Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
organization decisively the other way.
We have taken the path to recovery . . .
I am very glad that the Board took a hard look at the finances, made
new assessments as to how NSN was on target or not in meeting its
proposed 2008 budget, and made what must have been painful decisions.
I applaud your courage, and look forward to seeing the 2007 audit and
the updated 2008 budget.
It has to be really hard to admit the perilous state of NSN's
finances. I think that the actions taken by the board are courageous
and, perhaps, long overdue. As I get to know the descisions that have
been made over the last year and a half I am glad to see some major
pruning going on. It's only when you prune drastically that there is
healthy growth.
After reading the detailed financial picture on the board blog, such
as it is, i'd like to make a comment, not from the perspective of a
storyteller, but from the perspective of a Development Director, on
the following sentence:
"By 2008 NSN had committed itself to a very ambitious range of
programs and had hired staff and rented office space to support them.
According to the original 2008 Budget, personnel and general and
administrative costs make up about 67% of our anticipated expenses.
Another 22% of expenses comprise the costs of running the Conference
and publishing the magazine. That leaves very little “discretionary
spending” for leveraging against a structural loss."
In Minnesota we have an organization called the Charities Review
Council that sets standards for accountability for nonprofits. It
helps donors make informed philanthropic choices. Although there is
some debate on the wisdom of these exact percentages, and startup
organizations can often go through periods where they are somewhat
topheavy in administration, the standard for a responsible nonprofit
is for no less than 70% of an organization's budget to go to core
services, and no more than 30% to administration and fundraising.
These is generally averaged over three years, to take into account
fluctuations that come from the need to add staff as you execute new
program.
Unless there are actually hidden program costs in your general and
administrative expenses, these figures are so upside down that it
would be very difficult to make a case for efficient provision of core
services. This will affect your ability to fundraise from individual
donors - particularly those nonmembers you want to attract as arts
patrons, the mythical Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets - as well as
corporations and foundations.
> Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
> edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
> organization decisively the other way.
> We have taken the path to recovery . . .
Paula,
from the beginning NSN has had the dilemma of being a membership-based
nonprofit whose members have clamored for services to benefit
themselves (which, as you know, makes for a rocky road to keep an
organization focused on its nonprofit mission).
Also, it has been many years since NSN has had a person on the Board
who was skilled at communicating the financial picture to the
membership.
So take the 67% figure with a grain of salt. Yes, that went to
personnel. But not all of that personnel was administrative. Some
amount (and I don't know how much) went to the organization's "very
ambitious range of programs."
I suspect that the Board arrived at the 67% figure backwards, that is,
operating costs minus the conference and magazine, and they did not
parse out how much of the remaining costs went to NSN's services.
The dire figures are a result of incomplete reporting as much as
anything else.
Tim
On May 12, 10:25 pm, Paula N <prnancar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After reading the detailed financial picture on the board blog, such
> as it is, i'd like to make a comment, not from the perspective of a
> storyteller, but from the perspective of a Development Director, on
> the following sentence:
> "By 2008 NSN had committed itself to a very ambitious range of
> programs and had hired staff and rented office space to support them.
> According to the original 2008 Budget, personnel and general and
> administrative costs make up about 67% of our anticipated expenses.
> Another 22% of expenses comprise the costs of running the Conference
> and publishing the magazine. That leaves very little “discretionary
> spending” for leveraging against a structural loss."
> In Minnesota we have an organization called the Charities Review
> Council that sets standards for accountability for nonprofits. It
> helps donors make informed philanthropic choices. Although there is
> some debate on the wisdom of these exact percentages, and startup
> organizations can often go through periods where they are somewhat
> topheavy in administration, the standard for a responsible nonprofit
> is for no less than 70% of an organization's budget to go to core
> services, and no more than 30% to administration and fundraising.
> These is generally averaged over three years, to take into account
> fluctuations that come from the need to add staff as you execute new
> program.
> Unless there are actually hidden program costs in your general and
> administrative expenses, these figures are so upside down that it
> would be very difficult to make a case for efficient provision of core
> services. This will affect your ability to fundraise from individual
> donors - particularly those nonmembers you want to attract as arts
> patrons, the mythical Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets - as well as
> corporations and foundations.
> On May 2, 7:14 pm, NSN Info <NSNi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
> > edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
> > organization decisively the other way.
> > We have taken the path to recovery . . .
I wish I still had the time allocation sheet that Karen Dietz made a
few years ago that mapped just how much time each staff member spent
on each task every day. Karen asked us to start filling out our time
sheets as though we were filling out juris (like lawyers do) so she
could break down staff salaries into the different programs. This
allowed her to chart programs to see which were most active and when,
as well as which programs were costing NSN the most money (which was
really interesting when you consider that some of these "programs"
were not actually benefiting most of the members and not really
bringing in any revenue, but were costing 3-4 hours of staff time
every day.)
From that perspective, the board's decision to cut back on programs
(and especially on the marketplace) until we could regain a financial
balance between programs and services. The magazine alone costs
probably close to 75% of the membership fees- which is why NSN has
been trying so hard to find other avenues of income.
My opinion: NSN will be on shaky ground until they can hire someone
to deal exclusively with grant-writing and fundraising. We have to
stop getting our income primarily from membership fees and the
National Festival.
CW
On May 13, 10:29 am, Tim E <tim.eren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paula,
> from the beginning NSN has had the dilemma of being a membership-based
> nonprofit whose members have clamored for services to benefit
> themselves (which, as you know, makes for a rocky road to keep an
> organization focused on its nonprofit mission).
> Also, it has been many years since NSN has had a person on the Board
> who was skilled at communicating the financial picture to the
> membership.
> So take the 67% figure with a grain of salt. Yes, that went to
> personnel. But not all of that personnel was administrative. Some
> amount (and I don't know how much) went to the organization's "very
> ambitious range of programs."
> I suspect that the Board arrived at the 67% figure backwards, that is,
> operating costs minus the conference and magazine, and they did not
> parse out how much of the remaining costs went to NSN's services.
> The dire figures are a result of incomplete reporting as much as
> anything else.
> Tim
> On May 12, 10:25 pm, Paula N <prnancar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > After reading the detailed financial picture on the board blog, such
> > as it is, i'd like to make a comment, not from the perspective of a
> > storyteller, but from the perspective of a Development Director, on
> > the following sentence:
> > "By 2008 NSN had committed itself to a very ambitious range of
> > programs and had hired staff and rented office space to support them.
> > According to the original 2008 Budget, personnel and general and
> > administrative costs make up about 67% of our anticipated expenses.
> > Another 22% of expenses comprise the costs of running the Conference
> > and publishing the magazine. That leaves very little “discretionary
> > spending” for leveraging against a structural loss."
> > In Minnesota we have an organization called the Charities Review
> > Council that sets standards for accountability for nonprofits. It
> > helps donors make informed philanthropic choices. Although there is
> > some debate on the wisdom of these exact percentages, and startup
> > organizations can often go through periods where they are somewhat
> > topheavy in administration, the standard for a responsible nonprofit
> > is for no less than 70% of an organization's budget to go to core
> > services, and no more than 30% to administration and fundraising.
> > These is generally averaged over three years, to take into account
> > fluctuations that come from the need to add staff as you execute new
> > program.
> > Unless there are actually hidden program costs in your general and
> > administrative expenses, these figures are so upside down that it
> > would be very difficult to make a case for efficient provision of core
> > services. This will affect your ability to fundraise from individual
> > donors - particularly those nonmembers you want to attract as arts
> > patrons, the mythical Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets - as well as
> > corporations and foundations.
> > On May 2, 7:14 pm, NSN Info <NSNi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
> > > edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
> > > organization decisively the other way.
> > > We have taken the path to recovery . . .
However.... I feel that NSN needs to advance membership to the
4000-5000 mark.
Back "in the day" when NAPPS/NSA was "the membership organization,"
our membership reached over 7000 at one point but soon settled back to
a realistic 6300 or so.
We were self sustaining with membership dues, festival income,
conference income and catalog sales. This was before Jimmy Neil did
any fundraising for the Center. We did receive a few grants but no
major funding for operating expenses. Its very difficult to raise
funds, from donors, for operating expenses of a non-profit membership
organization. Donors give to "programs," something with substance,
something that will help them to look and feel good about their
donation.
While in agreement with Chara, that NSN does need to focus more on
fundraising and grants.... they must not neglect building a larger
membership base.
If NSN wants to attract major donors then programing will need to be
establish that will attract those donors. Giving big $$ to a
membership driven organization that supports storytelling and
storytellers is just not an attractive idea for donors to embrace.
Donors want to see where their money is going and they want to see the
"GOOD" that their donations have created. Given todays ecomonic
climate, this is more important than ever!
In my opinion, NSN needs to become more self sustaining through
membership support, which translates to "more members." NSN needs to
be proactive in membership drives, bartering and/or buying mailing
lists, being present with membership tables at ALL national and
regional festivals and conferences, etc.
Its hard work but... it does pay off.
Since March 1st of 2008.... the Mid-Atlantic Region has singed on over
40 NEW members (not renewals.)
Attracting new members, building membership... it can be done. Its a
slow process, yes... but it can be done and it is important.
DJM
On May 14, 11:59 am, CW Teller <charawat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wish I still had the time allocation sheet that Karen Dietz made a
> few years ago that mapped just how much time each staff member spent
> on each task every day. Karen asked us to start filling out our time
> sheets as though we were filling out juris (like lawyers do) so she
> could break down staff salaries into the different programs. This
> allowed her to chart programs to see which were most active and when,
> as well as which programs were costing NSN the most money (which was
> really interesting when you consider that some of these "programs"
> were not actually benefiting most of the members and not really
> bringing in any revenue, but were costing 3-4 hours of staff time
> every day.)
> From that perspective, the board's decision to cut back on programs
> (and especially on the marketplace) until we could regain a financial
> balance between programs and services. The magazine alone costs
> probably close to 75% of the membership fees- which is why NSN has
> been trying so hard to find other avenues of income.
> My opinion: NSN will be on shaky ground until they can hire someone
> to deal exclusively with grant-writing and fundraising. We have to
> stop getting our income primarily from membership fees and the
> National Festival.
> CW
> On May 13, 10:29 am, Tim E <tim.eren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Paula,
> > from the beginning NSN has had the dilemma of being a membership-based
> > nonprofit whose members have clamored for services to benefit
> > themselves (which, as you know, makes for a rocky road to keep an
> > organization focused on its nonprofit mission).
> > Also, it has been many years since NSN has had a person on the Board
> > who was skilled at communicating the financial picture to the
> > membership.
> > So take the 67% figure with a grain of salt. Yes, that went to
> > personnel. But not all of that personnel was administrative. Some
> > amount (and I don't know how much) went to the organization's "very
> > ambitious range of programs."
> > I suspect that the Board arrived at the 67% figure backwards, that is,
> > operating costs minus the conference and magazine, and they did not
> > parse out how much of the remaining costs went to NSN's services.
> > The dire figures are a result of incomplete reporting as much as
> > anything else.
> > Tim
> > On May 12, 10:25 pm, Paula N <prnancar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > After reading the detailed financial picture on the board blog, such
> > > as it is, i'd like to make a comment, not from the perspective of a
> > > storyteller, but from the perspective of a Development Director, on
> > > the following sentence:
> > > "By 2008 NSN had committed itself to a very ambitious range of
> > > programs and had hired staff and rented office space to support them.
> > > According to the original 2008 Budget, personnel and general and
> > > administrative costs make up about 67% of our anticipated expenses.
> > > Another 22% of expenses comprise the costs of running the Conference
> > > and publishing the magazine. That leaves very little “discretionary
> > > spending” for leveraging against a structural loss."
> > > In Minnesota we have an organization called the Charities Review
> > > Council that sets standards for accountability for nonprofits. It
> > > helps donors make informed philanthropic choices. Although there is
> > > some debate on the wisdom of these exact percentages, and startup
> > > organizations can often go through periods where they are somewhat
> > > topheavy in administration, the standard for a responsible nonprofit
> > > is for no less than 70% of an organization's budget to go to core
> > > services, and no more than 30% to administration and fundraising.
> > > These is generally averaged over three years, to take into account
> > > fluctuations that come from the need to add staff as you execute new
> > > program.
> > > Unless there are actually hidden program costs in your general and
> > > administrative expenses, these figures are so upside down that it
> > > would be very difficult to make a case for efficient provision of core
> > > services. This will affect your ability to fundraise from individual
> > > donors - particularly those nonmembers you want to attract as arts
> > > patrons, the mythical Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets - as well as
> > > corporations and foundations.
> > > On May 2, 7:14 pm, NSN Info <NSNi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
> > > > edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
> > > > organization decisively the other way.
> > > > We have taken the path to recovery . . .
All these observations are reasonable. However, because NSN has a
highly cyclic pattern to its revenues and expenses, large donors and
foundations expect the organization to have substantial reserves
before making a multi-year committment. Therefore, our first priority
is re-establishing those reserves so that we, as an organization, are
attractive enough from a long-term stability viewpoint, to warrant
serious consideration for such grants.
I will echo what was said earlier that the 67% G&A expenses is not an
apples-to-apples comparison with other nonprofits, simply because G&A
as constructed currently includes expenses for staff members that are
dedicated toward programming. There has not been, from an accounting
perspective, a continuous and successful allocation of resources in a
modular form to the different program offerings.
One of the challenges we face, going forward, is improving the
structural reporting and transparency of the organization. However,
like so many things, we decided that it made sense to "slow the car
down" before "retooling its engine".
And on that confused metaphor, I'll grin and sign out...
-M.L.
(p.s. please encourage other tellers that you speak with to join this
forum. It really is a fairly efficient way to dialog with board
members about these issues. I know that I at least check it every
day, and I've tried to respond in areas where I can.)
On May 14, 2:50 pm, deejumtell <deejumt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> However.... I feel that NSN needs to advance membership to the
> 4000-5000 mark.
> Back "in the day" when NAPPS/NSA was "the membership organization,"
> our membership reached over 7000 at one point but soon settled back to
> a realistic 6300 or so.
> We were self sustaining with membership dues, festival income,
> conference income and catalog sales. This was before Jimmy Neil did
> any fundraising for the Center. We did receive a few grants but no
> major funding for operating expenses. Its very difficult to raise
> funds, from donors, for operating expenses of a non-profit membership
> organization. Donors give to "programs," something with substance,
> something that will help them to look and feel good about their
> donation.
> While in agreement with Chara, that NSN does need to focus more on
> fundraising and grants.... they must not neglect building a larger
> membership base.
> If NSN wants to attract major donors then programing will need to be
> establish that will attract those donors. Giving big $$ to a
> membership driven organization that supports storytelling and
> storytellers is just not an attractive idea for donors to embrace.
> Donors want to see where their money is going and they want to see the
> "GOOD" that their donations have created. Given todays ecomonic
> climate, this is more important than ever!
> In my opinion, NSN needs to become more self sustaining through
> membership support, which translates to "more members." NSN needs to
> be proactive in membership drives, bartering and/or buying mailing
> lists, being present with membership tables at ALL national and
> regional festivals and conferences, etc.
> Its hard work but... it does pay off.
> Since March 1st of 2008.... the Mid-Atlantic Region has singed on over
> 40 NEW members (not renewals.)
> Attracting new members, building membership... it can be done. Its a
> slow process, yes... but it can be done and it is important.
> DJM
> On May 14, 11:59 am, CW Teller <charawat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wish I still had the time allocation sheet that Karen Dietz made a
> > few years ago that mapped just how much time each staff member spent
> > on each task every day. Karen asked us to start filling out our time
> > sheets as though we were filling out juris (like lawyers do) so she
> > could break down staff salaries into the different programs. This
> > allowed her to chart programs to see which were most active and when,
> > as well as which programs were costing NSN the most money (which was
> > really interesting when you consider that some of these "programs"
> > were not actually benefiting most of the members and not really
> > bringing in any revenue, but were costing 3-4 hours of staff time
> > every day.)
> > From that perspective, the board's decision to cut back on programs
> > (and especially on the marketplace) until we could regain a financial
> > balance between programs and services. The magazine alone costs
> > probably close to 75% of the membership fees- which is why NSN has
> > been trying so hard to find other avenues of income.
> > My opinion: NSN will be on shaky ground until they can hire someone
> > to deal exclusively with grant-writing and fundraising. We have to
> > stop getting our income primarily from membership fees and the
> > National Festival.
> > CW
> > On May 13, 10:29 am, Tim E <tim.eren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Paula,
> > > from the beginning NSN has had the dilemma of being a membership-based
> > > nonprofit whose members have clamored for services to benefit
> > > themselves (which, as you know, makes for a rocky road to keep an
> > > organization focused on its nonprofit mission).
> > > Also, it has been many years since NSN has had a person on the Board
> > > who was skilled at communicating the financial picture to the
> > > membership.
> > > So take the 67% figure with a grain of salt. Yes, that went to
> > > personnel. But not all of that personnel was administrative. Some
> > > amount (and I don't know how much) went to the organization's "very
> > > ambitious range of programs."
> > > I suspect that the Board arrived at the 67% figure backwards, that is,
> > > operating costs minus the conference and magazine, and they did not
> > > parse out how much of the remaining costs went to NSN's services.
> > > The dire figures are a result of incomplete reporting as much as
> > > anything else.
> > > Tim
> > > On May 12, 10:25 pm, Paula N <prnancar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > After reading the detailed financial picture on the board blog, such
> > > > as it is, i'd like to make a comment, not from the perspective of a
> > > > storyteller, but from the perspective of a Development Director, on
> > > > the following sentence:
> > > > "By 2008 NSN had committed itself to a very ambitious range of
> > > > programs and had hired staff and rented office space to support them.
> > > > According to the original 2008 Budget, personnel and general and
> > > > administrative costs make up about 67% of our anticipated expenses.
> > > > Another 22% of expenses comprise the costs of running the Conference
> > > > and publishing the magazine. That leaves very little “discretionary
> > > > spending” for leveraging against a structural loss."
> > > > In Minnesota we have an organization called the Charities Review
> > > > Council that sets standards for accountability for nonprofits. It
> > > > helps donors make informed philanthropic choices. Although there is
> > > > some debate on the wisdom of these exact percentages, and startup
> > > > organizations can often go through periods where they are somewhat
> > > > topheavy in administration, the standard for a responsible nonprofit
> > > > is for no less than 70% of an organization's budget to go to core
> > > > services, and no more than 30% to administration and fundraising.
> > > > These is generally averaged over three years, to take into account
> > > > fluctuations that come from the need to add staff as you execute new
> > > > program.
> > > > Unless there are actually hidden program costs in your general and
> > > > administrative expenses, these figures are so upside down that it
> > > > would be very difficult to make a case for efficient provision of core
> > > > services. This will affect your ability to fundraise from individual
> > > > donors - particularly those nonmembers you want to attract as arts
> > > > patrons, the mythical Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets - as well as
> > > > corporations and foundations.
> > > > On May 2, 7:14 pm, NSN Info <NSNi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
> > > > > edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
> > > > > organization decisively the other way.
> > > > > We have taken the path to recovery . . .
David Joe,
I agree with you BUT what in the world are you telling people to get
them to join as new members?
I can't in good conscience recruit new members right now.
There's a disconnect between current programs, fiscal reality, the
strategic vision statement, and doing GOOD.
I saw a strategic plan earlier this year but I assume that most of it
is out the window given the state of finances.
What do you see that I'm not seeing?
And I should note that I just got a glossy brochure from ISC telling
me all the great things they're doing, including the GOOD, and they're
asking me for money for their capital campaign. And buried in the fine
print it looks to me like they're ditching the nonprofit route (by
jumping on the social entrepreneurship bandwagon).
Tim
On May 14, 11:50 am, deejumtell <deejumt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If NSN wants to attract major donors then programing will need to be
> establish that will attract those donors. Giving big $$ to a
> membership driven organization that supports storytelling and
> storytellers is just not an attractive idea for donors to embrace.
> Donors want to see where their money is going and they want to see the
> "GOOD" that their donations have created. Given todays ecomonic
> climate, this is more important than ever!
I am very interested in hearing more discussion of the sources of
funding as seen by all of the members. Chara talked about fundraising
(donations?) and grants, and David Joe talked about at least tripling
our membership. I have heard others argue that our dues are too small--
that other professional organizations charge much higher dues for
membership (to which the answer usually given is the poverty of the
typical storyteller). Although the path probably should include all of
the above, at some point NSN will have to set goals in each area. So
keep talking! And bring others along for the ride.
Paula's comments really reinforce the need to make changes in how we
make our financial reports. While NSN doesn't fit my notion of a
"charity," if we increase fundraising efforts major donors will want
to know that their money is going to services. I may have the wrong
view here, but I see NSN providing services to its members and the
members providing services to the broader community. It's a
complicated process to "sell" to donors, but it can be done.
Each board member has committed to donating to NSN and to soliciting
donations for NSN. Many NSN members are donating, some on a regular
basis. But we are asking non-members to support the work of NSN as
well. I think our best story is what our storytellers are doing. They
change people's lives, and NSN helps them with networking, at the
conference, in the magazine. Yes, more can be done. But today that's
my story and I'm working with it.
Thanks for being here.
On May 14, 2:39 pm, "M.L. Barron (NSN Board Member)"
<m...@nationalstorytelling.net> wrote:
> All these observations are reasonable. However, because NSN has a
> highly cyclic pattern to its revenues and expenses, large donors and
> foundations expect the organization to have substantial reserves
> before making a multi-year committment. Therefore, our first priority
> is re-establishing those reserves so that we, as an organization, are
> attractive enough from a long-term stability viewpoint, to warrant
> serious consideration for such grants.
> I will echo what was said earlier that the 67% G&A expenses is not an
> apples-to-apples comparison with other nonprofits, simply because G&A
> as constructed currently includes expenses for staff members that are
> dedicated toward programming. There has not been, from an accounting
> perspective, a continuous and successful allocation of resources in a
> modular form to the different program offerings.
> One of the challenges we face, going forward, is improving the
> structural reporting and transparency of the organization. However,
> like so many things, we decided that it made sense to "slow the car
> down" before "retooling its engine".
> And on that confused metaphor, I'll grin and sign out...
> -M.L.
> (p.s. please encourage other tellers that you speak with to join this
> forum. It really is a fairly efficient way to dialog with board
> members about these issues. I know that I at least check it every
> day, and I've tried to respond in areas where I can.)
> On May 14, 2:50 pm, deejumtell <deejumt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Chara almost 100%
> > However.... I feel that NSN needs to advance membership to the
> > 4000-5000 mark.
> > Back "in the day" when NAPPS/NSA was "the membership organization,"
> > our membership reached over 7000 at one point but soon settled back to
> > a realistic 6300 or so.
> > We were self sustaining with membership dues, festival income,
> > conference income and catalog sales. This was before Jimmy Neil did
> > any fundraising for the Center. We did receive a few grants but no
> > major funding for operating expenses. Its very difficult to raise
> > funds, from donors, for operating expenses of a non-profit membership
> > organization. Donors give to "programs," something with substance,
> > something that will help them to look and feel good about their
> > donation.
> > While in agreement with Chara, that NSN does need to focus more on
> > fundraising and grants.... they must not neglect building a larger
> > membership base.
> > If NSN wants to attract major donors then programing will need to be
> > establish that will attract those donors. Giving big $$ to a
> > membership driven organization that supports storytelling and
> > storytellers is just not an attractive idea for donors to embrace.
> > Donors want to see where their money is going and they want to see the
> > "GOOD" that their donations have created. Given todays ecomonic
> > climate, this is more important than ever!
> > In my opinion, NSN needs to become more self sustaining through
> > membership support, which translates to "more members." NSN needs to
> > be proactive in membership drives, bartering and/or buying mailing
> > lists, being present with membership tables at ALL national and
> > regional festivals and conferences, etc.
> > Its hard work but... it does pay off.
> > Since March 1st of 2008.... the Mid-Atlantic Region has singed on over
> > 40 NEW members (not renewals.)
> > Attracting new members, building membership... it can be done. Its a
> > slow process, yes... but it can be done and it is important.
> > DJM
> > On May 14, 11:59 am, CW Teller <charawat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I wish I still had the time allocation sheet that Karen Dietz made a
> > > few years ago that mapped just how much time each staff member spent
> > > on each task every day. Karen asked us to start filling out our time
> > > sheets as though we were filling out juris (like lawyers do) so she
> > > could break down staff salaries into the different programs. This
> > > allowed her to chart programs to see which were most active and when,
> > > as well as which programs were costing NSN the most money (which was
> > > really interesting when you consider that some of these "programs"
> > > were not actually benefiting most of the members and not really
> > > bringing in any revenue, but were costing 3-4 hours of staff time
> > > every day.)
> > > From that perspective, the board's decision to cut back on programs
> > > (and especially on the marketplace) until we could regain a financial
> > > balance between programs and services. The magazine alone costs
> > > probably close to 75% of the membership fees- which is why NSN has
> > > been trying so hard to find other avenues of income.
> > > My opinion: NSN will be on shaky ground until they can hire someone
> > > to deal exclusively with grant-writing and fundraising. We have to
> > > stop getting our income primarily from membership fees and the
> > > National Festival.
> > > CW
> > > On May 13, 10:29 am, Tim E <tim.eren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Paula,
> > > > from the beginning NSN has had the dilemma of being a membership-based
> > > > nonprofit whose members have clamored for services to benefit
> > > > themselves (which, as you know, makes for a rocky road to keep an
> > > > organization focused on its nonprofit mission).
> > > > Also, it has been many years since NSN has had a person on the Board
> > > > who was skilled at communicating the financial picture to the
> > > > membership.
> > > > So take the 67% figure with a grain of salt. Yes, that went to
> > > > personnel. But not all of that personnel was administrative. Some
> > > > amount (and I don't know how much) went to the organization's "very
> > > > ambitious range of programs."
> > > > I suspect that the Board arrived at the 67% figure backwards, that is,
> > > > operating costs minus the conference and magazine, and they did not
> > > > parse out how much of the remaining costs went to NSN's services.
> > > > The dire figures are a result of incomplete reporting as much as
> > > > anything else.
> > > > Tim
> > > > On May 12, 10:25 pm, Paula N <prnancar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > After reading the detailed financial picture on the board blog, such
> > > > > as it is, i'd like to make a comment, not from the perspective of a
> > > > > storyteller, but from the perspective of a Development Director, on
> > > > > the following sentence:
> > > > > "By 2008 NSN had committed itself to a very ambitious range of
> > > > > programs and had hired staff and rented office space to support them.
> > > > > According to the original 2008 Budget, personnel and general and
> > > > > administrative costs make up about 67% of our anticipated expenses.
> > > > > Another 22% of expenses comprise the costs of running the Conference
> > > > > and publishing the magazine. That leaves very little “discretionary
> > > > > spending” for leveraging against a structural loss."
> > > > > In Minnesota we have an organization called the Charities Review
> > > > > Council that sets standards for accountability for nonprofits. It
> > > > > helps donors make informed philanthropic choices. Although there is
> > > > > some debate on the wisdom of these exact percentages, and startup
> > > > > organizations can often go through periods where they are somewhat
> > > > > topheavy in administration, the standard for a responsible nonprofit
> > > > > is for no less than 70% of an organization's budget to go to core
> > > > > services, and no more than 30% to administration and fundraising.
> > > > > These is generally averaged over three years, to take into account
> > > > > fluctuations that come from the need to add staff as you execute new
> > > > > program.
> > > > > Unless there are actually hidden program costs in your general and
> > > > > administrative expenses, these figures are so upside down that it
> > > > > would be very difficult to make a case for efficient provision of core
> > > > > services. This will affect your ability to fundraise from
Simply recruiting is not the answer to boost our image within our
membership or to outside groups and organizations. Whether we had 30
members or 3,000 members, our actions define us. I would rather have
30 actively involved NSN members than 3,000 who renew once a year.
It is hard to know why someone joins NSN. Is this even part of the
application process or the renewal process? Do we want to be members
of NSN through name only or do we want to further storytelling in some
way? Could there be membership committees that the NSN Board would
head that could be checkmarked during the application and renewal
process? Do we have a place for members to list their specialties
with storytelling or at least other strengths? By knowing these
things, we will be more membership driven than Board driven.
With more membership involvement, there would be more to report in our
"doings" to other nonprofits or organizations who could fund us.
Membership numbers are statistics. Our accomplishments are stories.
We already know the power of stories. (Check out the book
"Storytelling for Grantseekers: The Guide to Nonprofit Fundraising" on
amazon.com)
I have learned that a few decades ago people and organizations offered
to help NSN with fantastic ideas but the ideas were ignored as NSN
felt it should be self-sustaining and not show "favoritism". What we
really need is collaboration. Why re-invent the wheel with our
programs and services when there are people already with the talents
and experiences to make these projects successful?
When the energy is up among our members--feeling useful to the group--
then membership will grow on its own.
Yes!
Rachel - this is the right track - seeking fiscal or physcal partners
who will help the organization support doing GOOD in the world.
Membership and money is not as important as mission and focus.
Here is a piece that appeared in the storytell list serv... - I
thought this post was so full of insight and original that everybody
should be read it - This post was in reply to long post by Tim on
where is the discussion about the future of NSN?
---------------------------- From a librarian in Texas
My bet is that more people would be willing to join and participate if
there were more direct real-world benefits to doing so. Online
networking, socializing, story trading, etc. is easy, and can
generally
be had for free (via various discussion lists and message boards
around
Internet). "Storytelling Magazine" is nice, but most of the rest of
the
benefits are things that can be found in other venues online (often
for
free), or that most members probably won't use regularly (ex. the
grants). The discount to the annual festival is certainly a draw for
many, but not everybody can make it there at that time of year.
That's
why I dropped my membership - I'm still running our summer reading
club
during the time of the festival, and the magazine alone wasn't worth
the
price of membership to me.
In my experience with other national (non-storytelling) organizations,
the ones that encourage and facilitate the development of real-world
(not just online) regional groups, classes, shows, SIGs, and festivals
are the most successful. This is doubly true in times of economic
crisis, like now, when many folks are having to scrutinize their
spending and adjust their personal budgets.
For example, there are quite a number of librarians who belong to
their
state library associations, but not the American Library Association.
Membership in the ALA resembles that of the NSN - unless you can make
it
to the big annual conference, there is little of value for the average
librarian (beyond the magazine(s)) that can't be had for free
elsewhere.
State conferences, however, are easier to attend, and state
associations
often offer more immediately useful services to the average librarian.
ALA's constant pleas to join them for the amorphous reason of
"supporting librarianship" only go so far.
Jesse Ephraim
Youth Services Librarian
Southlake Public Library
1400 Main St., Ste. 130
Southlake, TX 76092
---------------------------------
I called Jesse and asked his permission to print this post here -
further I think the idea of using the national library association as
a model for how to raise money for the NSN is a great idea that
arises out of his post. Is their anyone who has done any out reach too
the national library association?
Eric W
937 767-2104 eastern Time zone
Board member Sherry Norfolk and NSN staff members were at the ALA
conference this year, as were other NSN members. Jesse seems to be
saying the state library associations are more interesting and
cheaper, more accessible. But unlike libraries, not every state or
region has a storytelling group. Out here on the prairie where I live,
there are no conferences or festivals. I am a member of RAPS (River
and Prairie Storyweavers) in Kansas City (6 hours drive) but the
gatherings aren't like what happens at the National Storytelling
Conference. I haven't made it to every conference, but I have gotten a
lot out of the ones I have attended.
One of the ideas the Board will consider once we are on a stronger
financial footing is doing regional conferences and workshops.
Continuing education is a big need for our members. How do we learn to
improve what we do?
BTW, NSN finances will improve over the next few years just by saving
the majority of what we receive from the Festival. But we have also
been getting donations, both to support the conference this year and
to help with operating expenses. See the list in the next Storytelling
Magazine. Once we have a cushion, we can resume the larger magazine
and look to regional activities.
On May 21, 12:58 pm, "Brother Wolf, Storyteller" <Ericwo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Here is a piece that appeared in the storytell list serv... - I
> thought this post was so full of insight and original that everybody
> should be read it - This post was in reply to long post by Tim on
> where is the discussion about the future of NSN?
> ---------------------------- From a librarian in Texas
> My bet is that more people would be willing to join and participate if
> there were more direct real-world benefits to doing so. Online
> networking, socializing, story trading, etc. is easy, and can
> generally
> be had for free (via various discussion lists and message boards
> around
> Internet). "Storytelling Magazine" is nice, but most of the rest of
> the
> benefits are things that can be found in other venues online (often
> for
> free), or that most members probably won't use regularly (ex. the
> grants). The discount to the annual festival is certainly a draw for
> many, but not everybody can make it there at that time of year.
> That's
> why I dropped my membership - I'm still running our summer reading
> club
> during the time of the festival, and the magazine alone wasn't worth
> the
> price of membership to me.
> In my experience with other national (non-storytelling) organizations,
> the ones that encourage and facilitate the development of real-world
> (not just online) regional groups, classes, shows, SIGs, and festivals
> are the most successful. This is doubly true in times of economic
> crisis, like now, when many folks are having to scrutinize their
> spending and adjust their personal budgets.
> For example, there are quite a number of librarians who belong to
> their
> state library associations, but not the American Library Association.
> Membership in the ALA resembles that of the NSN - unless you can make
> it
> to the big annual conference, there is little of value for the average
> librarian (beyond the magazine(s)) that can't be had for free
> elsewhere.
> State conferences, however, are easier to attend, and state
> associations
> often offer more immediately useful services to the average librarian.
> ALA's constant pleas to join them for the amorphous reason of
> "supporting librarianship" only go so far.
> Jesse Ephraim
> Youth Services Librarian
> Southlake Public Library
> 1400 Main St., Ste. 130
> Southlake, TX 76092
> ---------------------------------
> I called Jesse and asked his permission to print this post here -
> further I think the idea of using the national library association as
> a model for how to raise money for the NSN is a great idea that
> arises out of his post. Is their anyone who has done any out reach too
> the national library association?
> Eric W
> 937 767-2104 eastern Time zone
Paula, I received a link to this NYTimes article about Minnesota's
rulings denying tax exemptions for several non-profits.
http://tinyurl.com/6rq29z These rulings are about local tax exemptions from property taxes.
Because NSN rents office space, the local taxes are not a concern for
us. But the article says that federal tax exemptions are also under
scrutiny.
The whole concepts of "non-profit" and "charity" are in flux. What are
your thoughts about where this reconsideration will go?
Thanks,
Margaret
On May 13, 12:25 am, Paula N <prnancar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After reading the detailed financial picture on the board blog, such
> as it is, i'd like to make a comment, not from the perspective of a
> storyteller, but from the perspective of a Development Director, on
> the following sentence:
> "By 2008 NSN had committed itself to a very ambitious range of
> programs and had hired staff and rented office space to support them.
> According to the original 2008 Budget, personnel and general and
> administrative costs make up about 67% of our anticipated expenses.
> Another 22% of expenses comprise the costs of running the Conference
> and publishing the magazine. That leaves very little “discretionary
> spending” for leveraging against a structural loss."
> In Minnesota we have an organization called the Charities Review
> Council that sets standards for accountability for nonprofits. It
> helps donors make informed philanthropic choices. Although there is
> some debate on the wisdom of these exact percentages, and startup
> organizations can often go through periods where they are somewhat
> topheavy in administration, the standard for a responsible nonprofit
> is for no less than 70% of an organization's budget to go to core
> services, and no more than 30% to administration and fundraising.
> These is generally averaged over three years, to take into account
> fluctuations that come from the need to add staff as you execute new
> program.
> Unless there are actually hidden program costs in your general and
> administrative expenses, these figures are so upside down that it
> would be very difficult to make a case for efficient provision of core
> services. This will affect your ability to fundraise from individual
> donors - particularly those nonmembers you want to attract as arts
> patrons, the mythical Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets - as well as
> corporations and foundations.
> On May 2, 7:14 pm, NSN Info <NSNi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
> > edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
> > organization decisively the other way.
> > We have taken the path to recovery . . .
This article seems to be rather muddled - it brings up several
different and completely unrelated reasons why nonprofits can have
their status challenged, none of which would apply to NSN, and doesn't
go into much detail about the ins and outs of any of them, which is
really just a recipe for vague anxiety. What it means to be a
nonprofit is indeed in flux, but the particular issue that was raised
in Minnesota had to do with nonprofits that charge fees for their
services, especially when there are for profit versions of the same
services available. The real issue is whether the nonprofit is a
business in disguise, and getting an unfair competitive advantage over
its for profit counterparts. The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits has
a very detailed explanation of the issue that was raised in the case
of this day care center, and what is being done to address it, You can
find that at http://www.mncn.org/charitable%5Ftax%5Fexemption/.
Ironically, the newer philanthropic models have been encouraging
nonprofits to develop earned income components to support their
charitable missions, which further blurs the distinction between
nonprofit and for profit. But on the whole I think most nonprofits
need to worry less about having their nonprofit status revoked by
acting too much like a business and more about losing the capacity to
carry out their nonprofit mission by failing to ground that mission in
a solid infrastructure and sound business practice.
<margaret.mey...@nationalstorytelling.net> wrote:
> Paula, I received a link to this NYTimes article about Minnesota's
> rulings denying tax exemptions for several non-profits.http://tinyurl.com/6rq29z > These rulings are about local tax exemptions from property taxes.
> Because NSN rents office space, the local taxes are not a concern for
> us. But the article says that federal tax exemptions are also under
> scrutiny.
> The whole concepts of "non-profit" and "charity" are in flux. What are
> your thoughts about where this reconsideration will go?
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> On May 13, 12:25 am, Paula N <prnancar...@gmail.com> wrote:> After reading the detailed financial picture on the board blog, such
> > as it is, i'd like to make a comment, not from the perspective of a
> > storyteller, but from the perspective of a Development Director, on
> > the following sentence:
> > "By 2008 NSN had committed itself to a very ambitious range of
> > programs and had hired staff and rented office space to support them.
> > According to the original 2008 Budget, personnel and general and
> > administrative costs make up about 67% of our anticipated expenses.
> > Another 22% of expenses comprise the costs of running the Conference
> > and publishing the magazine. That leaves very little “discretionary
> > spending” for leveraging against a structural loss."
> > In Minnesota we have an organization called the Charities Review
> > Council that sets standards for accountability for nonprofits. It
> > helps donors make informed philanthropic choices. Although there is
> > some debate on the wisdom of these exact percentages, and startup
> > organizations can often go through periods where they are somewhat
> > topheavy in administration, the standard for a responsible nonprofit
> > is for no less than 70% of an organization's budget to go to core
> > services, and no more than 30% to administration and fundraising.
> > These is generally averaged over three years, to take into account
> > fluctuations that come from the need to add staff as you execute new
> > program.
> > Unless there are actually hidden program costs in your general and
> > administrative expenses, these figures are so upside down that it
> > would be very difficult to make a case for efficient provision of core
> > services. This will affect your ability to fundraise from individual
> > donors - particularly those nonmembers you want to attract as arts
> > patrons, the mythical Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets - as well as
> > corporations and foundations.
> > On May 2, 7:14 pm, NSN Info <NSNi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
> > > edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
> > > organization decisively the other way.
> > > We have taken the path to recovery . . .
> Our finances were close to the brink. The Board has looked over the
> edge, thought hard about NSN’s strategic goals, and moved the
> organization decisively the other way.
> We have taken the path to recovery . . .
|
