. Do you have a good understanding of the costs of providing your services and is this money well spent? Or are you reluctant to talk about the costs, somehow believing that they should not need to be discussed? Do you have other important parts of your mandate, such as an advocacy component? Do you talk about them both, and the costs and benefits of both? Or do you spend resources on things that have nothing to do with your mandate?

Your financial story needs telling in ways that users of the information, both internal and external to your organization, will find useful. You can experiment with different ways to tell your history. Clear, simple presentations consistently reported over time provide insight into trends and identify successes and problems. Visuals, such as graphs and charts are often very effective. Sometimes information needs to be adjusted for the effects of inflation, sometimes for population changes as well. We could do a much better job of holding our political leaders accountable if we required the use of inflation-adjusted, population-adjusted statistics in most governmental financial reporting. These are a few reporting tools. You can decide for yourselves, which will help you to understand where you have been, to understand your history.

3. The perspective of the crystal ball forecaster helps us think about the future, our hopes and aspirations.
Do you have time to think about your future and what that means for your mandate tomorrow and ten years from tomorrow? Or are you too busy trying to protect last year’s budget. While you may think about the future in general terms, most nonprofits do not think rigorously about possible scenarios, and the likely impacts of these scenarios on their mandate.

I suggest that you keep a crystal ball sitting on your desk. What are the trends that are really affecting your organization? Are you capable of meeting the expected demand for your services? Are your services becoming obsolete? Could you model some possible scenarios? What are the implications and costs of not providing your services? Would these perspectives help you to tell your story and how it might unfold? Would this information be useful to you in running your organization now or to others that depend on, or are funders of, your activities? Good forecasting is dependent on the selection of realistic scenarios based on clearly stated assumptions. Testing the sensitivity of important assumptions is often helpful as it provides ranges for probable outcomes.

The crystal ball takes you into a speculative realm, a world of what ifs. This knowledge of future possibilities gives you a better sense of what you should be doing today and tomorrow. In short, it enhances the quality of planning processes which is what budgeting is all about. Do you use your budgeting process as an annual (or more frequent) opportunity to constructively reflect on the past and consider future possibilities? Constructing a likely future of your organization in dialogue with the past is the crystal ball’s contribution to your organization.

4. The wizard informs challenges and inspires our historian and our futurist, stimulating new ideas and causing us to think about existing patterns in new ways.
In this age of corporate shenanigans, I am not really trying to promote the image of the accountant as wizard. My accounting wizard is a more friendly type, possessed of a strong sense of the public good. But does two plus two always equal four? Are things always as they seem, can they be transformed?

There is a belief that accounting is mathematical and very precise. This is understandable because, for the most part, activities are represented by monetary equivalents, stories get told in cold numbers and complexity is reduced to a “bottom line”. But hidden beneath these “bottom lines” is a great deal of subjectivity, and many estimates, judgments and preferences underlie acceptable alternatives. Your accounting wizard should be able to explain the possibilities. If something isn’t making sense to you your wizard should be able to transform the results with a few changed assumptions or alternative presentations. Perhaps costs can be allocated in different, more meaningful ways. Perhaps you never really knew the full cost of some of your activities. Perhaps you are looking at the wrong “bottom line”. For example, to understand what is going on in the financing of Ontario’s universities perhaps the “bottom line” should be student/faculty ratios rather than the monetary surplus or deficit. Be warned, be skeptical. The wizard contributes transformative possibilities but demands scepticism. Both contribute to understanding.

5. And finally, the change agent pulls these ideas together and provides the spark that makes things happen.
An understanding of where you have been, a sense of the future and a touch of wizardry come together in the change agent. The change agent adds clarity of vision, an understanding of constraints and a determination to mobilize for change. By way of example, a couple of Maytree sponsored initiatives come to mind. I’m thinking of the Caledon Institute for Social Policy, the work of Mary Gordon’s Roots of Empathy in influencing our school systems and Paul Born’s Tamarack Institute in tackling the issue of poverty community by community. It is often an individual that provides the spark but usually there is an idea with transformative power in the background. As a corporate example, British Petroleum used the idea that they are an energy company, not just a producer of oil to set the stage for the start of a corporate transformation.

The change agent is expert at identifying the essential problems, understanding possible systemic remedies, overcoming inertia, mobilizing coalitions and schmoozing with the right folks. Incentives are usually needed to stimulate change, and the change agent is an incentives expert. Cash is a good motivator, a fact well understood in the corporate world. The change agent pulls it all together and makes things happen.

In conclusion, good financial reporting is an integral and essential part of telling your story. The story demands a solid sense of history and possible futures, thoughtfully imagined, and highlighting opportunities and strategies for change.

Good Resources on Financial Management and Reporting

• Beyond Poverty and Affluence: Towards a Canadian Economy of Care. Robert Goudzwaard and Harry de Lange, U of T press, 1995
• Social Capital Partners
• CIBC’s Annual Accountability Report
• British Petroleum’s Sustainability Report
• The Culture of Contentment, J.K.Galbraith, 1995
• Accounting Standards in Evolution, Ross M. Skinner, 1987

Although we live in one of the most successful societies on the planet, there remain economic, social and political discrepancies between and among various dimensions of Canadian society. Ours is a profoundly competitive environment, both commercially and politically, and this is dramatically seen in the constant competition for the attention and resources bestowed by provincial and federal governments.

The ideas I present are not about the nuts and bolts of advocacy strategy development or lobbying tactics. Rather, they focus on concepts, approaches and mindsets which, I believe can be helpful to any organization in becoming a constructive and influential player in public-policy advocacy.

There are several important background considerations I’d like you to consider beforehand.

First, our political and public-policy environment is one where we have an overheated, ubiquitous ‘argument’ industry – increasingly sophisticated individuals in the media, academia, and interest groups – who are well-versed in policy and advocacy. This has important implications for those who are trying to make an argument; it is a crowded field!

Two, while our public service is one of the most respected, well-educated and (relatively) corruption-free in the world, it is also highly risk-averse and often overworked, in an environment where the demands for attention and resources far exceed the capacity to respond. The public service is also the target of an enormous number of representations – most of them not very well conceived, executed or articulated.

Thirdly, we live in a society where politics and government, in general, are held in low esteem. There is an increasing focus on the democratic deficit and the nature of participatory democracy.

Fourthly, government has to look at issues in particular ways; if you or your organization don’t understand this, you’ll probably end up talking only to yourselves!

And fifthly, a common complaint is that governments don’t listen. However interest groups often are not aware of their own need to listen, observe and think about what government is doing. Recognizing the legitimacy of elected government is key to our democratic system. Understanding their priorities is crucial to successful advocacy.

There are five typical reasons why organizations fail in their advocacy efforts, (or why bad things happen to good ideas):

• They ask the wrong people for the wrong thing at the wrong time;
• They ignore the realities of government and political decision-making;
• They don’t help the government think it through;
• They stick with the ‘Same Old Same Old’;
• They don’t’ have a champion for their issue/cause WITHIN government.

The following five ideas are designed to help you avoid these common failures.

1. Understand the Thinking Inside the Box … of Government
A universal key to successful persuasion is the ability to understand those whom you are trying to convince. This means understanding their values, objectives, needs and ways of looking at the world. In general and your issue in particular.

I call this “strategic inquiry” and consider it the essential first step in effective advocacy – understanding what the government thinks it knows and why.

Before you develop your ‘ask’, (i.e. your proposition or request to government) consider how the government views your particular issue – what are its assumptions, constraints and influences.

Today there is an emphasis in government to consider public policy implications laterally across several government departments, a “whole of government” perspective. Small organizations shouldn’t be intimidated by this kind of broad approach. What is required is “inquiry, insight and intelligence” around the issue; try and understand both the “politics” and the “public policy” of the issue you are dealing with.

There are, what I call, six ‘P’s of public-policy advocacy to take into account:

Purpose / Principle – what is the basic principle – from the government’s perspective – underlying the public policy issue you are interested in?
Process – what is the process? Who are the decision-makers and what are the decision timetables that are central to the issue that you are dealing with?
Precedent – Every decision that government makes, one way or another, is guided or influenced by some notion of another of “precedent.” “If we do it for this group, do we’ll have to do it for someone else?” Or, “we have always done it this way.” Or “What are the precedential implications of your particular proposal?”
Positioning – How is the department/official/politician you’re dealing with, positioning this issue?
Politics – What are the interpersonal dynamics (both among politicians and between departments) and relationships that this issue affects? Who is interested in this issue?
Perseverance – Nothing happens in public policy advocacy unless someone is actively and persistently pursuing the issue. Be prepared to spend the time over the medium to long-term researching, advocating and recalibrating your position.

Considering the above dimensions will provide your organization with much of the necessary information for taking a “strategic approach” to one’s advocacy and will provide important information on the decision-making process, on targets and on timetables. It will also provide inspiration for an effective advocacy narrative; e.g. What is the framework by which our organization is going to present our arguments?

2. The Importance of ‘Do-It-Yourself Public Policy’.
Getting the attention of decision-makers and advisors and motivating them to act on what you want is an intensely competitive process. One of the most important things you can do is to provide public officials with material they can use in a format with which they’re familiar.

This involves learning how to “do” public policy or at least know the formats, language and considerations that are used in government policy development. Most of this information is publicly available on the Internet or through Access to Information/Freedom to Information requests.

• “Use their tools and speak their language.” This is the key. Understanding the type of information used by government in its decision-making processes is helpful to any organization that is developing its own strategy to influence public policy, regardless of the level of government involved. It’s a blueprint of sorts, on how to look at issues in the way those in government are required to do. For example, most changes in public policy require a briefing note to the minister. If this is the case, provide information in a format, which can be used directly in such a briefing note; it will save a bureaucrat’s time and may help to expedite some of the process.

As a final note, this work can be time-consuming. Using a government relations consultant or lobbyist can be one approach, but an equally effective alternative is to find a recently retired civil servant who is knowledgeable in the issues and decision-making processes you are interested in and may be willing to work on a volunteer basis. Another simple tip: buy a government telephone book, which can be a very practical way to understand a government’s organizational structure.

3. Advocacy Asset Management: Building Political Capital
Whether its leadership realizes it or not, every organization has varying amounts of political capital. Strategically, for the organization, the important thing is to view “political capital” as an asset without which little can be achieved. Building it should be a prime concern of every Board whose priority objectives include being effective in public-policy advocacy.

What is meant by political capital? By my definition, it includes:

• individual and institutional/corporate reputations;
  the organization’s traditions, icons and myths;
• the organization’s accomplishments (particularly in being able to demonstrate that they can work successfully with government); a supportive membership;
• specific expertise within the organization or a history of dealing with data that is relevant to the public policy issue;
• contacts at the political and bureaucratic levels
• the ability to support and help other organizations.

4. Less Predictability, More Opportunism
Machiavellian though it may sound, advocates need to consider the value of such things as being “strategically opportunistic” while avoiding being “too predictable in their public-policy advocacy and strategic communications. This means aiming for a balance between being competently reliable and avoiding being taken for granted. It also implies a “third option” alternative to being either “reactive” or “proactive” in one’s advocacy. Call it “strategic opportunism.”

Be prepared to be reactive – but wait for the opportunity to present itself where you can have the greatest influence.

Avoid being a “one-trick” pony – always saying the same things, the same way, demonstrating resistance to change and innovation. Be entrepreneurial; regularly re-invent your organization’s approach by offering new and fresh ideas; not the ‘same old, same old’.

Be opportunistic in another way as well. Make a conscious effort towards having a positive communications strategy – particularly when talking about government and politician. Stress the positive and curb the negative. However, this does not imply that an organization needs to be ‘promiscuously Pollyanna’ on all issues all the time. But, rather, rather think about how to be constructive and supportive – strategically, of course. For example, take the time to send a note to a government official that you deal with when you see them doing something that is laudatory. his type of approach also builds political capital for the time when an organization has no alternative but to strongly (and publicly) criticize the government’s direction. In this way, you can be less predictable, but more strategic.

5. The Vital Role of “Champions”
The complex, often volatile, nature of political and public-policy decision-making is such that very little of anything happens to a proposition or an idea unless there is someone inside the government who is driving the issue or prepared to sponsor it. The challenge then is how to find such “champions,” how to motivate them to help and how to support their efforts. To you, they are champions. To them, your organization may be a “partner” in a particular issue, an important consideration in today’s government environment.

Champions can help your “connectedness” to the system. Having or not having a champion is a measure of your advocacy; If you can’t get someone to be your champion, that may be an early warning about the practicality or relevance of what you’re asking for. As one senior bureaucrat said: “You may need to ask some questions of and about yourself, your organization, your position or idea, if no one in government wants to hold your hand.”

Of course, the perfect champion on an issue is the minister of the department you’re lobbying but there are a number of other potential champions as well. (Indeed, there is often way too much emphasis in many organizations on ‘getting in to see the minister”. In most governments, most of the time, 90% of the issues are actually “decided” in a government or a department and are simply ratified or “fronted” by the minister. As former cabinet minister once said, “Getting in to see the minister is often the last gasp of a losing lobbying campaign”. Unless you have been successful in making your case with ministry officials or the political staff who advise the minister, you will likely not be successful in your efforts

Some other champions might include: public servants, legislators, political advisors / ministerial assistants, community leaders and celebrities. For example, an Ontario company which was recently with a regulatory issue and a very closed, secretive, inaccessible government agency found two champions – their local MP who pressed the agency for a fair and timely process (while being careful not to press the regulator for a specific outcome; that would be undue interference) and officials of another, separate government department who believed that a solution was possible and in the best interests of federal public policy generally. In this case the “champions” were not in the agency which was being lobbied but rather were individuals elsewhere in the same government who were critical in convincing the agency of our client’s cause.

Good Resources on Advocacy

Privy Council Office – Format for Memorandum to Cabinet

William T. Stanbury, Business-Government Relations in Canada: Influencing Public Policy (second edition), Nelson Canada, 1993

Kim Bobo, Jackie Kendall and Steve Max, Organizing for Social Change: The Midwest Academy Manual for Activists, Seven Locks Press, Santa Ana California, 2001

Jim Schultz, The Democracy Owners’ Manual: A Practical Guide to Changing the World, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J. 2003

Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, Vintage Books, New York, 1972

Drafters Guide for Memorandum to Cabinet: This document can be very useful in explaining to those outside government what kind of information and analysis is required by the federal Cabinet before it makes important decisions. This is an older document than the above resource but perhaps better presented and much more helpful.

Governance is about how organizations make decisions and who is accountable for the results. Boards may make major policy decisions or minor administrative ones. Here are five good ideas common to all nonprofits to the common challenge of good governance.

1. Good governance is always a work in progress that must be tailor made to the specific character of each organization
A nonprofit organization is not static: the external environment may change, funding may become easier or more difficult, or the people-mix within the organization may alter. All of these factors can affect governance. Never take your governance situation for granted. The best governance structure for your organization depends on such factors as: the nature of the service, the age of the organization, and the size and culture of the organization.
Look to other organizations of a similar size, age and mandate for governance structures which can be imported into your own organization. It is good practice to have an annual appraisal or review on how well your organization makes decisions. Engaging an outside facilitator to run the meeting may also be useful; the facilitator does not have to be a professional (and expensive) consultant; he or she can be drawn from a peer organization network.

2. Good governance is proactive, strategic and embraces accountability
Good governance is proactive, not reactive. Benevolent neglect is often the origin of most governance issues. A board that is dealing with minutiae is a board that does not understand its role. Even a working board must be strategic, deal with issues in an accountable way and most importantly, look ahead to the next stage of the organization. A board does not have the ability to run the organization on a day-to-day basis.

Board turnover is important. At the annual review, the executive director should be bringing a “state of the union” discussion paper to the board highlighting changes to the external environment and raising opportunities and key questions to be considered by the board.

The chair of the board and the executive director of the organization need to have a strong working relationship. The responsibility for smooth board meetings resides with this group.

3. Be realistic, a matter that is seen by one person to be an organizational concern is seen by another person as a conflict of interest. Interest conflicts come in many guises and their early management is everyone’s responsibility
Some conflict of interest issues are very clear, e.g. locating your new office premises in your sister-in-law’s building. Organizations get into trouble for two reasons: one, they don’t have a set of conflict-of-interest policy guidelines (issues such as competitive bids, open advertising, familial connections). Usually these guidelines are established by a risk management committee of the board. Two, either through naivete or power, there are no boundaries between personal and organizational decisions, for example a founding board member who has been a board chair for the entire history of the organization. It becomes difficult to challenge this, largely out of a climate of fear.

There is a third type of conflict of interest which can often be the most benign threat that a board deals with. This often arises within an organization with a working board, where a key board member is also a key volunteer in part of the organization. When issues arise at the board meeting, the board member strongly advocates for the volunteer area in which he or she is involved. Now one part of the organization has a clear advocate on the board with the result that the budget process or other decision-making process are undercut. Eventually the situation undermines trust and credibility in the organization. How do you address this proactively? There is no other way to do this other than the executive director or the board chair to have a direct conversation with the individual.

4. The development of a strong management team and provision for leadership succession is a recognized board priority. Equally important is the development of leadership capacity and the provision for board member succession within the board itself
Using a garden analogy, “sow the seeds and tend the garden”. Nurturing the talent of board members can often be neglected due to ‘founder’s syndrome’ – a founding member allows the board to become fossilized. Develop a board policy that limits the term of a board member as well as the term of executive positions. The position of board chair in particular needs to be developed – to understand the culture of the organization; to understand the organization’s issues; to understand and be trusted by key staff of the organization. It is very difficult (and perhaps risky) to have a board chair ‘parachuted’ into the board without any prior experience. Hopefully the board chair will have previously had an experience of working as a board member, perhaps as the chair of a board committee.

The working relationship of a board chair and executive director is always a negotiated relationship. Together they should be responsible for board membership development and board orientation.

5. Use them or lose them! The attraction and retention of strong board members depends on a board’s ability to productively engage such people in a meaningful, satisfying manner
It is the responsibility of the board chair and the executive director to ensure that board members are productively engaged. The best way to do this is in the preparation of the board agenda. Meetings should end on time and reports should be timely otherwise board members feel they are being manipulated and asked to rubber stamp decisions. Volunteer time is a scarce commodity and should be managed accordingly; if a board member’s time is not used well, it will go elsewhere. Make sure that board members are engaged in meeting discussions; not all agenda items should be reports and information.

Use a process observer – one board member every meeting who has the responsibility for observing the meeting and reporting at the end of the meeting about what worked and what didn’t work.

Use focus or theme sessions at least quarterly, organized around an issue that is confronting your organization. This gives board members an opportunity to be proactive and provide opinions; it also gives an opportunity to bring in other staff members to offer their expertise or an outside observer to provide an educational opportunity.

Get the chair active and involved in the organization. There are many learning opportunities on how to be a effective board chair and many good books on the subject.

Good Resources on Board Governance

How Should Boards Address Conflicts of Interest? in Great Boards: the online newsletter for healthcare boards, Winter, 2003.

Eyes on Governance: beyond Board structure and Committees, Institute of Corporate Directors, The Globe and Mail, November 28, 2004, pg. B6

Making Time For Good Governance, Douglas Macnamara and Banff Executive Leadership Inc., Leadership Acumen, Issue 11, August 2003.

Building Better Boards, David A. Nadler, Harvard Business Review, May, 2004. pp.102-110.

The New Work of the Nonprofit Board, Barbara Taylor, Richard Chait and Thomas Holland, Harvard Business Review, September-October, 1996. pp. 4-11

At the core of a good organization is a set of ideas and a vision. How do you engage funders early in the idea development cycle of an organization? What relationship is there between engagement, ideas and money? How do funders view ideas, strategy and leadership? How do you begin to build the relationships that will sustain your organization?

1. Find your passion and articulate it – this is what people invest in
People invest in the passion of your organization. The correlation between vision, ideas and money starts with passion. If you don’t believe in what you are doing, you aren’t doing your organization any favours. A two-point test might be:

• Do you give time to your organization over and above what you are paid for?
• Are you reading and actively learning about what you are doing?

Before you approach a potential investor, be able to answer three basic questions about your organization:

• What are you doing and why is the world a better place because of what you are doing?
• What do you want to do and how will the world be a better place because of this?
• How are you going to involve the donor in your organization?

2. Get your house in order to receive money. People do not invest in confusion or incompetence. Make sure you have the correct systems in place so that when you receive an investment you can process it in a professional manner
Build an organization that is able to receive money with a well-developed mission, an identifiable strategic plan and good financial and evaluation systems. Ensure that your organization has the right leaders to implement the organization’s strategies. For new and emerging organizations, good financial systems (and a bookkeeper) is the best single investment.

Understand the funding cycles of donor organizations to be in the right place at the right time. You are then able to use money that you receive wisely and competently.

3. Build relationships and then build the relationship – people give to people they trust
When you are talking to someone who is willing to give or has given to your organization, use the ‘80-20’ rule: Never talk more than 20% of the time about your organization, spend at least 80% of the conversation trying to understand what a funder wants and needs, both on a personal and corporate level. Keep detailed notes of these conversations to use at subsequent occasions.

Build relationships from within your organization – start by asking your board members about their own relationships with key community members. Fundraising by large donor gifts requires a minimum lead time of several years. There are two considerations in a donor’s receptiveness to fundraising: will and ability. Ability refers to how much the donor knows about your organization and the depth of trust that has been developed; ability is the current liquidity of the donor- how much cash he/she has available. A maxim in fundraising is: do you want a quick ‘no’ or a slow ‘yes’? Be patient and take the time to cultivate relationships.

4. Communicate the opportunity to invest as an invitation to learn.
Projects seldom go as planned. Engage your funder in the work as it unfolds, so they will be better able to recognize your successes while understanding the challenges you face

Recognize that the outcomes of a project inevitably change. Engage your funder in finding solutions to difficulties as they occur. Ask their opinions and engage their interest in your project. If the donor has a particular idea which is not exactly what you had planned, don’t reject the idea automatically; again engage the donor in a conversation with research and alternative approaches.

5. Momentum builds as you grow the credibility, capacity and capital for your idea
When you build relationships, recognize that it takes time. The cycle starts very slowly and begins to grow. Keep your eye on the credibility of your organization – involve funders as spokespeople for the organization, work hard at telling your story. Keep your eye on your organization’s capacity to support the work in a credible manner and create a culture of gratitude within your organization – thank funders, volunteers and staff on a regular basis.

Finally, vision, ideas and money come down to a way of being; an authentic desire to have the kind of organization with which people can engage.

Good Resources on Vision, Ideas and Money

Friendraising: Raising Funds, Finding Friends To Realize Bold Community Visions. Born, Paul with Wayne Hussey. 2003.

Relationship Fundraising: A Donor-Based approach to the Business of Raising Money. Burnett, Ken. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

How the New Rich Give. McKinnon, Harvey. CD. 2003.

Ten FAQs About Major Gift Fundraising. What You Need to Know About: Nonprofit Charitable Orgs

Face to Face: How to get Bigger Donations from Very Generous People. Wyman, Ken. 1993.

Innovative Philanthropic Leadership. Broadbent, Alan. Speech. Association of Fundraising Professionals. Toronto, 24 March 2003.

Tides Canada – A national foundation with a unique focus: providing charitable giving services to donors interested in values-led philanthropy in the areas of environmental sustainability and progressive social change.

Imagine Canada – Imagine Canada’s online library contains a wide variety of resource materials on topics of interest to the charitable, voluntary sector. Articles and resources are available for viewing or downloading.

1. Why talk to the City of Toronto?
The City of Toronto is the fifth largest government by population in North America and has a $10 billion dollar impact on the economy through its annual operating and capital budget. The City of Toronto under the new mayor, has made a commitment to a number of new approaches to engage the residents of Toronto, for example, the recently announced Roundtable on a Beautiful City and the ‘Listening to Toronto’ budget participation sessions. In addition to the new mayor, twenty-five per cent of City Council councillors were newly elected in 2003. The city is in the process of securing new revenue sources and new powers through a ‘new deal’ with the federal and provincial governments. As part of this vision, the City is seen as an essential “connector” between the other orders of government and the community and as a result, the city’s role and influence will expand and grow over time.

2. What are the City’s priorities?
There are currently three priorities, which have been established by City Council for the next several years:

• Creating a clean and beautiful city
• Strengthening the city’s neighbourhoods
• Increasing public engagement

These priorities are being reflected in some major city initiatives such as the revitalization of the Waterfront and the regeneration of Regent Park. In approaching city hall, use these priorities as ‘guide-posts’ or reference points, linking your priorities with the city’s stated priorities.

3. Who do you talk to?
Toronto City Council is elected every three years. The Council is composed of the mayor, who is elected at large, and 44 councillors who are elected in 44 wards across the city. Each member of Council has support staff that help him or her run their city hall offices and handle constituency work. The Mayor is the head of Council and in this capacity provides leadership on key issues and priorities and directs the business of Council. Council decides on the appointment for the positions of Deputy Mayor, the chairs and members of the standing committees of Council. These appointments are made on an 18 month basis; new appointments will be made in June 2005.

City staff, of whom there are over 30,000, provide day to day service to the public. The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), has the responsibility for the coordination of work within city departments, corporate performance and intergovernmental relations. A City of Toronto Telephone Directory, listing all city departments, staff and phone numbers is published yearly in January and is available by calling Access Toronto at 416-338-0338.

Getting to know how city hall works takes time and patience. Engage city staff in the issues that concern you and your organization and work with them directly. Seek out and speak with elected officials. If you need to speak with them personally, it is often effective to drop by a Committee or Council meeting and speak with them directly, or speak with their staff. When asking for help on something, also offer to help in return and propose creative and innovative solutions through collaboration. Most people, including politicians, are keen to participate in actions that are solution-driven.

When advocating an issue at city hall, be informed of what other issues are priorities; pick your timing and line up your support. There are champions of many issues at city hall both within the political sphere and within the civil service. Take the time to learn who these champions are in the particular area in which you work, seek them out and have them become acquainted with your organization.

4. How can you best engage in the work of City Hall?
If you have an innovative idea that helps bring creative solutions to the city’s priorities, you have a more credible chance of success. Some examples of these approaches are:

• The community safety plan (to address the issue of crime and gang violence in three city neighbourhoods, the city partnership with four provincial ministries and the community, to create the Jobs for Youth program which resulted in employment and skills training for youth;
• The profession-to-profession mentoring pilot project (to address the difficulties of qualified newcomers finding jobs in Toronto, the city worked with community agencies and The Maytree Foundation to link city employees and internationally trained professionals in a mentoring program;
• The strong communities housing allowance pilot project (to address the issue of affordable housing, the Toronto Community Foundation, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are providing reduced rents to households on the municipal waiting list

5. When do you approach the City?
The first step in seeking help from city hall is to determine who the decision-makers are. Many decisions are delegated to staff and can be made without going through the city council process. Generally large decisions involving money and new programs require the approval of City Council. City Council conducts its business in public with the exception of personnel and real estate issues. A meeting schedule, agendas and minutes for all committee and council meetings are available at http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/council/index.htm. Council meets once a month, with meetings lasting three days. Given the timelines for issues to be reported to a standing committee and Council, it can take several months for an issue to be considered and decided upon.

Understand the city’s annual budget cycle. You can maximize your chance of success if you present your request when something can be done about it! The budget cycle generally starts in the summer with staff working on department by department requests. The public process generally begins in December and in the new year, standing committees have public hearings prior to Council approving the final budget in February.

Information about the city’s community grants process is available online at http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/grants/csgp/index.htm. The city does not provide multi-year funding. Get to know the grants review officer and understand the appeal process, if your grant application is not successful. In preparing a community grant application, understand the city’s priorities and address what impact your organization will have on these priorities.

Good Resources on Talking to the City of Toronto

City of Toronto
Toronto Community Housing
Toronto Vital Signs 2004, Report of the Toronto Community Foundation
The Other Map of Toronto
Book: Toronto – No Mean City by Eric Arthur, 1964

The term grantmaker can refer to private, public and family foundations, as well as government departments and agencies that make grants to charitable and not-for-profit organizations. Foundations make grants to advance their mission. Government departments and agencies make grants to implement public policy. In all cases, grantmakers look to grantees to achieve defined objectives. They expect results, and hold the grantee organization accountable. If the initiative addresses an ongoing need, grantmakers will often want to know how the grantee will be able to continue the program after the grant period has ended.

Grantmakers need grant applicants and grantees. Grantmakers have objectives they wish to achieve but they cannot realize these objectives without grantee organizations to carry them out. To a thoughtful grantmaker, a qualified, credible, capable grant applicant is a potential partner in achieving its mission. Approached in this manner, the relationship is seen as one of mutual benefit, rather than one that is paternalistic.

1. Show how your organization can help the grantmaker achieve its objectives
Look at the kinds of initiatives supported by the grantmaker. Funding bodies do not exist simply to give out money. They depend on applicants to help them realize their mission. Do not approach a grantmaker simply as a source of funds. Show how your organization can help the grantmaker achieve its objectives.

2. Do your homework first
Make sure you know the types of activities supported by prospective grantmakers and the size and duration of grants. There is no point approaching a grantmaker if your initiative does not fit its mandate and scope. Foundations and government departments provide a great deal of useful information on their websites. Before approaching any grantmaker, you should have answers to the following questions:

1. What is its mission – what is it trying to achieve?
2. What type of activities does it fund?
3. What size of grants does it make?
4. How long will it fund initiatives?

Avoid making a “cold” approach. If possible, discuss your ideas with the grantmaker before submitting an application. If that is not possible, ask some organizations that have received grants for their suggestions.

As the application makes its way through the grantmaker’s decision-making process, respond promptly to requests for clarification or additional information. This can be a critical time for building or strengthening the relationship. Some applicants resent follow-up questions however they present a valuable opportunity to ask your own questions to strengthen your application, and improve its chances of approval.

3. Be aware of the competition for funding
No grantmaker can fund every good initiative. Ensure that your request is realistic and be prepared not to receive the full amount. Consider partnerships and collaborative undertakings to reduce costs and better serve more members of the community.

Grantmakers can often point to successful partnerships or collaborations and provide you with an appropriate contact to find out what worked and where the pitfalls may be. There are a number of resources related to this topic listed below.

4. Be open to change
While grantmakers do not carry out activities, they often have considerable experience in what works and what doesn’t work. When you make an application, be open to the possibility that the grantmaker may suggest changes or alternative approaches. Perhaps establishing a business plan or undertaking volunteer development should be considered before undertaking the initiative. Perhaps there are ways to enhance effectiveness, inclusiveness, and accessibility. Also, as the initiative proceeds, grantees should provide honest progress reports. The terms of the grant can be renegotiated if changes are needed to ensure its ultimate success.

5. Pay attention to details
Success in getting grants depends on more than just good ideas. The organization must demonstrate its credibility and capacity to carry out the initiative.

Although it may seem obvious, it is essential to submit a complete and accurate application. If the grantmaker requests a list of your board of directors with addresses and telephone numbers, or an up-to-date budget, or names of references, they most likely will not process an application without this information. Follow the instructions: if the grantmaker asks for a one-page summary of the initiative, do not send a 15-page proposal. At the Ontario Trillium Foundation, for example, we ask that applications not be bound. Yet many applicants disregard these instructions thinking that submitting a more “professional” looking bound document will improve their chances of success. Actually, all it does is increase administrative work as the document must be disassembled in order to make copies for reviewers.

Grantees should also make sure they provide progress and final reports to preserve their reputation within the grantmaking community.

And finally, a reminder that grantmakers do not want a grant to fail any more than the nonprofit organization does. Be open about changing conditions, or shifting needs that become apparent after a grant is under way. It may be that money would be better spent on something a bit different, that the project is going to take longer than originally estimated, or that some of the expected results will differ. Most grantmakers are quite open to reasonable changes.

L. Robin Cardozo

Chief Executive Officer, The Ontario Trillium Foundation

A Chief Executive Officer of The Ontario Trillium Foundation since 1999, Robin Cardozo leads one of Canada’s largest granting foundations in its mission to make strategic investments that will help build healthy, caring and economically strong communities in Ontario.

For 11 years prior to joining the Foundation, Mr. Cardozo held progressively senior positions at the United Way of Greater Toronto, culminating in his appointment as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. In 1999, Mr. Cardozo’s leadership earned him the United Way movement’s highest national honour, the André Mailhot Award.

Mr. Cardozo was born in Pakistan, and was educated in Pakistan and Britain. An experienced Chartered Accountant in Canada and in Britain, he was elected a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (FCA) in 2000.

The Ontario Trillium Foundation is an agency of the Ministry of Culture. The Foundation receives $100 million of annual government funding, generated through Ontario’s charity casino initiative. Since 1999, the Ontario Trillium Foundation has distributed $500 million to deserving organizations in the Arts & Culture, Environment, Human & Social Services and Sports & Recreation sectors.

Good Resources on Approaching Grantmakers Successfully

Canadian Centre for Philanthropy
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
Council on Foundations
The Foundation Center Online
Philanthropic Foundations Canada
Philanthropy News Digest

On Partnerships:
Strategic Directions: Planning for Partnerships
Building Bridges Across Sectors: A Resource to Help Create Community and Academic Research Partnerships

1. Why are you hiring a consultant?
There are several possible roles for a consultant. Think clearly about which role you are asking a consultant to undertake and understand that there may be a different fee associated with each role.
The first type of consultant provides an additional resource for the organization without having to make a permanent commitment to an additional staff person; an extra set of hands. To use an analogy from the natural world, this is the consultant as ‘ant’, a worker who performs well in the organizational environment.

A second role is to bring new ideas and social innovation into the organization. This is the consultant as ‘honey bee’, helping to disseminate one or many good ideas borrowed from other organizations. A caution is that this consultant must understand the environment from which the idea is being borrowed and the environment into which it is being introduced; The consultant is being hired as an expert and their role can range from a single workshop to a longer-term educational function within your organization.

A third role is the consultant who is hired to validate a set of ideas, which have already been developed within the organization; what is needed is the endorsement by the consultant in order to sell the idea higher up in the organization or to other organizations. This is the consultant as ‘butterfly’: they can flutter around and flatter whoever needs to be impressed. This role should be used sparingly and only when the consultant can bring some authentic value to the group. It is often used as part of a marketing campaign, e.g. to endorse a new set of technical services being offered.

The last role is the consultant as ‘praying mantis’: an organization needs someone who will bring insight to a difficult problem and will be working in the ‘trenches’ helping to solve the difficulty. This consultant is a generalist, not necessarily from a particular discipline, but someone who brings strong problem-solving methodology and experience.

2. Who should you hire?
What is the process you are going to use within your organization to tackle the issue? Are you trying to obtain new insights or do you need process facilitation? A consultant whose strength is ‘content-free’ facilitation will drive the process to consensus. Alternatively, if you are really looking for new and innovative ideas, a consensus approach may not be appropriate; you may be looking for a ‘content’ consultant who is an expert in a particular area.

How do you know when you have found the right consultant? Ask for three references and do a thorough reference check. Ask for references that are relevant to the kind of job you are asking the consultant to do. In a reference check ask such questions as: How did the consultant help you arrive at the solution? How did they deal with people who disagreed with the solution being proposed? How did they deal with you as a client? Are they a ‘content free’ facilitator or do they have core expertise in a given field?

3. What are the deliverables?
Consultants need to have the deliverables articulated clearly. Be careful to specify what you are looking for; on the one hand, too many requirements can hamper creativity, on the other hand, too few requirements may encourage unnecessary digressions.

While there must be specific product deliverables, recognize that the process itself is one of the deliverables. Are you expecting the consultant to sell the final recommendations to staff or to the Board of Directors as part of the contract? If so, make this explicit. In addition, schedule a check-in early in the process, once the consultant has become familiar with your organization and be flexible in considering alternative approaches. Don’t be afraid of altering the scope of the work if it is warranted.

In the particularly difficult area of information technology (IT) consulting, if you don’t have someone within your organization who has the expertise to supervise, consider asking someone from a larger organization with whom you have a relationship. Make sure that the consultant’s relationship with IT providers and services is transparent, e.g. the consultant will not be recommending equipment and/or services for which he or she receives a commission.

4. How do you create a process?
Both the stakeholders and clients of your organization need to be considered in designing the process. You may wish to create a ‘phase zero’ where you identify a possible consultant, have an initial meeting to solicit feedback on the process challenges and re-design the process accordingly. This initial meeting can also give you a preview of how the consultant will work with your group.

Consider different ways to achieve process: for example, some clients of a community development group, the working poor, may feel intimidated in a steering group which consists mostly of CEOs of other organizations. A focus group approach may be more appropriate as a tool for engagement.

Again, referring back to idea number two, different processes will require different types of facilitation which must be considered in the hiring of the consultant.

5. The “Buy-in”
As you get to the end of the process, check who has been involved in, and consulted with, to arrive at the final recommendations. Identify who has been missed in the process and circle back and involve them.

Who will be implementing the decisions? Have they been involved in the process? It is important that everyone who may be affected is involved in building a common fact base prior to drawing recommendations from the information.

At the end of the process, there is often a ‘blocker’. Facts may not be enough to sell this person or persons a good idea; ultimately getting them to buy-in may involve a number of other, less tangible factors such as building trust. A good consultant must have the emotional intelligence to be able to realize this and pick an appropriate strategy to get a particular person or group of persons onboard (a series of one-on-one meetings or a casual beer!).

In conclusion, consultants can be measured on three indices:

1. Can they give your organization insight?
2. Do they give your organization impact?
3. Can they build trust within your organization?

If your consultant scores well on each of these, you may have found someone who can align your project’s mission with their passion, become a partner in your project and then connect your organization with other organizations.