The Wall Street Journal's Carl Bailik wrote a good article in the December 19, 2008 paper about the value of rating charities. He says that most individual donors do not have the time to fully research all of their charitable donations. Most people spend much less time researching their donations than researching their stock picks (clearly, being in the WSJ, this is targeting a certain audience). But donors still want to make sure their contributions are going to good causes, and not just going to pay for overhead or fundraising expenses.

One of the most notable current trends in the nonprofit arena is for donors to look for a "return on investment" for their charitable giving. They want to know that their donation to one organization will yield social impact. More than that, they want to know that your organization will yield a greater impact than another cause to which they could donate.

This is a positive trend for sensible- dare I say- strategic charitable giving. However, the outcome results or impact measures are not the indicators that leaders of nonprofits should be managing. Rather, leaders need to focus on the underlying cause and effect linkages that drive impact.

There has always been a big focus in the nonprofit community on helping improve public schools in America. Recently, I have seen a lot of information written about how foundations and others are helping schools use data to learn about what works and to drive results.

For years, management frameworks from the business sector have been foisted upon unsuspecting social sector organizations. Not surprisingly, many of them have proven wholly inappropriate for organizations that are not driven purely by financial motives. So why has the Balanced Scorecard been such a success in the social sector?

Friday, October 24th was the first conference held by the MA Nonprofit Network. A gathering of over 300 professionals from the state's nonprofit sector committed to learning from and sharing ideas with one another was definitely a forum that should serve as a model to the sector everywhere.

There are a lot of tools out there that can help you make something as murky as "strategy" a little more clear. But what should you choose? There's "theory of change." And "logic models." And if you are a regular reader of this blog, we've given you an earful about "strategy maps."

When we work with organizations to design strategy management systems, we say that one of the most effective ways to make it work or "bring it to life" is to tie compensation to it. Employees listen when their managers tell them about new policies and new strategies of an organization, but if you really want them to pay attention, explain how it affects their pay.

Earlier this year, I wrote about the NY Times Award for Nonprofit Excellence. Well, I would be remiss in not talking about the Washington Post Award for Nonprofit Excellence also. Both newspapers have teamed up with nonprofit education and advocacy organizations to manage the awards process.

Yesterday, Ascendant hosted a nonprofit and government networking breakfast that was focused on performance management. Over 80 people confirmed their attendance, and Dr. David Norton, creator of the Balanced Scorecard, gave a keynote address.

Nonprofits, like many other organizations have to manage their hiring process carefully. They especially need to be careful when considering internal candidates. Bridgestar recently wrote an article titled "Considering and evaluating Internal Candidates for Senior-Level Nonprofit Positions." In this article, they suggest several best practice strategies.