hello@buildupadvisory.com

Podcast

Receiving and Managing Significant Grants With Organizational Integrity with A. Nicole Campbell (RECAST)

Do you think your nonprofit infrastructure allows you to seamlessly receive and manage significant grants? We spend a lot of time talking about good grant making, but not as much time talking about good grant “receiving.”

This week we are recasting one of our past episodes discussing how to receive and manage significant grants with organizational integrity.

Having built infrastructure for nonprofits all over the world to receive and manage significant grants, Nic shares her 3 recommendations to design an infrastructure that allows an organization’s values to confidently guide how that organization accepts funding.

How are you managing and receiving grants?

Listen to the podcasts here:

Episode 42:

Resources:

 

 

Read more

Defining Culturally Competent Leadership with A. Nicole Campbell (RECAST)

This week on the Nonprofit Build Up® is part two of a two-part series led by Build Up’s CEO and managing attorney, Nic Campbell, and moderated by Shelli Warren of Biz Chicks, Team and Leadership Coach, and Stacking Your Team podcast host.

You can jump back to part one of the conversation to learn more about defining culturally competent leadership where Nic is talking about all things cultural competence, leadership and effective teams. Originally published on October 4th, 2022, Nic continues to explore what cultural competence means, its competitive edge in business and its significance when embodied not only across teams but in leadership positions as well.

Listen to Part One here:

 

Listen to Part Two here:

Read podcast transcription below:

Part One

[Upbeat Music]

NIC CAMPBELL: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up podcast, and I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with nonprofits and philanthropies, and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.

 

STEF WONG: Hi, everyone. It’s Stef, Build Up’s Executive Portfolio Liaison. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up is part one of a two-part series led by Build Up’s CEO and Managing Attorney, Nic Campbell, and moderated by Shelli Warren, Team and Leadership Coach of BizChix and Stacking Your Team Podcast host. 

 

Over the next two weeks on the Nonprofit Build Up, Nic is talking all things cultural competence, leadership, and effective teams. Originally published on October 4, 2022, Nic deep dives into what cultural competence means, its competitive edge in business, and its significance when embodied, not only across teams but in leadership positions as well. With that, here’s defining culturally competent leadership with Nic Campbell.

 

[INTERVIEW]

 

SHELLI WARREN: Let me introduce you to our guest today. Nic Campbell is a wife, a mom of two girls and two cats. She was born in the Barbados and now lives in Connecticut. She’s also a member of the Leadership Lab. As an attorney and a CEO of three companies in one, she leads a virtual team of 10 that’s growing quickly. She’s on a mission at Build Up Advisory Group, which is one of three companies with a vision to strengthen brave nonprofits and philanthropies, transforming outcomes for historically marginalized communities through the creation of 100 big battable grassroots organizations by 2025. 

 

Nic and her team provide fiscal, legal, and infrastructure leadership insight for organizations that are focused on capacity building and breaking glass ceilings in a really big way. Together, they intentionally support organizations that are no longer satisfied with doing business as usual. Come and meet Nic. 

 

Welcome to the Stacking Your Team Podcast, Nic Campbell. I am so happy to have you here. You are one of those intriguing members of the Leadership Lab, who is so dynamic, so brilliant. Then I also feel like there’s a little of this air of mystery about you. There’s this essence about you that like when you’re on a call and you’re talking to us, you own the space. Like you really know how to show up and be present and always add value into whatever you’re sharing. Yet at the same point, I’m always just so intrigued to learn more about you. So I am so thrilled to be here. Not only am I going to learn more about you but so are our listeners and, of course, so are your peers in the Leadership Lab that tune in every single week.

 

NIC CAMPBELL: I really appreciate the kind words, and I’m really looking forward to talking more with you about what we do and how we actually show up in our sector.

 

SHELLI WARREN: Well, tell me all about it. Now, I know you were born and raised in the Barbados. But where are you now? How has your life evolved? Tell us about the family. I know you’ve got some kiddos.

 

NIC CAMPBELL: Yes. So born and raised in the Caribbean. So I’ve lived in Barbados and the Cayman Islands, and I then came to the United States when I was about 12 and lived in the Bronx, in New York. I went to college and law school in Massachusetts. So I’ve really been on the northeast, for all of those listening, in the US. Now, I am in Newtown, Connecticut and really loving where I am. It’s very, very different from New York City. But this is the base of our operations for the Build Up Companies. 

 

I’m married. My husband, his name is Kevin, and I have two little girls Kayden and Nova. So we have a lot going on in our home. We have a lot of space here in Newtown. So that’s really great for the girls so that they can play with each other, with their friends, and just have that space to do that. That’s a little bit about me and where we are. 

 

SHELLI WARREN: You have built up this stellar reputation and a deep network into this incredible niche that I don’t think the majority of people are even aware of. So tell a little bit more about the clientele that you serve and how you help them with their transformation.

 

NIC CAMPBELL: Yeah, definitely. So I am the CEO and Managing Attorney for the Build Up Companies, and the Build Up Companies is really comprised of three entities. It’s Build Up Advisory Group, which is our management consulting firm. There’s the Campbell Law Firm, which is our law firm. Then there’s Build Up, Inc., which is our nonprofit fiscal sponsor or capacity builder. So each of these companies has its own separate goals, but they’re all working together to interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity throughout the globe. We do this by focusing exclusively on organizational infrastructure. 

 

So when we look at Build Up Advisory Group, we are working within three main areas. So it’s governance, how is your board set up, and do you have the right governance within the organization to put the right amount of oversight and accountability over your work? If there’s grantmaking, do you have the right processes in place? Are they reflective of your organizational values? So when you say, for example, as a funder, that you’d like to get money very quickly to those who need it around the globe, is it taking you four months to get a very simple grant out of the door, and if so, why? So we’re really working very closely on all kinds of questions that come up within that process. 

 

Then the third area is around structuring. How are you set up, both internally and externally, as an organization? Do you have the right structure in place, the right vehicle to do your work? When you look at your team, are they positioned and set up to do their best work? Do they have the capacity and the training that’s needed? So that’s really the focus within Build Up Advisory Group. We’re working with organizations that have questions around infrastructure, around their capacity to do their best work. They want to understand how is our organization doing and what is that gap and what recommendations do you have for us to kind of close that gap. 

 

Within the law firm, we’re working with, again, brave nonprofits and philanthropies, but also social impact entrepreneurs who are thinking about ways to change the world and have a positive impact on the world, really around social justice efforts. So we focus on nonprofit formation and exemption. So when someone comes to us and says, “We have a great idea. We’d love to turn it into a public charity or a private foundation, which is a charitable organization here in the United States, or maybe a social welfare organization, an organization that really focuses on advocacy of these different social justice issues.” 

 

So we work with them as a thought partner alongside them to help form these entities and help them understand this is what it means to be a public charity, and this is what it means to be a social welfare organization. We also serve as outsourced in-house general counsel, and this is a really unique way for us to show up as a firm. If you look across many firms, they’re not necessarily showing up in this way, and it’s really a hallmark service of ours because the way we look at it is, yes, we’re outside counsel at the end of the day, but we don’t want to be transactional with our clients, like purely transactional. We want it to be built on a relationship. 

 

What that means is when you come to us with a transactional question, “Hey, can you take a look at this agreement,” we’re not asking you questions about the way your program is operating, the way your organization is operating because we get it. We are in team meetings, we are part of these calls, we understand your strategy, and we are looking around corners so that when you bring that transactional question to us, you told us about this. We’re aware of this other thing. So it’s a really important way of the way we work within the law firm. 

 

Then the third entity, Build Up, Inc., we are working with women-led and BIPOC-led projects and initiatives that are focused on marginalized and vulnerable communities to make sure that they have the capacity to do their best work. Our thinking is that when these projects and initiatives come to us for support, we want to make sure that we are helping them understand and learn about what it takes to build out a solid governance structure, what it takes to manage a board. How do you manage your finances? What does your fundraising and development strategy look like? What should it look like? How do you manage a team? So that when they leave Build Up, Inc., and they go off and become these independent public charities, for example, that they can say, “We know how to run an organization,” and they are much stronger afterward than when they first showed up. 

 

I’ve worked with fiscal sponsors for many years within them, with them, alongside them, and as a funder within a funder, examining those relationships. One thing that really struck me and stood out to me was the relationship that really exists between the project and the fiscal sponsor or the kind of capacity building support that was being provided by that fiscal sponsor to the project, and I thought that there could be so much more that could be done. I also was interested in the connections being made between the projects. There wasn’t a lot of conversation happening between projects that we’re doing very similar or complementary work. So we want to make sure that at Build Up Inc., we’re serving as that connector for projects. But we’re also serving as a convener within the sector to kind of talk about fiscal sponsorship, what it means, and a new way to look at it as really capacity building at the end of the day. So that’s the overview of the companies, how we work, and who we work with.

 

SHELLI WARREN: Well, Nic, it’s incredible what you’re doing, and I have to ask. How do you fit in to these three different companies? Like what role do you play, and how do you divide your time in order to really honor the work that you’re wanting to do? Because as your coach here in the Leadership Lab, when I hear the complexity of these three different companies, and I know you are such the face of the brand, and it’s really you’re intrinsically on a mission to help these clients that you’re working with, my fear for you is that you’re overcapacity with everything that you’re doing. 

 

Then the next fear is that you’re going to start to beat yourself up because you’re not going to be able to provide that same stellar high level of services to every single client within these three companies. So tell me, how have you designed your business and your team to make sure that those three different sections or sectors of your overarching company works well? What are you working through? Because I feel like you’re continuing to evolve. You’re just continuing to grow and continuing to evolve.

 

NIC CAMPBELL: No. I think it’s a great question, and I definitely think it’s a work in progress. It also comes about through doing the thing. So when – Build Up Companies are about three years old. So we’re very, very young, and we currently work with really amazing organizations and leaders, which is just a testament to the team that we build and the kind of work that we do. 

 

When I started first year, even first year and a half, it was just me, and so really having to realize very early on that these things have to be faced. So although the three entities were in the vision and really some were – The law firm, for example, was a latter part of that vision. You had to realize that you have to focus on one first and go to the other. To your point, when you understand that the vision is about the three entities and how they could be working together, and we’ll say working together and doing this amazing work, everything would sort of fall into place. 

 

But then being at a place where you’re focusing on just one entity and really within that one entity trying to understand what will be the service that you will be providing, what kind of thought partnership can you provide to leaders to make them say, “Wow, this is such added value,” and to make the work really interesting. So just through working through all of that, understanding that, one, you have to face it and being very clear on what do the next six months look like. What does the next year look like? Setting goals and then making sure that you’re constantly evaluating. 

 

What I realized, again, very early on is you can set goals. But if you’re just setting annual goals and just kind of saying, “Okay. Well, I’ll check in at the end of the year to see how it’s gone,” you don’t have that ability to do any sort of course correction right away. So what I found works really well was every single week at the end of each week doing an evaluation of how that week went against all of those goals and objectives that I had put together. So it took some time. At some moments, you would say, “Well, why am I focusing on goals and objective? I need to go get clients. I need to start building up the other entities.” But it’s like you need to have the fundamentals in place. You need to have that infrastructure in place to then say, “Okay, how am I going to continue to build on that?” 

 

So definitely about phasing, definitely focused on goal setting. Then I would also say realizing that you cannot do it by yourself. I think in the very beginning, that starts out with consultants and partners that you might work with where you say, “Hey, that partner can do this part of the work. That consultant, I can engage them to maybe handle this particular deliverable.” Then that grows into staff, a team of folks of employees that are working with you on a day-to-day basis and are engaged in the work and focused on the vision of the companies. 

 

I would say that not being afraid to delegate and to allow folks to run with their ideas, understanding the larger vision is what has really been helpful. Because without a team of people, and that’s of consultants, of partners, of advice advisors, of staff members, you’re not able to really build out the kind of vision that I described, right? Like I have a vision that I think is very big, and it cannot be carried just by one person. 

 

So if I thought in my mind, okay, I can do every single thing that I’ve described, I think I would still be where I was three years ago. Instead, we’re at a place where we have very high client retention. We work on very interesting projects. We’re really trying to push the needle in the space in which we’re working, and we’re excited about the projects that come on board. That really couldn’t be done without this idea of like how do you pace yourself to make sure that you continue to progress and move forward, but that you’re giving yourself that grace to correct, to evaluate, and to realize that some things could be done better. But you’re not spending that entire time beating yourself up and not allowing yourself that grace. 

 

One of our core principles and core values is really that we stay ever learning, right? So just that concept in and of itself is that you are constantly going to find ways to improve, and that’s a good thing, right? You’re going to constantly find ways to learn, and that’s a great thing. You’re going to constantly find ways in which you could have done that better, and that’s an amazing thing. So just reframing that to think about it, that has been immensely helpful in our growth.

 

SHELLI WARREN: Well, it makes everything exciting as well. Like you’re feeling your own personal growth, you’re seeing the growth of the business, and then also seeing the growth of professional personal development right across your whole team. Now, I love how you describe this as introducing these new entities within the business in phases and that you were really diligent to make sure that the foundations were solid before you look to bring on more clients into that new entity or to even expand onto the other ones. I know you also were intentional in your hiring because your team has grown so much. So tell us a little bit more about the people that make up your team and some of the roles that you have and how you’ve put together that structure.

 

NIC CAMPBELL: So I am very focused on hiring because I think, again, the people are really the core of infrastructure. So when we talk about infrastructure and building capacity within organizations, we think about systems. We think about operations and SOPs. Those things are critical. They’re very, very important. But without the right people on your team, all of that is useless. 

 

So I am very focused on do we have the right team member in the right position on the team at the right time? So really focused on how do we create hiring processes that reflect the kind of work that we do, the kind of environment in which we work. We are a startup, and we’re a startup that has a lot of interest. We have, again, as I mentioned, high client retention. So that means clients are coming back and saying, “Hey, what about this other project, and could you continue to help us do this thing, and we’d love to extend our time together.” 

 

So when you have that kind of volume and pace, things are moving very, very quickly. It takes a certain kind of person that’s going to not only just survive in that environment because I think a lot of folks can kind of get in and tread water and survive. But you really – What I’m looking for is I want those individuals that are thriving, that are saying, “I understand that, yes, we’re laying that foundation, but we are building as we go.” So how do you hold the foundation in one hand and then still try to build in the other and realizing that you’re going to make mistakes along the way? Everything’s not going to be perfect. We don’t have this structure of the – 

 

We’ve been around for 20 years at this point. So we can say, “Hey, remember 15 years ago when this happened? We were three years old, right, or two years old at that point when I started hiring.” So to think about the kind of individual that will thrive in that kind of environment, you’ve got to get like really some unique individuals that, one, they are going to appreciate that level of autonomy, but they’re also going to be able to work collaboratively in a work environment. 

 

I think that that’s the tension that we usually find. You can find folks who are like, “I’m willing to do this all on my own.” Then you’re going to find folks that are saying, “I really need a ton of hand holding and guidance.” So that’s ultimately at the core what I’m looking for in terms of someone who can step into the environment. That’s going to change, right? Because sooner or later, we’ll be five years old. We’ll be seven years old. At that point, our infrastructure is going to change, our processes. The way that we’re constantly building is going to slow down a bit. We’re always going to be building, forever learning, but we’re not going to be building at this pace. So you start to think about different types of folks that you might want on the team at that point. 

 

But that’s how I hold it. I also think about subject matter experts, particularly based on the kinds of clients that are coming to us. We have a lot of folks who are leading grantmaking organizations. So we want someone who can understand grantmaking. Again, we only work with nonprofits and philanthropies. So having experience with nonprofits and philanthropies is really critical because there’s a language to this. When clients come to us, we ask them, “Why did you choose us? Why are you working with us?” They’ll just share why they’re doing that. What we hear nearly I would say 100% of the time is, “You get us. You understand what it’s like to be in-house, what it’s like to work within a nonprofit organization.” 

 

So when you come up with these ideas, they’re practical, right? They’re based on experience, and you know what has worked and what hasn’t, and you can talk with us in that way. So I’m looking for individuals that at least at the advisor level, when I’m thinking of counsel for the law firm, I’m thinking of vice presidents for Build Up Advisory Group, I want folks who can very easily talk with stakeholders within the nonprofit sector, who can say to executive directors and presidents, “Here’s what I think, and it’s based on no 10 years, 15 years of experience in doing this.” 

 

We also have really important project managers on our team. For those roles, I want to see someone who is very organized, who is inquisitive, who is, again, as fast as continuous improvement. Another one of our core values is excellence, right? So in addition to the ever learning, we’re also thinking about how can we do this in an excellent way. Again, you can see that tension where you’re in a startup environment. Let’s not conflate excellence with perfection, right? So what is excellent for our client at this time, given the resources that we have based on what it is that we know they need?

 

So I want to have strategic thinkers in those roles that are able to take a look at a variety of pieces to a puzzle, essentially, and say, “I’m going to put this all together in a good way, and I’m excited about doing that, and I’m going to bring in the right people to help put in additional pieces.” So you want somebody who’s thinking about project management in that way and is excited about it. I want people who are very organized, who appreciate asking questions about things they don’t understand. Because I think in those questions come a lot of the innovation that really helps to improve our services.

 

Then last thing I’ll say is we have folks that are not necessarily client-facing. They’re more internal-facing, and they’re helping to build out our infrastructure and our operations. That is really critical because those roles really are the connecting fibers, so to speak, of the three entities, and they’re the folks that are looking across all those entities and really taking a step back and being able to say, “I see this process coming up in Build Up Advisory Group. I think we need something similar in TCLF.” Or, “I see this question coming up in Build Up, Inc. I think this is something that might actually benefit the other entity.” 

 

So for those roles, I’m really looking for folks who are analytical, who are, again, strategic thinkers, and who have the ability to explain or communicate complex pieces of information in a way that folks can understand and digest and take it forward. Because we’re talking sometimes about IT, such a property, topics that people might think, “Oh, what’s the big deal? How does this impact my work?” But then to be able to translate that to them I think is a real skill. So that’s really how the team is built out at this point, and those are the kinds of attributes that I look for in team members.

 

SHELLI WARREN: Well, no wonder you have such high retention rates, Nic, because you’ve created this high level of leadership within every single role that you have. If I was to look at your org chart, I would see all these roles, and there’s a big component of leadership within every single one of those roles, regardless whether it’s an admin role, a project management role, a VP role, or like a senior advisor role. You have this expectation that we are going to serve our clientele with this sense of world class excellence. 

 

What comes with that is a lot about attitude, follow through, integrity, character, all of those things because you’re also role modeling for your own team what it’s like to work within an incredible, tactical, and vibrant, and diverse team. You then go out and showcase to your clients how they can do that as well. 

 

[OUTRO]

 

NIC CAMPBELL: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources, and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week, as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Keep building bravely. 

 

[END]

 

________________

 

Part Two:

 

[INTRODUCTION]

 

[00:00:08] Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up podcast. And I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with nonprofits and philanthropies, and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work. 

 

[00:00:40] Stef Wong: Hi, everyone. It’s Stef, Build Up’s Executive Portfolio Liaison. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up is part two of a two-part series led by Build Up’s CEO and managing attorney, Nic Campbell, and moderated by Shelli Warren of Biz Chicks, Team and Leadership Coach, and Stacking Your Team podcast host.

 

You can jump back to part one of the conversation to learn more about defining culturally competent leadership where Nic is talking about all things cultural competence, leadership and effective teams. Originally published on October 4th, 2022, Nic continues to explore what cultural competence means, its competitive edge in business and its significance when embodied not only across teams but in leadership positions as well. 

 

And here’s defining culturally competent leadership with Nic Campbell. 

 

[00:01:30] Nic Campbell: She’s not simply dreaming about doing it differently. No, no. She’s actually doing it along the way. She’s guiding organizations to do it too. If you’ve always wanted to specialize your consulting services and boldly position yourself out front while doing work that aligns beautifully to your own core values, my guest today is going to inspire you. You’re going to hear how she structured her companies, her team and how culturally competent leadership is a thread that runs through everything she does. 

 

[00:02:11] Shelli Warren: Welcome to the Stacking Your Team podcast. If you are a service-based business owner who’s wanting to elevate your capabilities to lead your team, you’re in the right place. Running a business, casting your vision and shifting from practitioner to CEO takes courage, structure and the support of a team. But not just any team. So, if you’re thinking that because you own a successful business and you’ve hired people to come and join you, then you really should know how to lead them, stop beating yourself up. And instead, stick with me and stay open to learning how you can improve your leadership skills here every single week. 

 

The Stacking Your Team podcast was launched over four years ago as a companion resource to the award-winning Biz Chicks podcast hosted by Natalie Eckdahl, our CEO and founder, who’s been sharing her incredible free podcast resource for women entrepreneurs since 2014. 

 

Natalie and I both have a big heart for service-based business owners who are juggling life at home, in their community, their industry and, of course, in their business. I’m your host, Shelli Warren, your Team and Leadership Coach here at Biz Chicks Inc. where I lean on my 25-plus years of experience leading people at a Fortune 50 Corporation. 

 

I’m here to help you build a diverse and agile team of high performing people who have a passion for winning and a deep desire to transform the lives of the clientele that you serve. Let’s get to it with this reminder that our long-standing listeners will certainly recognize.

 

The team that got you here may not be the team that will get you there. 

 

[00:03:53] Shelli Warren: Let me introduce you to our guest today. Nic Campbell is a wife, a mom of two girls and two cats. She was born in the Barbados and now lives in Connecticut. She’s also a member of the Leadership Lab. And as an attorney and a CEO of three companies in one, she leads a virtual team of 10 that’s growing quickly. 

 

She’s on a mission at Build Up Advisory Group, which is one of three companies with a vision to strengthen brave nonprofits and philanthropies, transforming outcomes for historically marginalized communities through the creation of 100 big bettable grassroots organizations by 2025. 

 

Nic and her team provide fiscal, legal and infrastructure leadership insight for organizations that are focused on capacity building and breaking glass ceilings in a really big way. Together, they intentionally support organizations that are no longer satisfied with doing business as usual. 

 

Come and meet Nic. 

 

[INTERVIEW]

 

[00:05:05] Shelli Warren: Welcome to the Stacking Your Team podcast, Nic Campbell. I am so happy to have you here. You are one of those intriguing members of the Leadership Lab who is so dynamic, so brilliant. And then, I also feel like there’s a little bit of this air of mystery about you. There’s this essence about you that, really, when you’re on a call and you’re talking to us, you own the space. You really know how to show up and be present and always add value into whatever you’re sharing. And yet at the same point, I’m always just so intrigued to learn more about you. 

 

I am so thrilled to be here. Not only am I going to learn more about you, but so are our listeners. And of course, so are your peers in the Leadership Lab that tune in every single week.

 

[00:05:51] Nic Campbell: I really appreciate the kind words. And I’m really looking forward to talking more with you about what we do and how we actually show up in our sector. 

 

[00:06:01] Shelli Warren: Well, tell me all about it. Now, I know you were born and raised in the Barbados. But where are you now? How has your life evolved? Tell us about the family. I know you’ve got some kiddos.

 

[00:06:13] Nic Campbell: Yeah. Born and raised in the Caribbean. I’ve lived in Barbados and the Cayman Islands, and then came to the United States when I was about 12 and lived in the Bronx in New York. Went to college and law school in Massachusetts. And so, I’ve really been on the Northeast for all of those listening off in the US. 

 

And now I am in Newtown, Connecticut and really loving where I am. it’s very, very different from New York City. But this is the base of our operations for the Build Up companies. 

 

I’m married. My husband, his name is Kevin. And I have two little girls, Kaden and Nova. We have like a lot going on in our home. We have a lot of space here in Newtown. So that’s really great for the girls so that they can play with each other, with their friends, and just have that space to do that. So, yeah, that’s a little bit about me and where we are.

 

[00:07:14] Shelli Warren: And you have built up this stellar reputation and a deep network into this incredible niche that I don’t think people, the majority of people, are even aware of. Tell us a little bit more about the clientele that you serve and how you help them with their transformation.

 

[00:07:34] Nic Campbell: Yeah, definitely. I am the CEO and managing attorney for the Build Up companies. And the Build Up companies is really comprised of three entities. It’s Build Up Advisory Group, which is our management consulting firm. There’s the Campbell Law Firm, which is our law firm. And then there’s Build Up Inc., which is our nonprofit a fiscal sponsor or capacity holder. 

 

And so, each of these companies has its own separate goals, but they’re all working together to interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity throughout the globe. And we do this by focusing exclusively on organizational infrastructure. 

 

When we look at Build Up Advisory Group, we are working within three main areas. It’s governance. How is your board set up? Do you have the right governance within your organization? Do you have right amount of oversight and accountability over your work? There’s grant making. Do you have the right processes in place? Are they reflective of your organizational values? 

 

When you say, for example, as a funder that you’d like to get money very quickly to those who need it around the globe, is it taking you four months to get a very simple grant out of the door? And if so, why? We’re really working very closely on all kinds of questions that come up within that process. 

 

And then the third area is around structuring. How are you set up both internally and externally as an organization? Do you have right structure in place? The right vehicle to do your work? And when you look at your team, are they positioned and set up to do their best work? Do they have the capacity and the training that’s needed? And so, that’s really the focus within Build Up Advisory Group. We’re working with organizations that have questions around infrastructure, around their capacity to do their best work. And they want to understand how is our organization doing? And what is that gap? And what recommendations do you have for us to kind of close that gap? 

 

Within the law firm, we’re working with, again, brave nonprofits and philanthropies, but also social impact entrepreneurs who are thinking about ways to change the world and have a positive impact in the world really around social justice efforts. We focus on nonprofit formation and exemption. When someone comes to us and says, “We have a great idea. We’d love it to become – Love to turn it into a public charity or a private foundation,” which is a charitable organization here in the United States. Or maybe a social welfare organization. An organization that really focuses on advocacy of these different social justice. 

 

We work with them and really show up as a thought partner alongside them to help form these entities and help them understand this is what it means to be a public charity. And this is what it means to be a social welfare organization. 

 

We also serve as outsourced in-house general counsel. And this is a really unique way for us to show up as a firm. If you look across many firms, they’re not necessarily showing up in this way. And it’s really a hallmark service of ours, because the way we look at it is, yes, we’re outside counsel at the end of the day. But we don’t want to be transactional with our clients. Like, purely transactional. We want it to be built on a relationship. 

 

And so, what that means is when you come to us with a transactional question, “Hey, can you take a look at this agreement?” We’re not asking you questions about the way your program is operating, the way your organization is operating, because we get it. We’re in team meetings. We are part of these calls. We understand your strategy. And we are looking around corners so that when you bring that transactional question to us, you told us about this, we’re aware of this other thing. It’s a really important way of the way we work within the law firm. 

 

And then the third entity, Build Up Inc., we are working with women-led and BIPOC-led projects and initiatives that are focused on marginalized and vulnerable communities make sure that they have the capacity to do their best work. Our thinking is that when these projects and initiatives come to us for support, we want to make sure that we are helping them understand and learn about what it takes to build out a solid government structure? What it takes to manage a board? How do you manage your finances? What does your fundraising and development strategy look like? What should it look like? How do you manage a team? So that when they leave Build Up Inc. and they go off and become these independent public charities, for example, that they can say we know how to run an organization, and they are much stronger afterward than when they first showed up. 

 

I’ve work with fiscal sponsors for many years within them, with them, alongside them, and as a funder within a funder examining those relationships. And one thing that’s really struck me and stood out to me was the relationship that really exists between the project and the fiscal sponsor, the kind of capacity building support that was being provided by that fiscal sponsor through the project. And I thought that there could be so much more that could be done. 

 

I also was interested in the connections being made between the projects. There wasn’t a lot of conversation happening between projects that were doing very similar or a complimentary work. And so, we want to make sure that at Build Up Inc., we’re serving as that connector for projects, but we’re also serving as a convener within the sector to kind of talk about fiscal sponsorship, what it means, and a new way to look at it as really capacity building at the end of the day. 

 

That’s the overview of the companies. How we work and who we work with. 

 

[00:12:54] Shelli Warren: Well, Nic, it’s incredible what you’re doing. And I have to ask, how do you fit in to these three different companies? What role do you play? And how do you divide your time in order to really honor the work that you’re wanting to do? Because as your coach here in the Leadership Lab, when I hear the complexity of these three different companies, and I know you are such the face of the brand. And it’s, really, you’re intrinsically on a mission to help these clients that you’re working with. My fear for you is that you’re overcapacity with everything you’re doing. 

 

And then next fear is that you’re going to start to beat yourself up because you’re not going to be able to provide that same stellar, high-level of services to every single client within these three companies. Tell me, how have you designed your business and your team to make sure that those three different sections or sectors of your overarching company works well? And what are you working through? Because I feel like you’re continuing to evolve. You’re just continuing to grow and continuing to evolve.

 

[00:14:09] Nic Campbell: No. I think it’s a great question. And I definitely think it’s a work in progress. And it also comes about through doing the thing. Build Up companies are about three years old. So, we’re very, very young. And we currently work with really amazing organizations and leaders, which is just a testament to the team that we built and the kind of work that we do. 

 

And when I started first year, even first year and a half, it was just me. And so, really having to realize very early on that these things have to be faced. Although the three entities were in the vision, and really some were – The law firm, for example, was a latter part of that vision, we had to realize that you have to focus on one first [inaudible 00:14:55] of the other. And to your point, when you under understand that the vision is about the three entities and how they could be working together, and once they’re working together and doing this amazing work, everything would sort of fall into place. But then being at a place where you’re focusing on just one entity and, really, within that one entity, trying to understand what will be the service that you will be providing? What kind of thought partnership can you provide to leaders to make them say, “Wow! This is such added value.” And to make the work really interesting? 

 

Just through working through all of that, understanding that, one, you have to phase it and being very clear on what do the next six months look like? What does the next year look like? Setting goals and then making sure that you’re constantly evaluating. 

 

What I realized, again, very early on is you can set goals. But if you’re just setting annual goals and just kind of saying, “Okay, well, I’ll check in at the end of the year to see how it’s gone,” you don’t have that ability to do any sort of course correction. 

 

And so, really what I found worked really well was, every single week, at the end of each week, doing an evaluation of how that week went against all of those goals and objectives that I put together. It took some time. And in some moments you would say, “Well, why am I focusing on goals and objectives? I need to go get clients. I need to start building out the other entities.” But it’s like you need to have the fundamentals in place. You need to have that infrastructure in place to then say, “Okay, how am I going to continue to build on that?” Definitely about phasing. Definitely focused on goal setting. 

 

And then I would also say realizing that you cannot do it by yourself. And I think in the very beginning, that starts out with consultants and partners that you might work with where you say, “Okay, that partner can do this part of the work. That consultant, I can engage them to maybe handle this particular deliverable.” And then that grows into staff, right? A team of folks of employees that are working with you on a day-to-day basis and are engaged in the work and focus on the vision of the companies. 

 

And I would say that you know not being afraid to delegate and to allow folks to run with their ideas, understanding the larger vision, is what has really been helpful. Because without a team of people, and that’s of consultants, of partners, of advisors, of staff members, you’re not able to really build out the kind of vision that I described, right? I have a vision that I think is very big and it cannot be carried just by one person. 

 

If I thought in my mind, “Okay, I can do every single thing that I’ve described,” I think I would still be where I was three years ago. And instead, we’re at a place where we have very high client retention. We work on very interesting projects. We’re really trying to push the needle in the space in which you’re working. And we’re excited about the projects that come on board. And I really couldn’t be done without this idea of like how do you pace yourself to make sure that you continue to progress and move forward? But that you’re giving yourself that grace to correct, to evaluate and to realize that some things could be done better. But you’re not spending that entire time beating yourself up and not allowing yourself that grace. 

 

One of our core principles and core values is really that we stay ever learning, right? And so, just that concept in and of itself is that you are constantly going to find ways to improve, and that’s a good thing, right? You’re going to constantly find ways to learn, and that’s a great thing. And you’re going to constantly find ways in which you could have done that better, and that’s an amazing thing. And so, just reframing that to think about it that way has been immensely helpful in our growth.

 

[00:18:42] Shelli Warren: Well, it makes everything exciting as well. Where you’re feeling your own personal growth, you’re seeing the growth of the business and then also seeing the growth of professional and personal development right across your whole team. 

 

Now, I love how you describe this as introducing these new entities within the business in phases. And that you were really diligent to make sure that the foundations were solid before you look to bring on more clients into that new entity or to even expand onto the other ones. 

 

And I know you also were intentional in your hiring because your team has grown so much. Tell us a little bit more about the people that make up your team and some of the roles that you have, and how you’ve put together that structure.

 

[00:19:26] Nic Campbell: I am very focused on hiring because I think, again, the people are really the core of infrastructure. When we talk about infrastructure and building capacity within organizations, we think about systems, we think about operations and SOPs. Those things are critical. They’re very, very important. But without the right people on your team, all of that is useless. I am very focused on do we have the right team member in the right position on the team at the right time? 

 

Really focus on how do we create hiring processes that reflect the kind of work that we do? The kind of environment in which we work? We are a startup. And we’re a startup that has a lot of interest. We have, again, as I mentioned, high client retention. That means clients are coming back and saying, “Hey, what about this other project? And could you continue to help us do this thing? And we’d love to extend our time together.” 

 

And so, when you have that kind of volume and pace, things are moving very, very quickly. And it takes a certain kind of person that’s going to not only just survive in that environment, because I think a lot of folks can kind of get in and tread water and survive. What I’m looking for is I want those individuals that are thriving. That are singing, “I understand that, yes, we’re leading that foundation. But we are building as we go.” And so, how do you hold the foundation in one hand and then still try to build in the other and realizing that you’re going to make mistakes along the way? Everything’s not going to be perfect. We don’t have this structure of the, “We’ve been around for 20 years at this point. So, we can say, “Great. Remember 15 years ago when this happened?” We’re three-years-old, right? Or two-years-old at that point when I started hiring. 

 

The thing about the kind of individual that will thrive in that kind of environment, you’ve got to get like really some unique individuals that, one, they are going to appreciate that level of autonomy. But they’re also going to be able to work collaboratively in a work environment. And I think that that’s the tension that we usually find. If you can find folks who are like, “I’m willing to do this all on my own.” And then you’re going to find folks that are saying, “I really need a ton of hand-holding and guidance.” 

 

That’s ultimately at the core what I’m looking for in terms of someone who can step into the environment. And that’s going to change, right? Because soon we’ll be five-years-old, we’ll be seven-years-old. And at that point, our infrastructure is going to change, our processes. And the way that we’re constantly building is going to slow down a bit. We’re always going to be building wherever learning. But we’re not going to be building at this pace. And so, you start to think about different types of folks that you might want on the team at that point. But that’s how I hold it. 

 

I also think about subject matter experts particularly based on the kinds of clients that are coming to us. We have a lot of folks who are leading grant-making organizations. We want someone who can understand grant making. Also, again, we only work with nonprofits and philanthropies. Having experience with nonprofits and philanthropies is really critical because there’s a language to this. 

 

And when clients come to us, we ask them, “Why did you choose us? Why are you working with us?” Or they’ll just share why they’re doing that. And what we here nearly, I would say 100% of the time, is, “You get us. You understand what it’s like to be in-house, what it’s like to work within a non-profit organization.” When you come up with these ideas, they’re practical, right? They’re based on experience. And you know what has worked and what hasn’t. And you can talk with us in that way. 

 

And so, I’m looking for individuals at least at the advisor level. When I’m thinking of counsel for the law firm, I’m thinking of vice presidents for Build Up Advisory Group. I want folks who can very easily talk with stakeholders within the nonprofit sector who can say to executive directors and presidents, “Here’s what I think. And it’s based on 10 years, 15 years of experience in doing this.” 

 

We also have really important project managers on our team. And for those roles, I want to see someone who is very organized, who is inquisitive, who, again, is back to this continuous improvement. Another one of our core values is excellence, right? In addition to the ever learning, we’re also thinking about how can we do this in an excellent way? And again, you can see that tension where you’re in a startup environment. Let’s not conflate excellence with perfection, right? What is excellent for a client at this time given the resources that we have based on what it is that we know they need? 

 

And so, I want to have strategic thinkers in those roles that are able to take a look at a variety of pieces to a puzzle, essentially, and say, “I’m going to put this all together in a good way. And I’m excited about doing that. And I’m going to bring in the right people to help put in additional pieces.” 

 

You want somebody who’s thinking about project management in that way that’s excited about it and want people who are very organized, who appreciate asking questions about things they don’t understand. Because I think in those questions come a lot of the innovation that really helps to improve our services. 

 

And then the last thing I’ll say is we have folks that are not necessarily client-facing. They’re more internal-facing. And they’re helping to build out our infrastructure and our operations. And that is really critical. Because those roles really are the connecting fibers, so to speak, of the three entities. And they’re the folks that are looking across all those entities and really taking a step back and being able to say, “I see this process coming up in Build Up Advisory Group. I think we need something similar in TCLF.” Or, “I see this question coming up in Build Up Inc. I think this is something that might actually benefit the other entities.” 

 

For those roles, I’m really looking for folks who are analytical, who are, again, strategic thinkers and who have the ability to explain or communicate complex pieces of information in a way that folks can understand and digest and take it forward. Because we’re talking sometimes about IT, such a property, topics that people might think, “Oh, what’s the big deal? How does this impact my work?” But then to be able to translate that to them I think is a real skill. That’s really how the team is built out at this point. And those are the kinds of attributes that I look for in team members. 

 

[00:25:59] Shelli Warren: Well, no wonder you have such high retention rates, Nic, because you’ve created this high level of leadership within every single role that you have. If I was to look at your org chart, I would see all these roles. And there’s a big component of leadership within every single one of those roles, regardless whether it’s an admin role, a project management role, a VP role or, a senior advisor role. You have this expectation that we are going to serve our clientele with this sense of world-class excellence. 

 

And what comes with that is a lot about attitude, follow through, integrity, character, right? All of those things. Because you’re also role modeling for your own team what it’s like to work within an incredible, tactical, and vibrant, and diverse team. And then you then go out and showcase to your clients how they can do that as well. 

 

And I know one of the things that you are very well versed in, and you talk a lot about this, and there’s a part of you, that helper person, that educational person, that really wants to help people become more fluent in understanding what’s happening in the world these days because it’s so important. Tell us, what’s Nic Campbell’s definition of culturally competent leadership? And why do we need this now? 

 

[00:27:26] Nic Campbell: I think it’s really interesting that you pulled out that thread of leadership from all of the roles that I described, because that’s really how I do envision it. And there’s that tension of just how do you make sure that leadership is coming through and it’s being nurtured and cultivated? When maybe before having this role, folks who had had similar roles were like, “I really wasn’t having that thread pulled, right? And so, I didn’t have as much autonomy. And I had much more structure. And so, do I like it? Do I not?” Even if you thought that you might like it, now you’re actually in a position where you’re kind of forced to step into that position. And how do we sort of balance that out in a good way? And that’s something that we’re thinking through as an organization. Something that I’m thinking through group as the CEO of the company and as a leader of Build Up Companies. 

 

But I think I’m pulling that out as leadership, because when we talk about culturally competent, or someone being culturally competent particularly around like leadership, I do think that cultural competence is a combination of a few things, right? It’s a combination of having adaptive leadership or flexible leadership skills where you’re able to understand who’s in the room? Who your stakeholders are? And then tailoring your own leadership behaviors to make sure that those stakeholders are able to share everything that they wanted to as a result of that leadership. I think that’s a really critical component. 

 

I think the second really big part of being culturally competent is really deep listening skills. And this is said all the time, but I think listening is such a strength. And when you are a good listener and you are actively listening, I think that it can reveal so much of what has been said, but so much of what has not been said. And if you’re going to strive to be culturally competent, you have to become a deep listener. Because now you’re listening for things that’s your own biases might not have otherwise allowed you to hear. 

 

And so, now you’re listening to what has been said? How it’s being said? What’s not been said? And you’re trying to actively ask questions and trying to understand at the end of the day. I think that without this second component, you can’t show up as a culturally competent leader because you don’t have those deep listening skills. And I think that they can be developed. But they have to be in order for cultural competence to come through. 

 

I think I would say the third piece of this is that you have to be focused on collaborative problem solving. You have to come at every situation with the idea that you are going to collaborate with others to address that issue to problem solving. When I say problem solve, not necessarily that there’s this huge problem that’s looming out there. But if there’s an issue, if there’s a question matter that’s in play, you are able to collaboratively work with others to address that issue in an effective way. 

 

And so, those three components, the adaptive leadership, deep listening and collaborative problem solving are what I think create cultural competence. And that’s the way you can become a culturally competent leader. 

 

And I think we’re at the point now where just based on everything that’s happened, particularly here in the United States and around the globe really, we’re recalling it out and saying, “It’s cultural competence.” And I appreciate that because I do think that it is very important. 

 

But the way I’m seeing it is that’s just competence, right? In order to be a good, effective leader, you need those components, right? You can’t show up and say, “I’m going to be tone deaf. I don’t know who’s in the room. I’m barely listening. I’m only going to problem solve the way that I want a problem solve.” No. You have to do it collaboratively. You have to listen. And you have to adapt. 

 

And so, we can lift it up and call it cultural competence. Because, again, I do think that it should have a carved-out space to appreciate that there is something too realizing who’s in the room and that your stakeholders maybe people who have been rendered voiceless. And so, you have a responsibility to show up and ask questions, and try to learn, and be this culturally competent leader. But at the end of the day, I really do just see it as just being competent.

 

[00:31:53] Shelli Warren: Well, I love how you describe that, because it reminds me about how different the expectations are of leaders now than what they used to be. And I mean, for years, people would just simply skate through a career with collateral damage all around them. And they would continue to be promoted. They would continue to receive all these accolades about the outcomes that they were providing with not a lot of attention put towards how the work was delivered and how did we get that result? Whereas now, people have higher expectations within their leaders. And people are making very big bold decisions about who they want to work for, or with, or alongside, and who they don’t. 

 

It’s to all of our benefit to get more education on what it is that you’re doing that is not meeting those three expectations for your stakeholders, for your team, for your partners, for your pipeline, for your local community, for the industry that you serve. It’s really up to us to decide that we want to do things differently. As a leader who is coaching and role modeling other leaders, what are some of the things that we can do as leaders practically that we can check-in on ourselves to bump up the self-awareness? And then what are some things that we can do to help coach our department leaders, our team leaders, our VPs, those people that are responsible to others on the extended team, how can we help them show up better in these three ways as well? 

 

[00:33:36] Nic Campbell: Yeah, I think that it’s definitely ongoing. It’s not like you do these things and now you’re culturally competent and you never have to work on these things again. And so, I think that just even understanding that there is these components and there’s this framework and you’re trying to always, like you said, ask questions around, “Am I living out each of these components in a good way? And where am I falling short? What’s that Delta?” is really the first step. 

 

And I think one of the pieces of advice that I would provide is when you’re thinking about cultural competence, think about the leadership you have been exposed to. Because the tension that exists right now, right? We can talk about these components. Like, you have to be a deep listener. You’re constantly asking questions. But sometimes, because people are used to the leadership that you described, they appreciate it, right? The aspects of that leadership that you actually appreciate, which is I am being told exactly what to do. There’s structure all the time. Because, again, I don’t really we have that space to decide, “Will I do this? Should I do that?” 

 

And so, there is that tension that we do have to think about and say, “Okay. Well, what is the leadership style that I am used to?” And you list that all out. How does this show up in terms of hiring? How does that show up in terms of general management within the organization? And you list all of the really key aspects of the way we work in your organization out, let’s say on a piece of paper. And then you go through piece by piece and say, “What do I like about this? What do I not like?” And then line it back up against how does that require or involve deep listening? How does that help or facilitate collaborative problem solving? And how is it forcing me to understand who is in the room and appreciate who’s in the room? 

 

And I think if you do that – And it’s a long exercise. And as I mentioned, it’s continuous, right? It’s never like you did it one time and now you have the solution and that’s it. But if you force yourself to do it, one, you’re challenging yourself and your own biases, right? Because we talk about the old-style leadership, and no one likes that. And now we’re stepping into this new culturally competent phase. But there are aspects of that old style that a lot of us still appreciate even if we don’t say it out loud or we don’t even recognize that we actually appreciate it. 

 

If you get very didactic and really articulate, like, “Here’s what I like from this what I’ve known so far in each of these parts of the work in your organization. And how does that line up with this culturally competent leadership?” I think then you’ll start to identify the areas in which there are gaps, there are deltas. And how do you step into that? And then you can talk about resources, and support, and additional leverage that you might need to make sure that you’re plugging those gaps and getting you closer to that culturally competent leadership.

 

[00:36:32] Shelli Warren: Yeah, I love this. One of my most favorite telltale moments for me or teachable moments for me is I love to hear someone else who’s totally different from me explain a certain circumstance. Because they will choose different language to describe the circumstance and how it’s impacting the business and then what they believe would be the rationale for their next best steps. But they’ll tell it in such a way that always blows my mind because they’re using different language, terms, experiences based on their conditioning that is different from my conditioning. 

 

And so, I literally feel my head explode, right? Because, like, “Wow! I’ve never heard that explained that way. I’ve never even thought about looking at that problem in that way.” But now that you’ve described it with your terms, your terminology, and how you’re looking at this problem, and what you see are the gaps, I see it’s bigger than what I originally thought it was. Let’s compound our efforts here. Let’s really double down on how to get out there and get solved it. 

 

Because I think sometimes we can brush over problems and gaps and constraints because we don’t think it’s that much of a big deal. But when you hear a different person’s perspective, it can really shed the light on, “Yeah, this is affecting a lot more people than I thought it would. And part of our roles as leaders is to make people’s jobs easier, not more difficult. Tell me your experience with working with that broken system every day. And now when you tell me how complex that is, let’s get the help for you too. Let’s fix it, and repair it and move on from there. 

 

I always find it interesting to hear other people explain things, because I know I’m going to learn something different and I’m going to have a whole different viewpoint on it because I listened to how they’re seeing it. 

 

[00:38:27] Nic Campbell: Agreed. And I think that that’s one of the indicators of being culturally competent, right? You’re stepping into situations. Not like, “Oh, I know what’s best. I know the solution.” But you’re fighting for a place of, “Let me listen. Let me ask questions. Let me hear from the folks who are closest to the problem because they likely have all of the information or most of the information that we need to craft a really efficient and effective solution.” 

 

And so, when you start off by asking questions, stepping in with this sort of position of, “I don’t know everything. I want to learn.” That thing is when I start to say, “Wow! We are really on that path of cultural competence.” Because I think sometimes people think, “Well, who would step into a situation thinking they know everything.” But you’ll realize, you start off with a lot of assumptions when you step into any sort of problem-solving type of situation and you’ll see folks jump right to the solution like, “Oh, I heard you okay.” But then you base it on your own experience, right? Which requires bias sometimes. And so, you’re bringing that all to bear to say, “Okay, now here’s the solution that is top-down, is driven by the leader of the organization. I haven’t listened to the stakeholders who are impacted by the problem that we’re trying to solve. But I’m going to now share it with them and say this is the solution that we’ve come up with.” 

 

And so, again, because of that style of leadership, the stakeholders are like banks, but then they go off to use it and it doesn’t work. And those aren’t speaking up. And so it becomes that cycle. I think all of this does start with taking that position of I don’t know what’s best, right? Someone else likely who’s experiencing this may know what’s better. And I want to hear from them. I want to ask questions. And I want to understand so that we can collaboratively problem solve. 

 

[00:40:18] Shelli Warren: And that’s really the kind of workplace culture that we all want, right? We all want to feel like we’re part of the solution. Not being dictated to how and what we’re going to do next and within our role. I love that. What are you doing Nic, yourself personally, to stay abreast of just what’s happening out there in the world? And specifically, people are coming to you. They look to you for your leadership capability, your insight, your fresh ideas. And you have this natural ability to build a relationship with someone. That’s just natural for you. But for a lot of people, it’s not. What are you doing to stay abreast of what’s happening so that you can continue to be ready to go in and look like help to help solve all these various problems that are out there? 

 

[00:41:05] Nic Campbell: I think I’ve in such a unique and awesome position given the work that we do, because we are working from – We’re working from a capacity building perspective. So, we are within lots of different areas. So, we are in environmental justice. We’re in social justice. We’re in reproductive rights issues. We are really running all across the sector because everyone needs infrastructure, that organizational support and leverage. 

 

I also get the chance to talk with not only executive management teams and executive leaders, but also board members, and chairs, and founders of organizations. I also get the opportunity to talk with team members, team leads really across the organization. When I talk about a problem or I raise a question, I can hear it from the chair of the board, from the founder, all the way through to the executive director, the president, the administrative assistant who is also affected or impacted by this issue. 

 

I get to receive or get to hear range of responses on this particular issue or question that I’ve raised. And that’s just one organization. And I’m doing this over and over again in multiple entities, in different perspectives, different ways. And so, I’m getting so much information. And as you mentioned, we are relational. And so, it’s not just asking the question and moving on, but trying to understand why they’re responding the way they are. Why they have the insight that they have? And again, we’re doing that across the organization. 

 

If you imagine that just multiplied day after day, year after year, we have so much information that informs the way we work as a team and as a company. That’s how we stay abreast of everything, right? We’re talking to people. We’re talking to the people that are being impacted by the kinds of questions that are coming up for us, the issues that we are facing. And we’re asking what kind of support do you need? What kind of resources? How is it challenging for you? How is it showing up? 

 

And again, hearing from the founder, hearing from the executive director, hearing from the administrative team is extremely helpful. We’re also then taking that information not only informing the way we work, but then the way we show up with our partners. When we engage with other organizations who might be consulting in this space and they’re thinking of a way or asking about, “How do we approach these kinds of organizations with this kind of issue?” We’re sharing as well and saying, “Here is what we have been learning about. Here’s what we’ve been hearing. Here’s how we’ve been approaching it.” And we are then listening to them to see how they’ll adapt their approach. What kind of approach has worked for them? What has not worked? And we’re doing that again in different organizations with multiple partners that we have, but also within this membership organizations as well. 

 

We really stay abreast by, first and foremost, talking with people, being a part of membership organizations within the space. We read a ton within the sector. And we put out a lot of thought leadership as well. 

 

[00:44:20] Shelli Warren: You have an incredible repertoire, I would say, or body of work between your podcast, your blogs, your LinkedIn articles. You’re doing an exceptional job, you, Nic, and the team, to be able to really position yourself as that person that is there to help people move their goals forward. 

 

And as I’m listening to you today, the biggest takeaway I have here about you and your team and the work that you do is that you have a lot to share. And you’re also very open to hear others. There’s this wonderful sense of there’s this reciprocal relationship that’s built between all of your clients, including your team members, like your internal team. I think there’s that give and take. You’re here to give there to also receive from each other. It’s just a wonderful synergy that you’re creating. 

 

[00:45:09] Nic Campbell: I appreciate you saying that. And it’s really the way that we strive to work, right? That, again, being ever learning. But also, being brave enough to say, “This is my vision. This is how I’m thinking about it. And I want to hear from. How is it going? What’s the feedback?” And then being able to, again, step into that leadership role and say, “Okay, how do I do this in a culturally competent way? Who’s impacted? What are the questions I can ask?” And that’s really where we are trying to be so that we can come up with this collaborative problem-solving approach. That’s the way we want to work. I’m really happy that it’s coming through and what we’re sharing outside or externally.

 

[00:45:53] Shelli Warren: Well, it really is. How did the Leadership Lab fit into all of this vision? 

 

[00:45:56] Nic Campbell: Yeah. When it was just me, there was no team to manage. I didn’t have to write anything down. I just kind of put things in my mind. And it went very smoothly. But as you start to grow a team, particularly a team of employees, and then you have that mix of employees and consultants, which we call engagement advisors, you want to make sure that you are creating a team culture. You’re creating an organizational culture. You have – I spoke about our organizational values. But how do you make sure that those things show up in your hiring as you’re bringing other folks on the team? And I also talked about delegation. Now you’re delegating things. How do you make sure that things are still operating the way they should or the way you envision the culture is being built out? Again, the way you envision? And that it’s being maintained. Because now it has to be maintained by the team. And so, you want them to call you out on things. Like, “Hey, our culture is supposed to be this, this and this. And I’m seeing these things that I don’t think align with that. And I want that.” 

 

And so, when you think about all of those things and then also realizing you’re running a business and you still have to go out and get clients, and there’s sales, and marketing and all those other things, very quickly, or I very quickly realize that I need help, right? Again, I am stepping into a situation and saying, “I’m not the person that knows everything about this thing. There may be others, or there are others that know much more than I do.” And how can I show up and listen so that I can create this really effective solution for my company and my team? 

 

And so, I listen to Stacking Your Team podcast. So, I knew of you, and knew Biz Chicks, with Natalie. And I wanted to hear more about Leadership Lab and what kind of support and resources I could receive so that I could help build out my team, which was growing really rapidly. Manage that team in a good way while still also balancing client work. And even if I could identify that delta between where I am and where I ultimately want to be, but at least I knew, “Okay, this is where I want to go.” And I have that delta, and I have some support, and resources, and leverage to get me there. 

 

And so, working with you and the Leadership Lab team and the folks in the Leadership Lab, it’s just amazing, because sometimes you think you’re out there by yourself. That no one really gets it because you’re running a company, and you’re building out a team, and you want to – Again, you have this big vision and you’re trying to balance all these things. And so, to hear from other women who are doing the same thing and they’re also balancing their personal lives with families or whatever is happening within their personal lives, it’s just really helpful from that perspective to hear from others the questions that are being raised by Leadership Lab members. They’re also very helpful, right? 

 

To just say, “Right, I have that question. I hadn’t yet formulated it. But that’s a question I do have.” And to hear the responses from you and from others has been very, very helpful to me as I plan for next steps. 

 

And I think another thing that has been really useful is that there are lots of different folks in the Leadership Lab. They’re at different stages of their development. I get a chance to look ahead to say, “Oh, wow! That’s what it could look like in five years. That’s what it can look like in seven years, right? Or year seven.” And so, just to see like, “Oh, these are the kinds of questions that are coming up for them. This is how they’re thinking about building out their team, or the struggles, or challenges they have had.” And that helps me to think about how can I kind of safeguard against that, or plan for that, or learn from what they’ve just shared? To me, it’s just been extremely valuable to spend the time learning and sharing with the other women within Leadership Lab. 

 

[00:50:03] Shelli Warren: Well, we adore having you there in the group. And I know that your Insight that you’re bringing just in terms of your law background, your not-for-profit background, this high level of client care that comes with you as well that’s part of the package within Nic, I’m also really excited to see you help guide us through this culturally competent leadership style and really be that guide that will be able to say, “Have you thought about this?” Or I have a client that have similar situation, and here’s how we helped guide her through that. 

 

I mean, all of that type of high-level insight is just so darn valuable when you’re in a small group like that. It really feels comforting to know that there’s experts within the group that really are way ahead of you in certain aspects of the business. And then there’s also things that you’re way ahead of them so that you can help them again. And it’s that whole idea of reciprocity, of just really being able to give and get from that group and that experience. We’re so happy to have you there. 

 

And thank you so much for helping us understand culturally competent leadership. What that really means for us? And please tell us how can others stay connected with you, Nic? People who are looking to join your team. People who are looking to hire you or one of your team members. Or people who are wanting to really get more Nic time through the podcast or through the YouTube channel. Tell us how can people stay connected to you? 

 

[00:51:32] Nic Campbell: Yeah. First, thank you so much, Shelli, for having me on and for the really insightful conversation. I mean, just getting the opportunity to talk more about the way we work, and our work, and just how we’re trying to make sure that we’re showing up with a high level of cultural competence. 

 

If folks would love to be in touch with us, we have a podcast. It’s called the Nonprofit Build Up. We talk about a lot of the topics that we talked about here, really focusing in on how do we build out the infrastructure for brave nonprofits and philanthropies? And questions that are coming up within the capacity building in the nonprofit sector. And we are hiring. And so, I invite you to visit our website, which is buildupadvisory.com. And once you go to buildupadvisory.com, you’ll see the opportunities there. I really encourage you to apply and reach out with any questions that you might have. 

 

And similarly, for organizations, if you are a leader of a non-profit or a philanthropy, one, I want to make sure that you are leading a brave non-profit or philanthropy that’s really important to us, and that you are pushing that status quo and really trying to affect change, right? We’re seriously trying to interrupt cycles of inequity and injustice. And so, if that’s the case, please visit our website and reach out to us. You can shoot us an email as well, which is at hello@buildupadvisory.com. And I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[00:53:02] Shelli Warren: Well, we’re going to have all those links in the show notes. And thank you so much for coming and spending some and quality time with me here, Nic. And I will see you in our next call. 

 

[00:53:11] Nic Campbell: Yes, of course. Thanks so much, Shelli. 

 

[00:53:14] Shelli Warren: Thank you.

 

[OUTRO]

 

[00:53:14] Stef Wong: And that completes part two of this two-part series on defining culturally competent leadership with Nic Campbell. 

 

As we wrap up, if you’re interested in partnering with a law firm that leverages a global network of experienced attorneys with decades of legal training and practical experience and focuses on social impact organizations to serve as an outsourced general counsel and thought partner, then schedule discovery call with the Campbell Law Firm today. 

 

The Campbell Law Firm works with brave nonprofits, philanthropies, philanthropists, ultra-high-net-worth individuals and movements offering high-touch counsel to social impact entrepreneurs and organizations around the world. We would love to hear more about your brave mission to change the world. 

 

[00:53:58] Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the nonprofit sector. 

 

Keep building bravely. 

 

[END]

 

Read more

The Integral Role of Cultural Competence in Movements with DeAnna Hoskins (RECAST)

Over the next two weeks on the Nonprofit Build Up®, Nic is talking with DeAnna Hoskins, President and CEO of JustLeadership USA also known as JLUSA. DeAnna Hoskins has been at the helm of JLUSA since 2018. A nationally recognized leader and dynamic public speaker, she has been committed to the movement for racial and social justice, working alongside those most impacted by marginalization for over two decades. DeAnna leads from the perspective that collective leadership, advocacy for justice with reinvestment, and bold systems change are only possible when those who are most harmed are provided the tools and resources to demand change. You will not want to miss these episodes.

 

Listen to Part One here:

 

Listen to Part Two here:

Resources:

About DeAnna Hoskins:

DeAnna Hoskins has been at the helm of JLUSA as the President and CEO of JustLeadershipUSA (JLUSA) since 2018. A nationally recognized leader and dynamic public speaker, Ms. Hoskins has been committed to the movement for racial and social justice, working alongside those most impacted by marginalization for over two decades. Ms. Hoskins leads from the perspective that collective leadership, advocacy for justice with reinvestment, and bold systems change are only possible when those who are most harmed are provided the tools and resources to demand change. Her own life experience has been this driving force, having been directly impacted by the system of incarceration and the war on drugs, and with her professional experience, from working on grassroots campaigns to state and federal government. She is inspired to make the world more just with communities across the country, and for her three children – two that have experienced the criminal justice system.

Ms. Hoskins has been a part of JLUSA’s national alumni network since 2016, as a Leading with Conviction Fellow. Prior to taking the helm at JLUSA, Ms. Hoskins was at the Department of Justice where she joined under the Obama Administration. There, she served as a Senior Policy Advisor (Corrections/Reentry) providing national leadership on criminal justice policy, training, and technical assistance and information on best and promising practices. She oversaw the Second Chance Act portfolio and managed cooperative agreements between federal agencies – the Department of Labor’s Clean Slate Clearinghouse, supporting formerly incarcerated people with expunging their records; the National Reentry Resource Center; the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences and Convictions; the National Institute of Corrections Children of Incarcerated Parents initiative; and more. She also served as the Deputy Director of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. DeAnna is also the 2021 recipient of the 400 Years of African American History Commission Award.

Throughout her career she has been committed to reducing stigma and harm in communities impacted by mass criminalization. Prior to joining the DOJ, Ms. Hoskins was the founding Director of Reentry for Ohio’s Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners where she worked to reduce recidivism by addressing individual and family needs; increased countywide public safety for under-resourced communities of color; reduced correctional spending; and coordinated social services to serve populations at risk that were impacted by decades of generational disinvestment and deprived of first chances. She has worked in local neighborhoods in Cincinnati and at the Indiana Department of Corrections on improving conditions and treatment of incarcerated people.

Ms. Hoskins is originally from Cincinnati, Ohio and holds a Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati and a Bachelors of Social Work from the College of Mount St. Joseph. She is a Licensed Clinical Addictions Counselor, a certified Workforce Development Specialist trainer for formerly incarcerated people, a Peer Recovery Coach, and is trained as a Community Health Worker.

 

Read podcast transcription below:

Part One

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up podcast, and I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity, and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with nonprofits and philanthropies, and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.

Katy Thompson: Hi, everyone. It’s Katie, Build Up’s Manager of Global Operations. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, Nic is talking with DeAnna Hoskins, President and CEO of JustLeadershipUSA, also known as JLUSA. JLUSA’s vision is to be a national platform, a go-to resource for people directly impacted by systemic racism and oppression to use as they hone and grow leadership skills needed to affect policy reforms that dismantle systemic oppression and build thriving, sustainable, and healthy communities. 

Katy Thompson: DeAnna Hoskins has been at the helm of JLUSA since 2018. A nationally recognized leader and dynamic public speaker, DeAnna has been committed to the movement for racial and social justice, working alongside those impacted by marginalization for over two decades. DeAnna leads from the perspective that collective leadership, advocacy for justice with reinvestment, and bold systems change are only possible when those who are most harmed are provided the tools and resources to demand change. 

Katy Thompson: Her own life experience has been this driving force, having been directly impacted by the system of incarceration and the war on drugs and with her professional experience from working on grassroots campaigns to state and federal government. She is inspired to make the world more just with communities across the country and for her three children, two that have experienced the criminal justice system. We could go on forever about her accomplishments, leadership, and awards. But with that, here is Nic’s conversation with DeAnna Hoskins.

Nic Campbell: Hi, DeAnna. Welcome to the Nonprofit Build Up.

DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you, Nic. I’m excited to be here.

Nic Campbell: Me too. I think it’s going to be an amazing conversation. And to get us started, can you tell us about JustLeadership USA, your role there, and what is JLUSA’s immediate priority?

DeAnna Hoskins: Yes. So my position with JustLeadershipUSA as president CEO, JustLeadership was founded in 2014, at the absence of the voices of directly impacted people in the policy conversation around issues impacting them in their communities. So JustLeadership’s mission and focus is to decarcerate the US abut also utilizing those voices and investing in the leadership of formerly incarcerated directly impacted individuals from oppressed and marginalized communities, to educate them on policies that are creating a hindrance, but also to elevate their voice and empower them to utilize those voice in those spaces that they have actually been marginalized and kept out of.

Nic Campbell: When you say decarcerate the US, talk to me about what that looks like. What does your vision look like, and how do you go about doing that?

DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you. So we know that the majority of the over sentencing has come through mandatory minimum policies. We also know – Let’s not be blind to the fact that racial disparities even exist in some of those spaces, and a lot of those policies were created during the war on drugs for communities that were definitely impacted those excessive sentence. 

DeAnna Hoskins: So empowering people to understand the policies that are leading up to the mass incarceration, underutilization of community alternatives and alternatives to incarceration and also bail reform of people should have their constitutional right to actually have bail set at their ability to pay, and we should not be criminalizing people who are poor or who live in poverty, which again we know, when we look at the number of individuals, we can’t get past the racial disparities that we see. 

DeAnna Hoskins: So when we talk about decarceration, there’s a magnitude of things. But also, Nic, I think it’s important that if we had more investment in our community resources, that gives people access to services that become the foundation of some of the things. What I like to say is our racist policies and hindrance into things such as education, health care, mental health, substance abuse, becomes the filter down into the catch basin of the criminal justice system. So while you were talking about decarceration, our focus may not always be on the criminal justice system. It may be on those other systems that have policies and barriers that filter into the criminal justice system.

Nic Campbell: That, to me, resonates so much because we talk a lot about systemic change. When you’re talking about decarcerating the US, I think a lot of people might think, “Okay. Well, what does that look like in terms of prisons and decarceration?” But what you’re seeing is, actually, it starting way before then. It’s about the policies, the lack of investment in certain communities, and the resources that are allocated to those communities. So that resonates so much to me, and I appreciate the framing. You also talked about investing in leadership. So I want to hear a little bit more about how you are taking that vision that you just articulated and now saying, “Okay. As part of our mission, we are going to invest in the leadership of formerly incarcerated people.”

DeAnna Hoskins: One of the things that we have to be aware of is that in all other sectors, whether it’s mental health, education, substance abuse, the system has utilized people with lived experience to help drive policies and what the needs are but has been very reluctant when it comes to the criminal justice system of actually engaging those with lived experience as the experts in the field to actually strategize and look at how policies impact. 

DeAnna Hoskins: A good example of that is the ‘94 Crime Bill. The ‘94 Crime Bill was a good policy on paper. It was the solution to a problem. Crack epidemic was that as high. Violence was coming out of that. So on paper, it looks like the perfect solution. But in implementation, nobody realized how it was going to devastate black communities, how it was going to over incarcerate people, how it was going to cause so much trauma, so many empty households, and families torn apart. That now, we’re trying to piecemeal it back together to say, “Hey, we made a mistake.” But that’s because who voice was at the table to talk about how that was going to play out in our communities. 

DeAnna Hoskins: Another good example is when we talk about risk assessment tools, anything around criminal justice reform, investing in leadership, that missing voice. You don’t know how risk assessments are going to play out in communities because black communities are over policed. I always like to use the example my child could steal my car. Somebody phones the same police department but a higher economic community, their child steals their car. Both of us call the police. Both of our children are caught with the car. My colleague’s child, they parked her car. They take her child to the police station and call her to come get them.

DeAnna Hoskins: My car is impounded. My child goes to juvenile hall, has a court date. Both of them then commit an adult crime at the same age, same crime. This risk assessment tool is going to ask, how many interactions have you had with police? How many probation violations? How many missed court hearings did you have without taking into consideration? Simply because black communities are over policed and over surveillanced, my child’s interaction with the juvenile system at that time is going to count as a point against him when he gets to prison, which now puts him in another higher class of at risk when people look at him around returning to court.

DeAnna Hoskins: Actually, what is his benefit to the community to stay – his stabilization in the community? Did he complete high school? Or does he have a GED? All of those things go against them. But nobody was sitting at the table to say, “Hey, you guys are relying on these risk assessments,” which now 20 years later, even the scientists who created them are coming back saying, “These risk assessments have racial bias built into them, simply how things play out in the community.” 

DeAnna Hoskins: That missing voice is actually led to the situation we’re in, whereas someone who was impacted by the system, who’s been a product being impacted by risk assessment tools, different things can utilize that voice of how things play out in our community. Typically, policy makers are not from our community. They’ve never lived in our community, and they actually don’t have the privilege of having been impacted by some things. So in criminal justice, that missing voice of formerly incarcerated, directly impacted has led to the misrepresentation of what policies can do and how they impact our community. So it’s very important to not only have that voice at the table. We’re starting to see the need for those voices to leave those conversations.

Nic Campbell: I see so many analogies to what you describe to what is happening quite frequently in the sector. So when you’re talking about policies that are being put together by decision makers who look nothing alike or not from the communities that will be impacted by the same policies, and there’s no one from the community that’s sitting in that room at that table and definitely not in that decision making space, right? 

Nic Campbell: So when you’re talking about leaving that conversation so that, again, you can talk about what decisions get made, what policies come out of it, and how that impact will then sort of reverberate throughout that community, it all makes sense to me, and it makes me think about grantmaking and the sorts of decisions that are happening in rooms with folks that maybe they’re well-intentioned, but they are not from the communities that they’re serving, but they think they know what’s best. 

Nic Campbell: No one from that community is in the room. Their voices are not being heard. They’re definitely not leading the conversation. So when I think about that analogy, and I know that you are doing good work at JustLeadership, I’d love to hear how you are thinking about that grantmaking space. Based on exactly what you described, how are you making sure that the voices of formerly incarcerated people are at that table, leading the conversation, part of the decision making? What are you seeing now, and how do we make that shift so that we can make sure that that’s happening in the grantmaking space as well?

DeAnna Hoskins: So it’s kind of twofolds. So there’s a fold of JustLeadership being intentional in our investment in people. Part of the saying of JustLeadership was built on the premises that are found or use this cliché of those closest to the problem are closest to the solution, but typically furthest from resource and power to do anything about it, right? How does JustLeadership in some of its privileged spaces that it sits, makes those introductions between our leaders and philanthropists. 

DeAnna Hoskins:But also not only that, ensuring that people see formerly incarcerated and directly impacted people for the experts. They are we have people with PhDs. We have people who are attorneys. We have individuals who have been impacted by the system and actually call a philanthropy out. Yet you’re supporting and funding projects of where the employer should hire more, or other people should be placing us in leadership. But you have failed to do so yourself, right? 

DeAnna Hoskins: I think there’s one philanthropist that’s making a very intentional role at putting directly impacted people in position of grantmaking. But we’re still not sitting on our foundation boards that actually vote on it, right? Also, ensuring that your program managers are culturally aware and culturally competent because, let’s be honest, as the President CEO who has to fundraise, I run into racial disparities and oppression, even in philanthropy. If I’m not willing to tap dance or allow people to talk to me in a certain way, I’ve been denied funding, and I’ve actually outright refused some funding from certain funders because you can’t talk to me a certain kind of way. 

DeAnna Hoskins: Does that hinder my operations? Sure, it does. It forces me to have to think of fundraising in a different strategy. It forces me to sometimes really evaluate what I’m walking away from because it’s not just about me and the organization. I have a staff, a team of 25. That’s 25 families that are going to be impacted by my inability to raise the funds. So for me, it was becoming very aware of how to diversify my funding, that I’m not the majority reliant on foundations and philanthropy. 

DeAnna Hoskins: That I am tapping into corporate America, but that I am really building out a robust individual donor base because that is the most sustainable element, where people believe in your mission. You don’t have to tap dance. You don’t have to sing a song to them. It doesn’t matter who’s in their boardroom because it’s the individual making the decision. But philanthropy, we’re seeing some slight movement of hiring people, but yet seeing the mega bold move to put people in positions of power to be the decision makers.

Nic Campbell: What you’re saying is making me think about accountability, and I have a set of questions that I want to raise with you about how do we hold folks accountable. What does that look like? But before I get to those, you talked about cultural competence, and I want to hear how you are thinking about cultural competence in this space, in the work that we’re doing. What does it look like to have a culturally competent program officer, for example, or a program person within a grantmaker that is then engaging with an organization? What does it look like? What doesn’t it look like? I just love to hear that. I hear that term thrown out a lot, and I think just level setting and saying, “This is what it looks like, and this is how it doesn’t look,” would be really helpful.

DeAnna Hoskins: When you talk about it in a level of philanthropy, is the person knowing where they have an understanding, right? What’s impacting communities and who they need to utilize and not creating barriers for the individuals that are trying to impact that community. But when I talk about cultural competence, it’s a true understanding of, one, for self, where my limitations lie, or where I don’t have an understanding, but also respecting the fact that the individual has experienced that, and that my questioning, my drive, or my thoughts of where it should go, possibly, as a white woman, plays no role in this conversation around funding. 

DeAnna Hoskins: How do I give space and respect to what communities are experiencing by actually understanding the strategy that is coming from this grantee that is asking me for this money, but also understanding where my [inaudible 00:15:53] abilities are, and I’m not going to inflict any more harm on this person? One, because we are formerly incarcerated, we still have the trauma of our past we’re trying to deal with. But then we walk into this space, where we’re challenged, especially as a black woman, where we’re challenged all the times and can’t nearly get away with showing up half in our work or being put through the wringer by certain funders, simply because of what their belief of what should happen, because of what possibly a black male had done later. 

DeAnna Hoskins: Just understanding all of those dynamics and the power that they bring as a program manager, and what we’re starting to see is they’re leveraging that power like slave masters. You will tap dance to get this funding, and it’s like you have to make a conscious decision. Do I tap dance to get it to pay for these 25 families that are on my team? Or do I try to walk away and go seek out a new funding source, but also exposing it and taking the chances? I think, for me, it has been a ladder. I expose it, and I know I’m chancy, never getting funding. There are some other funders who are not going to appreciate me calling other funders out, are going to walk away from us. But when do we get through change, and when do we as black women really get true respect?

Nic Campbell: I love that so much. It makes me think about approaching this as a systemic issue and actually not seeing it as a one off, right? So when we talk about, yes, this is “bad behavior,” like it’s systemic. So what do you do? In that instance, you call it out. As you mentioned, you say that’s actually not okay, and it shouldn’t be on a grantee to have to say that or do that. It should be on other funders saying that’s not okay. 

Nic Campbell: Because the way that we’re setting up this system of funding of support, of resource provision is this way. We want it to be equitable. We want it to be fair. We want it to be just, as opposed to seeing the behavior, not calling it out, and letting it stand. I think like when you talk about cultural competence, what resonates with me a lot is what I’m hearing you say is you can’t be culturally competent and be in a vacuum, right? You have to be engaged with a community that you’re working with and problem solving alongside of. You can think to yourself, “Well, I have the solution to this thing, and so you have to listen to me.” It’s like, “No, we’re working on this together, and I’m providing resources so that we can get to the same goal.” 

Nic Campbell: The last piece is just being self-aware and stepping in and saying with a lot of humility, “I don’t know everything, and I’m here to learn as well.” So I think like just looking at it, like you said, just taking a step back and saying what does this system look like? How can I step into it in a good way?

DeAnna Hoskins: You said something very important too, Nic. How do I, as part of the ecosystem of philanthropy, call it out and have true conversation amongst my other funding colleagues of, we should not be showing up like this because we are actually entrenching more harm than our money can ever do good.

Nic Campbell: While we’re talking about that, how do you hold grantmakers accountable, and what does that look like? So we just talked. We have a web series that we do call Fast Build Fridays, and we raise that question. How do you hold a grantmaker accountable and why you should hold them accountable? So I’d love to hear your thoughts on accountability and grantmaking.

DeAnna Hoskins: I’ll just speak from my perspective. I think I have a reputation and a history of just being direct and to the point. After a few encounters with philanthropists that I called out, and I shared it with their colleagues who are like, “Oh, wait a minute. So you have this reputation,” which it kind of puts people off, but it also demands a level of respect. So funders approach you different, but I think we have to start calling it out without the fear of not getting funded and as organizational grantees supporting chatter. 

DeAnna Hoskins: Let’s be honest. The money they’re given us is crumbs. Let’s just be honest. It’s not like people are giving – It’s a lot of money to us who have never had a lot of funding in our organizations. But to the families and the philanthropists, what they give out to us as directly impacted people, nonprofits, and grassroots is some bare minimum, right? Enough to write off that they gave it away, right? So that’s what I talked about, using that power almost as a slave master of this funding, because we have this so limited to the pool of philanthropy. We don’t know, and I’m just learning that there’s this whole world of philanthropy that has not been touched. When you’re about a single issue, what I realized we’re all swimming in the same pool with the same funders. So we’re in competition with each other. 

DeAnna Hoskins: So if you say, “Hey, this philanthropist really disrespected me in their conversation, and I don’t want to take any funding,” it’s real hard to tell other people don’t take funding as well, so we can demonstrate and show because they haven’t received funding before. Then the philanthropy or the program manager definitely wants to double what they give other people, so they don’t join your cause, and it appears that you’re out there by yourself. But you have to remain vigilant. You have to remain in that space and demand it. But I think we, as black organizations led by directly impacted people, smaller nonprofits, have been so underfunded, underinvested in, and unknowledgeable about the real pool of funding that is out there and open to us. 

DeAnna Hoskins: That comes with partnering with seasoned vets who understand the philanthropy world, who understands the corporate America world, how to build up individual donors. We were late to the game where Goodwill, Salvation Army’s ACOUs have been around for years. Guess what? They built that up. They built that individual membership base up because they understood the knowledge, and they had a team to actually focus on it. We’re just getting into that playground, and we’ve never been given that blueprint, and they damn sure ain’t going to share it with us.

Nic Campbell: Mic drop, right? I think that’s what happens at that point. I completely hear you, and I think that what’s interesting is that a lot of this has been perpetuated by grantmakers, right? So when we think about the inability to say I can’t raise my hand and call out behavior because I’ve actually been building my organization according to this grantmaker’s vision, and now I do have another 15, 20 people to support. Whereas before, maybe I wouldn’t have grown as quickly or have that same vision. 

Nic Campbell: But now, I’m tethered to it, and they’re also my largest funder. So how can I raise my hand and say I need to call you out? I think it’s a difficult position to be in, and it’s actually created by the very system that we know as philanthropy. So just even like acknowledging that piece and then, like you said, taking that stand I think is really brave to do, right. But that’s really about accountability. So while we’re on the topic, though, DeAnna, what do you think that philanthropies, funders could be doing better or they should be doing less of, and what do you think that they’re doing well?

DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you. So I want to start with less of, and I think less of trying to drive our mission or our movement. They’re in the driver’s seat of what should occur to the point where you’re even seeing what I call new money philanthropy create the programs that grassroot organizations are doing it in house in order not to support certain organizations that are led by. 

DeAnna Hoskins: I’ll give an example. We do a training. We invest in the leadership of formerly incarcerated. We’ve created a C-suite of curriculum as well. What we’re starting to see as funders are creating leadership training for formerly incarcerated, like within their house. People always say, “Well, what’s so special about JustLeadership?” We’re the only organization founded by and operated by formerly incarcerated people with lived experience. 

DeAnna Hoskins: What we’re seeing in philanthropy is the traditional. We see this as the carrot of the day. We see this as the moment, and part of our charity is we want to lead this initiative. You guys shouldn’t have this bright idea. I tell people, it’s a compliment that they’re copying it because it shows we had a bright idea. But what happens is they come in, and they exploit the movement when they see organizations led by black people, organizations led by people from oppressed communities having movement, having a probability to be a premier organization around what they do. 

DeAnna Hoskins: Instead of funding and supporting that organizations to grow its capacity, we’re going to replicate it and pull all our money into here. So that’s what they have to start doing less of, trying to control the movement, telling the movement what to do, and coopting the movement as well, which is what white people have done to black people over the years. What they have to do more of is getting okay with funding the movement and getting out away. Funding the movement and getting out the way. More of general operating support, I think, because a lot of funders also restrict their funding to certain activities. 

DeAnna Hoskins: When you start talking about organizing an advocacy, campaigns change. You might fund me for two years, And six months into the campaign, there’s been a drastic change. We saw that with COVID, right? Because funds were restricted to campaigns, and you can no longer be in those activities, funders had to switch and approve those funds to go to general operating. Supporting general operating of smaller organizations allow for sustainability. 

DeAnna Hoskins: I’m going to be honest, and I know I shouldn’t be sharing. But I think who really does this really well, who invest in sustainability of the organization, who allows for the organization to invest in future building, to invest in capacity building is the Ford Foundation. They’ve been very open about that, very transparent, and basically asking you as the grantee, how do you want to split the money. We want to give you this grant. What are some of your needs? So not telling us what to do with the funding but asking us so that it can be approved through their process of I need funds for future investment, right? I need funds to move towards sustainability and investment and capacity building, and then being very open to utilizing their funds around stabilizing the nonprofit because they believe in the mission, and they believe you should exist. 

DeAnna Hoskins: So if they can help you stabilize, to actually grow, that is how they’re investing because they believe in a mission. I think that’s where philanthropy has to go. Stop believing in the activities and believe in the mission of the organization. That’s what you invest in of whatever the mission and the goal. I was reading yesterday. I’ve been doing trainings around board development. Just when you read the definition of why nonprofits are actually built, they’re built for a purpose. People create nonprofits for purpose, and the purpose is usually to change the trajectory of something that’s happening to a certain population or certain communities, right? So if you believe in my purpose and my mission, that’s what you should be funding, not saying what are the activities you’re doing within that because the activities are going to change, because my ultimate goal is to get in service on my mission. 

DeAnna Hoskins: I think stop focusing on activities and focus on the mission and the drive of the organization, and provide the general support this needed to stabilize that so that they can grow and continue on that mission.

Nic Campbell: That makes a lot of sense. Like you said, fund and get out of the way and then just share an example of this is how it’s done. When you were talking about that process, it just, again, made me think about cultural competence. The exact same conversation we’re having around like having that cultural competence, stepping in, and saying, “You’re the expert here. I just want to make sure that we’re problem solving alongside each other, and we’re learning from each other.” So when you were describing it, I just thought like this is exactly the kind of environment that we want to find ourselves in as grantees.

Katy Thompson: That concludes part one of DeAnna and Nic’s conversation. Stay tuned for next week for part two.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources, and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week, as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Keep building bravely.

Part Two

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up Podcast. I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with non-profits and philanthropies and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.

Katy Thompson: Hi, everyone. It’s Kat, Build Up’s manager of global operations. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, Nic is continuing the conversation with DeAnna Hoskins, President and CEO of JustLeadershipUSA, also known as JLUSA. You can jump back to part one of our conversation to learn more about DeAnna’s expertise, passion, and major accomplishments and JLUSA’s work. But with that, let’s dive into the second part of Nic’s conversation with DeAnna.

Nic Campbell: Then we want to find ourselves in as grantees. I really liked when you were saying, stop focusing on activities and start focusing on the mission, like you’re investing in this organization. You use that word invest. I think it’s really important, because that’s what it is like. Are you investing in this organization’s vision and mission? Because if so, you show up a very different way.

DeAnna Hoskins: Different way.

Nic Campbell: Right. It’s about this partnership that you have, this relationship that you’re building. That’s when you’re investing. When you’re funding something, you show up that way. What is the deliverable? Did you get it done? No. Then you better get it done.

DeAnna Hoskins: How many people did you serve?

Nic Campbell: Exactly.

DeAnna Hoskins: There’s this one practice that I’m starting to see and I’ve been really sharing with organization leaders who are family organizations where – I don’t even want to call them philanthropy, billionaires are wanting to invest, dropping a million dollars, which is nothing to this billionaire. It’s a B. He’s dropping an M, right? But I’m going to invest this $1 million a year for the next five years in your organization. Well, you’re a grassroots. You barely been able to operate off of $100,000. Here’s this person committing a million for the next five, but there’s one caveat. I’m going to put somebody for my organization on your board. I’ve been sharing, I was like, capitalist wash their money. People who want to make a profit wash their money. That is not a donation. That is how do I benefit from this contribution into this organization that I can build off of. An example is a housing program where it happened.

DeAnna Hoskins: Now, what we’re seeing is that billionaire is now convinced them, you should expand across the country. Matter of fact, when you expand across the country. I know about houses that you got to live in, and you’ll just pay my company rent. He got his million dollars back and more, he ain’t gave you nothing. He just got his million, because it’s a real estate investment for him now. That was the plan to see what is the strategy, what is the concept, how can I capitalize and multiply also this million-dollar investment that I’m calling it, but I’m going to watch my money, because I need to see where the opportunity lies for me not the opportunity for the organization. I’m watching them build brand new constructive housing, calling them safe housing, but the landlord is the billionaire’s company that the organization has to pay rent to.

Nic Campbell: Yeah. It’s bringing up for me, and I see it a lot just inappropriate tool. People create tools and saying, “But we’re giving it in the sort of space of philanthropy, but we’re trying a different approach.” So you’ll hear different things. “This is an innovative approach. This is a different approach.” It’s not the status quo. Whatever it is, but acknowledging like this is a completely different tool. Then, just not also acknowledging, it’s also the wrong tool, or it may be the wrong tool to actually get at where we’re going. I think just flagging it is just so – it’s critical.

DeAnna Hoskins: Yeah, because I always say, with the donation, would I have preferred the million dollars or would I have preferred you say, “I would like to ask somebody on your board to help look at your concept, so that we can help you grow, and we’ll build the houses and donate them to you.” Now, that’s the real investment in our mission and belief in our system. Not, “I’m going to build the houses so that I can benefit as the developer and the owner of that property to multiply my portfolio.”

Nic Campbell: Right. Because I think you can be innovative in this space, and we’re not saying that you can. You can bring in a different tool, and I definitely encourage that because I think the way that we’re working, it can be concerning and it’s clunky. We’re not saying you shouldn’t be innovative. It’s about, again, stepping in with that cultural competence, the ability to listen, understand where you’re stepping into, what you’re actually trying to do, and having that dialogue and saying, “This is what we’re trying to get to where you trying to go, seeing great matches, and then finding a way to implement that tool.” DeAnna, if we look at it the other way, talked a lot about grant makers and funders, and what they should be doing more of less of. What about grantees? What about nonprofit organizations that are recipients of the funding? What should they be doing less of and what should they be doing more of?

DeAnna Hoskins: I think as grantees, we should be doing more education to ourselves of how this process works. We should be doing more research around prior movements. I always say, if you don’t know your history, you’re subject to repeat the history. One of the things that we’re seeing in the movement around formerly incarcerated, the movement around liberation is, if you make too much noise – I always say, if somebody’s making noise, and they go quiet, just look at, did they get large donations. Typically, in the past movements, but understanding that the donations come with something. How do we stand in that era that we’re still going to keep our voice? You’re not buying my voice; you’re not buying my silence.

DeAnna Hoskins: Same things are still going on like Black Lives Matter, but I’m like, nothing has changed, but I haven’t heard from you all. Nothing has changed, but I haven’t heard from you in this moment. I do believe they are doing some work. I believe they’re strategizing. But also, we as a country haven’t heard from you. You got everybody excited, and now, you kind of went radio silence on us. But how do we keep that momentum of – when we raise it, we get raised to a conscious level, we get investments. How do we keep going? I say, “Oh, I’m well financed right now” or different things. How do we keep that momentum going? Stand vigilant, and stand true, and staying authentic to why we were even created, and why we did it. We have to stand in that and being bold about it. 

DeAnna Hoskins: What I would love to see grantees do is understand the process of growing, and not just get comfortable with whatever they get. That if you truly believe in your mission of your organization, and it’s going to impact people. How do we continue to grow? The worst thing I hate is when grassroots organizations come up doing really good work, connecting with the community, changing people’s lives in the community. Then all of a sudden, they disappear, or they get swallowed up by the big nonprofits who see, “Oh, this work is going really well. We want to take it over or we want to exploit it. Then funders stop funding the grassroots because they don’t have the capacity to serve more and the larger nonprofits do. Then what traditionally happens, the larger nonprofit doesn’t have the real touch to proximity in the community that the grassroots have.

DeAnna Hoskins: Allowing funders are allowing our organizations to be controlled by the dollar. I know we need them to operate, but it can’t be controlled. We have to be able to get the courage to say, “We’re not going to do that” or “We’re not going to take that.” You don’t get to treat us this way. You don’t get to co-opt us. Sticking together. What I wish they would do more of is collaboration. Everyone, there’s enough funds out here for everyone. There are enough people to serve, enough communities to address. But we have to be collaborative and not in competition. I actually think funders keep us in competition with unlimited funds, but that’s also being limited to the pool of funding that’s funding your topic. Understanding collaboration allows for knowledge sharing of where other funds are. I always like to use the analogy. It’s a shame to go to an amusement park and only ride the roller coaster, because that’s all you know. You miss the true enjoyment of the whole amusement park and that’s how the funding world is.

DeAnna Hoskins: We get on one roller coaster, everybody’s in line to get on that roller coaster. We’re in competition to get on the roller coaster, when there’s a myriad of other funding. But because we’ve limited ourselves to say, I’m criminal justice reform and not understanding that criminal justice is a symptom of the racial disparities. So no, I’m not focused on criminal justice reform. I’m focused on racial disparities and eradicating racism within a system that are filtering into the criminal justice system. I just opened up my pool of funding to much more of the amusement park than everybody else who stand on the roller coaster.

Nic Campbell: Yeah, I really liked it, you’re focusing in on collaboration. Because I would say from where I sit, that’s needed a lot more. I do agree that it’s hard sometimes to collaborate in a system that is not set up to be collaborative, even though we say that it is. I understand the challenges, but I agree, I think that collaboration would – it would magnify so much impact within communities that actually really need it.

DeAnna Hoskins: I think it goes back to that old saying, there’s power in numbers. If you built the power through the collaboration, and understanding that we’re really not in competition. I always try to tell people collaborating, brightens the pot. It may seem like we’re in competition for the funding, but in a collaborative mode, we have access to more, and we can demand more. Because right now, even the policy changes, the fundings we’re asking for are crumbs. It’s just so bare minimum. It is so bare minimum, Nic. That I sit back some days, and I’m like – I used to work at the post office years ago, and I’m like, “You know, processing mail was not that bad.” When I think about my great, great, great grandkids probably are still going to be fighting this fight, because we’re asking for crumbs. One, because we don’t know our history, so everybody’s recreating the wheel. It’s like, “Dude, we’re so past that.” How do we take what has already been done by our forefathers, the people’s shoulders we stand on, when people – we talk about standing on the shoulders of other advocates, they did some work. How do we take the work they’ve done and build upon it, instead of trying to always start from scratch. We’re always building a new wheel and I’m like, there was some pieces of that wheel we could have brought it with us that would have had us way ahead of the game.

Nic Campbell: I’m going to ask a big follow-up question, DeAnna. Because when you started to explain that point, it made me think about how, “Huh? Okay.” Let’s say I am a leader of a grassroots organization. I’m sitting. I’m part of a group of other nonprofit leaders. We just talked about collaboration, we just talked about – look, we’re getting just small amounts of money compared to the kind of change that we want to have and want to make sure that we’re supporting. What do we do next? What does that next step look like? If we are we’re operating the way we are, we just describe that. But we know where we want to go, we know the kind of change you want to see within the sector as well. What do we do next?

DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you for that, because this is a conversation that I’m having with some real communities right now and it’s around the entry employment. The conversation is, organizations are doing great work around this. We get minimum dollars, and that’s because a lot of the organizations, the smaller ones don’t know how to advocate for the Federal allocations that are coming into their state of how it should be dispersed in their communities. But the larger nonprofits know, that’s why they’re getting all the money, and they know how to advocate. Bringing that collaborative effort together, one, gives us the opportunity to be educated and build power, that we now become a force that actually can advocate on our state level of how those federal dollars are coming into our state and how they’re allocated amongst our community, and how the larger nonprofits that’s been swallowing it up don’t really have access and proximity to the people you’re trying to serve. But as a collaborative, we do, right? How does the collaborative put in that grant application? But also, when you build those collaboratives, you build power. You now become a voice in that community that can talk to your elected officials that are speaking for your community, you’re advocating for the people most marginalized, to actually bring them to the forefront to speak again, which is why it goes back to the original question. Have the people who are directly impacted to be a part of that conversation of how money comes into our communities.

DeAnna Hoskins: You now have become a force up against that one nonprofit who’s this – and typically, is one to two nonprofits in every jurisdiction that has money. Monopolize the funding, federal funding that comes into the state, it is so much money that comes into states from federal government around workforce, labor force, workforce, investment boards, job trainings, housing. People haven’t even tapped into the DLT, but the huge nonprofits that do reentry employment, they know DLT. If they’re building infrastructure, new roads, new sewer in your area, those are federal DLT dollars. Actually, your section three in your area with hood states that any federal dollars that come into your jurisdiction has to have a 35% workforce from the most marginalized communities. But because we don’t know that or we haven’t built the collaborative to even hold the county government accountable, and how these contracts come out, our people are missing the boat on opportunities of economic mobility.

Nic Campbell: That’s really powerful, because it makes me think of this sort of cooperative model that could exist within the nonprofit sector. Formalizing that collaboration, and being really clear about – these are the organizations that we are formally collaborating with. When you think about the ecosystem, it’s like, you know all the different players, but how do we actually collaborate together? What does that look like, and just being – stepping forward with a more cooperative type of bend. That’s what it makes me think about.

DeAnna Hoskins: I’ve been thinking, it’s funny because I use analogies for everything. I had created this concept of checkers, backgammon, and chess. Checkers is the real quick game. Is the real – you move your pieces really quick. Backgammon, you have to line everything up. The chess is a strategy move. You move on strategy, you do it. If you’re thinking about building collaborations and coalitions, what is the checkers game that gets everybody into the room, and that’s the education about the funding, that’s the education about opportunities that lie within their jurisdiction. Using the funding opportunity and education as the character to get them in a room. Now, once they’re in the room, and you’re talking about this funding, you’re moving to backgammon to, how do we align to advocate at our state level that this funding needs to come in, but we advocate and align as a collective that we show power. 

DeAnna Hoskins: Then within that, are there federal legislation rules around the authorization definitions that need to change so that our communities are more inclusive, and intentionally defined as recipients of this funding. I’ll use an example, dislocated worker. Jurisdictions classify dislocated worker the way they want to. My argument, every person in prison is actually working at the prison. You work, most people, especially if you served a long amount of time, you might work in a brake shop, you may work on the yard, you may work in the kitchen, you may work in [inaudible 00:17:10]. When you get discharged from prison, you no longer have that income coming in. You have to find new income. You are really a dislocated worker, that could utilize the training and opportunities through the Workforce Investment Act funds that come into your state. But strategically, those localities do not define that or define those individuals as qualifying.

DeAnna Hoskins: You have to have been laid off from your job in the public sector some type of way. Department of Corrections are public sectors. They released me, I was laid off. I need to be able to have access. Same thing with housing. Obama administration defined the definition of homelessness as leaving an overcrowded facility, jail, and prison all day. Jurisdictions have the discretion. They say, “No. That just means shelters. That doesn’t mean prison, which means a person doesn’t qualify for those houses subsidies.” Who’s more in need of those houses’ subsidies for sustainability and self-sufficiency than a person being recently released from incarceration?

Nic Campbell: Yeah. That kind of information sharing, knowledge sharing that unless you were in this kind of collaborative structure likely wouldn’t have access to it because you’re in your own vacuum doing your own thing. Just a reminder to have those conversations, and be deliberate about it. Because you’re all working towards this common goal. Lots of folks in that ecosystem know lots more than you do. Back to this point, right? This space is being culturally competent, understanding that you’re not, don’t go in there thinking you’re the smartest person in the room, because the possibilities that come back from that.

DeAnna Hoskins: I think it’s very important to just – we throw this word around in community together. I’d be like, we are not in the community, because we don’t even know what’s growing in the community. We don’t even know what’s all accessible in the community. Being in a community is totally different than being in collaboration with each other.

Nic Campbell: Yeah. I think that just when we think about – somebody might say, “Well, what comes next? What could I do? We’ve said it, right? If you’re listening to this, the next thing you should think about is, who do I work closely with, what organizations are in our space or our area that we’re working, and who’s working alongside the same communities that we’re working alongside. It may not be in the same area, but again, shared goals. Taking that approach and saying, “Let’s have a conversation. What does collaboration look like? What does this cooperative model look like?” I think is a really good start for folks.

DeAnna Hoskins: It’s just having that collaboration to build the power. But then like you said, Nic, the various sectors, those become subcommittees all for the collaboration. There’s a Housing Committee, there’s a Substance Abuse Committee. There’s a direct service provider. Everybody has a subcommittee. Even when funding opportunities come, the collaboration say, “Who is the best person that actually go after this funding? Is it the Housing Committee because it’s around housing?” Then, “Who’s the most stable organization that can actually be the main grantor, but everybody else in the committee is a sub grantor on a grant?” Now, the money has been expanded, because the huge nonprofit who has the capabilities of a federal grant, and the mechanism can make you a sub grantee to access funds you never had access to.

Nic Campbell: In that same structure, you are building on your strengths, your safe gardening for your challenge areas within your organization. Because now, there’s a group of organizations working together.

DeAnna Hoskins: You’re growing in your knowledge base of how to expand or sustain your organization.

Nic Campbell: You’re learning. We’re talking about that kind of structure and that kind of collaboration. It makes me think about infrastructure. How do you think about infrastructure at JustLeadership when we’re talking about this kind of cooperative structure as well? When I say infrastructure, I mean, the boards, governance. How are we building out that structure? How are we looking at receiving grant award? What does that entire process look like? If you’re making grants, then how are you making sure that that grant making is reflective of your organizational values? Just how you are set up in terms of your team as well? Do they understand their roles and responsibilities? I’d love to hear how you all are thinking about infrastructure, that kind of emphasis that you put on it, if at all? What would be required when we’re talking about this collaborative approach with nonprofits?

DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you for that. I want to start with the board because I think people think, “Okay. This is the board that I started. It’s the founding board.” But I think boards have to be adjusted based on the growth of the organization and the stage where the organization is. I just literally created a document around how I think about a board of, how do you reset a board, how do you renew a board and then how do you reinvigorate a board? Coming into the organization, I came on the foot, the foundation of a founder, which was a founding board. A founding board has very different purposes than an actual operational board. Typically, your founding board is really helping you get the prestige and acknowledgement you need, introducing you to people, helping you get some funding, secure funding. It’s less about governance at that time.

DeAnna Hoskins: Well then, you move into this growth spurt. You got the funding, you got these protocols, you now – you’re hiring staff. You went from this one person with a vision, now you have staff, you got benefits, you got HR roles. How do I keep accountable of the actual funding that I’m getting? What are the finances of the organization? So it’s time to revisit the board structure, because, does that founding board have the expertise that I need for this growth spurt? Do I need to change my bylaws to expand my board? Because at the time, I just thought I needed three members to get me incorporated, right? Do I need to expand my board? When I expand my board, am I being deliberate around diversity, equity, and inclusion of who’s on my board, who’s represented, what sectors are represented, what expertise is needed on my board to help me? 

DeAnna Hoskins: But then, that also goes down into the capacity of my organization and my team. What you’ll see, what I’ve seen in my experience is all I can share. The team I needed that when it was a founding organization, and the founder or the president is out doing all the speaking, doing all the fundraising. I’ve now grown. I need a development chief development officer. Now, we’re bringing in this funding, I need the CFO to handle that. Who’s my third-party financial management? Who’s handling HR to make sure I’m in compliance. Now, I’m relying on not only the expertise in-house, but some contracting with experts outside who do this as well, but it’s being cognizant of my growth spurt and being deliberate. I’m no longer able to function on a QuickBooks spreadsheet. We have grown. But understanding, and knowing when I’ve reached that capacity, but also, “Is my board accountable for their responsibility of fiscal health and governance of this organization?” Making sure I’m being deliberate around board development, so some of my board members who may not be really versed in that actually have access to the board development to understand it, but also putting some seasoned people on my board who understands it as well so that it actually can mature and you’re having a fully functioning board.

DeAnna Hoskins: I think people look at one part of their organization and not realizing you have to look at it, especially as the president CEO, you have to look at it as a collective coal. If I my organization is going, “Is my board growing in their ability? Because as the president CEO, I can’t do it all. I rely on my chair, my finance committee from my board to sit in on those meetings with staff and the third-party fiscal management in times when I can’t. I check in with my board, I check in with my financial chair, but that they have a clear understanding.” You can’t be all things to all people, so how do you empower? Make sure you have the staff that understands it, but also that you have the board members who are sitting on those subcommittees understand it. So that when it comes to the board meeting, it’s not DeAnna moving the organization. Your board is reporting out, your staff is reporting out, because everybody is committed and invigorated around the mission of this organization, so everyone has taken on the ownership of that organization to ensure this mission moves forward.

Nic Campbell: I really like how you’re thinking about governance, but also how you’re talking about it, right? Because I think people say, “Well, look. We’ve got great passionate folks on the board, they’re really smart or they’re really steeped in an area and my board is good.” But what you’re really highlighting is your board can and should change based on the stage of development that your organization is in. We say this all the time, and to just hear you articulate that as a leader of an organization that’s like, “This is how I’m looking at governance.” To me, it’s just really refreshing. Because when you start to think about your governance structure as something that is really critical to your organization’s development, you can’t then say, “Well, it can never be changed.” This is how it is and that there’s no way. Particularly when you’re saying, “We want to be brave, we want to be innovative, we want to do things that may not have been done previously.” How do you do that when you just said, “This one part of my organization is never ever going to be changed.” I really just liked how you framed it.

DeAnna Hoskins: I think there’s – I’ll add to that too, and I shared this earlier with someone. It also comes down to the leader self-evaluating, have they stayed past their expiration date, right? That’s just being honest. Because you hear the term sometimes, when people step down and say, “It’s time for new thoughts, and new blood, because I’m drained.” If I can no longer bring innovation, I no longer can be moved around new ideas. My expiration date may have just exhausted with this organization. As a professional, I need to step out of the way because if I don’t, I’m now going to hinder this organization, and I’m going to stunt this growth and this impact. If I believe in the mission of the organization to help liberate people, it’s okay for me to say, “You know what, my time has come. It’s really okay” and being okay with that.

Nic Campbell: That takes self-awareness. DeAnna, we talked about that earlier. That takes –

DeAnna Hoskins: I’m telling to quit their jobs, right?

Nic Campbell: How do you know? I mean, you pointed out, when you’re not being innovative, how can you be that self-aware where you’re saying, “Oh! Well, I’m clearly not innovating anymore. I should step out.” What are some indicators that folks would use to say it’s time?

DeAnna Hoskins: I think this is one of the things that we talked about with just leadership. Our leadership training is very different than any other training. Most leadership trainings, focus on principles of leadership, or leadership characteristic styles, right? Our training really focuses on the principles of the internal awareness of how you show up. I think for me, and I only could use myself. It’s the self-evaluation when ideas or the job no longer excites me, or I don’t have these thoughts that truly – not only inside me, but when I share them with my team. If I’m no longer bringing ideas to my team, or if I’m not embracing my team’s ideas, right? Because part of leadership is creating a culture where everyone feels valued and heard. Everyone from my operations director has ideas around how operations should work or how programs – when I started to find myself closing off those ideas of possibility, or I don’t bring any, it’s really time for me to move out the way. I’ve over exhausted and I’m more of a hindrance to the organization. I don’t take jobs I don’t believe in. I just don’t accept assignments I don’t believe in.

DeAnna Hoskins: When I no longer feel I have anything to give, and maybe that’s just part of the work I’ve done on myself. I just don’t believe a stamp pass my expiration date nowhere, right? All right. Okay. I’m good. You may not feel good, but I’m going to go ahead and transition. Because what’s to come will be greater, but if I stay here, I’m going to make myself miserable, and I’m going to make everyone else around me miserable.

Nic Campbell: Yeah. I think it’s such an important point. We talk about leadership, and I think that’s part of leadership, right? Being able to say, I need to create space for other things to happen, for innovation to come into play, for us to really move at a more accelerated pace towards our goal, and to be self-aware enough to say, “I’m not that person. I’m not the person that can or should be doing that.” I think that’s actually part of leadership. Thank you so much for raising it. DeAnna, I could literally talk to you for hours, as you know, but I just want to say that this conversation has been just really refreshing. It reminds me why we need to have leaders in spaces where they are afraid to speak truth to power, and they are bravely leading organizations. This conversation is just really a reminder of that. I want to thank you for sharing everything you have.

DeAnna Hoskins: Oh, thank you.

Nic Campbell: I want to ask you a question that I asked all of our guest to help us continue to build knowledge through books and people you should learn from or about to close this out. What book do you think we should read next or what artist do you think we should be paying attention to?

DeAnna Hoskins: There’s two. I think everyone should read 1619. The reason I say that is because anything that’s controversial shows you there’s a reason people don’t want us to have access to and they don’t want to keep it out of our schools. It’s still the systemic oppression. But what I value at the 1619 is the historical aspect of understanding how almost a lot of things that we have just inherited as generational habits, how it may have originated for us. I don’t think we ever had access to that. But also, the fact that it’s part of our history as black African Americans, black people, is part of our history that we were never been taught, and that people are still fighting from us to understand it. I think if we know the fight of our ancestors, if we know the history, the perseverance, the resilience, we can step more boldly into a space. It’s not only about the book educating us. I think the book gives an empowerment. This fight has already been fought for me, why am I willing to cater or fall down and not just standing my truth, my authenticity.

DeAnna Hoskins: It shows me what has truly been put into people’s or our culture’s DNA of what we survived. There’s a picture – you can tell I like to do stories, but there’s a picture and I never thought about it. But you see these pictures of slave ships, and people bumped up in chain three, four deeps. Somebody sent it to me and said, “To think your ancestors survived this, somewhere down your lineage survived this trip of living a thesis under this, being deported from their country. And today, you want to give up in your trials and your struggles. But someone in your lineage survived that. They already survived the most terrifying trump traumatic part. How dare us give up today, because we got to sit and call philanthropy out. How dare us give up simply because we want to call out the wrongs that are going on when we have a history of people in our ancestral line that has survived the most traumatic experience a human can go through?

DeAnna Hoskins: That’s how I kind of speak today. I’ll always be like, “Well, you already took my freedom. You’ve taken the freedom of some of my children. Yeah, we did some actions that needed to be accountable. You’ve inflicted trauma into that incarceration on my son. What can you take from me at this point? How dare I not speak about the inhumanity and the conditions of confinement that we as a people are experiencing when we’re held accountable? How incarceration is a replication of that journey that our ancestors took is just all of the racial disparities and the collateral consequences. It’s just a new way to still say what you can’t have or what you can’t do in my country. We’ve used your criminal record, but there again, in the book, there again, understanding the criminal justice system was built off the abolishment of slavery as a way to still exploit free labor. It’s only a continuation and how dare us not fighting when our people fought against slavery. I know, we’re still in the middle of this fight, so we can’t give up.

Nic Campbell: Well, I’m going to put all about 1619 in the show notes so that people can experience exactly what you’re describing, because it just sounds incredibly powerful. I’m sure that people are going to want to devour it more. Thank you so much for sharing that. Seriously, DeAnna, this conversation has been so powerful. I think, again, we talked about cultural competence and just really breaking down what that means. I think throughout the conversation, talking about self-awareness, the power that it provides when you are self-aware, and you step into conversations to learn, and that then leads to collaboration. Then, thinking about investment and how that shows up in communities, but also in organizations when we’re talking about the nonprofit sector. At the end of the day, being brave enough to tell your story. So I want to thank you again so much for your time. I think everything that you’ve shared will allow leaders to build their own organizations bravely.

DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you. Thank you for the invite. It’s been a great conversation. I appreciate it.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources, and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the non-profit sector. Keep building bravely.

 

Read more

The Power of Being Responsive to the Needs of the Moment with Sherrilyn Ifill (RECAST)

As nonprofits, we need to be responsive to the people’s needs at the moment while tackling the bigger structural issues as well. This is a powerful message that this episode’s guest can never overemphasize. Over the next two weeks we will be recasting a special two-part series, Nic is talking with Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh and current President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation’s premier civil rights legal organization. This interview was recorded back in May 2020, when the country contended with both a pandemic and growing racial and social justice movements. Which, two years later, is still pressing on in addition to the war in Ukraine and inflated markets worldwide. Listen in and learn about the immense power of being responsive as we close out the month focused on Leading within Change.

Listen to Part One Here:

Listen to Part Two Here:

Resources:

About Sherrilyn Ifill

NPDU 1 | Legal Defense Fund

Sherrilyn Ifill is the seventh President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the nation’s premier civil rights legal organization. LDF was founded in 1940 by legendary civil rights lawyer (and later Supreme Court Justice) Thurgood Marshall. Ifill served as an Assistant Counsel for LDF from 1988-1993, litigating voting rights cases. She left LDF to teach at the University of Maryland School of Law in Baltimore, where in addition to teaching in the classroom, she litigated civil rights cases alongside her students for 20 years. Ifill returned to LDF to lead the organization in 2013 and has emerged as one of the nation’s leading voices in the struggle for racial justice and equality.

Under her leadership, LDF has intensified its litigation challenging voter suppression, racial discrimination in the criminal justice system and housing discrimination, and has taken a leadership role in resisting federal efforts to roll back civil rights gains in areas such as affirmative action, employment discrimination and school discipline policies. The organization is at the forefront of civil rights organizations challenging unconstitutional policing practices in cities around the country.

A critically acclaimed author, her scholarly articles and her 2007 book “On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the 21st Century,” reflect Ifill’s lifelong engagement in and analysis of issues of race and American public life. Ifill graduated from Vassar College in 1984 with a B.A. in English and earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1987. She has received honorary doctorates from New York University, Bard College, Fordham Law School and CUNY Law School. In 2019, Ifill was inducted into the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. She serves on the board of the Learning Policy Institute and on the Advisory board for the Profiles in Courage Award. She is a past chair of U.S. board of the Open Society Foundations, one of the largest philanthropic supporters of civil rights and liberties in the country.

Read podcast transcription below:

Part One

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up Podcast and I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity, and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with nonprofits and philanthropies, and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.

Katy Thompson: Hi, everyone! It’s Katy, Build Up’s Manager of Global Operations. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we have a special surprise. We are recasting our very first episode of the Nonprofit Build Up as a two-part series. Over the next two weeks, you will hear Nic’s conversation with Sherrilyn Ifill, President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Katy Thompson: Sherrilyn is the seventh President and Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund also known as LDF, the nation’s premiere civil rights legal organization. LDF was founded in 1940 by legendary civil rights lawyer and later supreme court justice, Thurgood Marshall. Sherrilyn served as an Assistant Counsel for LDF, litigating voting rights cases.

Katy Thompson: This interview was recorded back in May 2020, when the country contended with both a pandemic and growing racial and social justice movements. Which, two years later, is still pressing on in addition to the war in Ukraine and inflated markets worldwide. Sherrilyn does such a masterful job of talking about the work of LDF and the work of nonprofits, foundations, and leaders that’s needed now more than ever. And with that, here is Sherrilyn Ifill.

Nic Campbell: Hi Sherrilyn, it is so great to have you joining us for our Fast Build Leader Series. I am really excited about our conversation today.

Sherrilyn Ifill: I am thrilled to be here. Thank you so much for reaching out and I’m looking forward to our talk.

Nic Campbell: Okay, to get us started, can you tell us about the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, your role there, and LDF’s immediate priority?

Sherrilyn Ifill: Sure, so the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was formed by Thurgood Marshall in 1940. This year [2020] is our 80th anniversary and we had planned a big gala, by the way, at Lincoln Center that had to be pulled down because of the pandemic. But we were originally part of the NAACP and the Legal Defense Fund was created to do the kind of litigation work that, you know, we’ve become known for – for 80 years. It’s an extraordinary organization if you think about it being founded in 1940 and what it meant to create an organization of black lawyers in 1940; for the purpose of addressing civil rights and for black people.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Of course, the organization is multiracial and has been almost since its beginning, but at its core, it’s an African American legacy institution. That institution being comprised of lawyers with the intention of using the legal system as a way of dismantling and undermining Jim Crow- “breaking the back of Jim Crow”, Thurgood Marshall would say – it was an extraordinary undertaking.

Sherrilyn Ifill: This is an organization that has, over 80 years, hired the best and the brightest; the most brilliant law students from the finest law schools in the country who have committed themselves to doing this work. As a result, it has become the incubator of so much talent. Many of the people leading the nation’s civil rights organizations today are LDF alumni. On my second go-round, I was an LDF attorney from 1988 to 1993; I was a Voting Rights Attorney. Vanita Gupta who heads the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is a former LDF Attorney. Kristen Clarke, who heads the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights is a former LDF Attorney. Christina Swarns, who’s the new Head of the Innocence Project, a few years ago was our Litigation Director. People like Alan Jenkins, who was the Founder of The Opportunity Agenda, was an LDF attorney when I was at LDF. And then people who are just influencers out in the world: Maya Wiley was at LDF when I was a young lawyer at LDF, Kirsten Levingston who’s at Wellspring, and Todd Cox.

Sherrilyn Ifill: It really is the incubator for generations. Deval Patrick, the former Governor of Massachusetts and for a brief period, a former presidential candidate. Eric Holder was an intern when he was a student in law school. It’s extraordinary, the roster of people who have been trained at LDF and that’s really what we do. We train leaders who are deeply grounded in the Law of Civil Rights and in the Constitution, and who have the highest level of skill. So, that’s the organization I’m privileged to lead. LDF separated from the NAACP in 1957. We’ve been entirely separate organizations for a very long time, although people continue to confuse us. I returned to LDF in 2013 to lead the organization.

Sherrilyn Ifill: I had been away for 20 years, teaching law school, starting law clinics, and being a Civil Rights Lawyer in Baltimore – which was an extraordinary and important experience for my return. I was doing a lot of communications work as well. I had a regular column in The Root. I joined the Board of the Open Society Foundations and then Chaired the Board of the U.S. programs of the Open Society Foundation. I was spending a lot of time in the foundation world as well.

Sherrilyn Ifill: I brought all that back to LDF at what I thought was a critical moment. I recognize the need for LDF to refresh itself in many ways and to be responsive to what, I think, had been seismic shifts that happen in this country in the ‘80s and the ‘90s that had never really been attended to by civil rights organizations.

Sherrilyn Ifill: I was quite intentional about intending to lift the narrative on race and civil rights in the country and to be there to shape about race and not just to do the work of civil rights litigation and policy work. It has been successful at a very, very difficult time in this country. I’m very proud of the role that LDF has played and the kind of leadership that people expect from us when there are police killings of unarmed African Americans, when Donald Trump describes people marching in Charlottesville as “good people on both sides”, when Ben Carson really turns his back on the very poor of the Fair Housing Act, when Betsy DeVos turns her back on the core of public education. People expect to hear from us, and we have a voice, we have a platform. That platform, however, is just the thinnest part because underneath it is this extraordinary litigation work that we’re doing in the courts where we’re trying to make seismic structural change.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Our work is focused almost entirely on the South; I would say 90% of our cases are in the South. Although, we’ve got housing discrimination cases that we’ve done in Detroit. We have a case right now that we filed in Cleveland, challenging water tax liens. We do a lot of work in Baltimore, though many people think of that as the South. We were part of the team that sued the NYPD for stop and frisk. We do things around the country, but the core of the work remains in the South rally because, first of all, the majority of black people still live in the South. And we are quite intentional that we are a racial justice organization. The term ‘civil rights’ is quite expansive now. We are quite unapologetically and quite intentionally focused on race. Recognizing that race intersects with many other things so, at the intersection of race and gender, or race and sexual orientation, or race and poverty; all of those things are intrinsically part of the work, but we lead with race because we think it is critical to continue to have that very intentional and clear conversation.

Sherrilyn Ifill: With the recognition that that focus of our work has over 80 years, cascaded in such a way as to support the advancement of civil rights for all racial minorities, but actually not just racial minorities; for women, for members of the LGBTQ community.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Everything that we do is to create a vision and an understanding of what rights and justice means in a way that recognizes the full humanity and dignity of every person.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Our work is never exclusive, but the people that we represent and the communities in whose voice we speak and whose history and reality we try to bring into those courtrooms every day, are African Americans. We’re at trial right now, as a matter of fact; the first virtual trial…maybe, the first virtual trial in the country but certainly the first major civil rights trial that’s a virtual trial. This is the case in Florida trying to vindicate the rights of formerly incarcerated people to vote. It’s all being done remotely and it’s quite extraordinary. Our lawyers have been preparing and they’re working with lawyers from the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Brennan Center. The voice that we bring is always quite unapologetically on behalf of African American communities whose experience is particular, who suffer from the long history and contemporary reality of anti-black racism that continues to be a part of this country.

Sherrilyn Ifill: You asked also about, kind of, what the areas are where we work. We work in four principal areas: voting and political participation, economic justice – which encompasses our work in housing and employment -, education, and criminal justice. Those are the four pillars. We often are doing work that’s very particular within those areas – so our Policing Reform Campaign is obviously very much part of our criminal justice work but in that criminal justice work, we do a lot of work challenging jury discrimination, challenging the death penalty. We have a number of clients on death row. We filed suit challenging conditions in the prisons in Arkansas on behalf of inmates who were exposed to COVID. But we also do other things that then we feel are relevant to all those areas. We’re really leaned into and trying to think through various ways to attack algorithmic bias, for example.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Algorithmic bias shows up in criminal justice through risk assessments and gang databases. It shows up in employment. It shows up in housing and lending. It shows up in all kinds of ways. There are lots of things that we do that we feel touch each of those areas of work and don’t fit neatly into any one category. They are truly intersectional and draw on all of the different pillars, but those four pillars are the ones that we think are the ones that potentially unlock the door to equality and opportunity for African Americans.

Nic Campbell: Wow – so, as President of this iconic organization, what is your advice to nonprofits that fundraise as a significant part of their budget? In other words, what do you think should be top of mind for them now, particularly during this time of uncertainty?

Sherrilyn Ifill: Well, we’ve taken the position that we will not stop fundraising. We recognize the realities of the current moment, so I think that’s the first thing. One of the things that’s so critical and important is that you have to be…let me see if I can describe it this way: when you’re a litigator, as we are at LDF, and you’re working on a really important case, very often the core story is something that happened in the past. You were at trial, they struck all the black people from your jury, you were convicted by an all-white jury, and so forth. Something that happened in the past, we could be working on that case years later – it makes its way to the Supreme Court for five years. Or you applied for a job and another person applied for the job and it’s clear that there was racial discrimination at work. Or we have a whole line of cases in which we bring cases on behalf of people for whom criminal background screens are misused to deny employment.

Sherrilyn Ifill: So, when you’re working on a case, although that case is really important and the relief you’re seeking is relief that will change things for the future – not just for the individuals in the case but will structurally change things for the future – the event itself happened in the past. The reality of discrimination, for example, is that there are things happening today, like right now while you and I are talking that are important. If you’re not careful, you get so involved in your litigation that you’re not responsive to what is breaking the heart of your people in this moment. One of the things that is vitally important is that every organization involved in work in this space has to be nimble enough to be responsive to what is breaking the heart of your people today. What is cutting off the opportunity for them today.

Sherrilyn Ifill: When Eric Garner was choked on that street in Staten Island, even though we have many other cases that we were dealing with, you have to be responsive to that. And as these videos began to come out, the consciousness of the country was raised about police violence against unarmed African Americans. Even though this is work that had been, kind of, part of our docket for a long time – we actually litigated the Seminole case in that area, Tennessee versus Garner in the ‘80s – even though it was there, we had to create a policing reform campaign.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We had to decide: the time is right now, and our communities have had it. And now we have to decide we’re going to take resources from across the complex to deal with this issue. So, I think that nimbleness is what people need to see from us. We had to do it after Trump was elected. Trump was elected, we were not expecting it – most people were not – but when he was elected, we knew what it would mean. We knew a Trump Justice Department is not going to be the Eric Holder and the Loretta Lynch Justice Department. And the justice department with their tens of thousands of lawyers is still the main law enforcement apparatus of the country and the Attorney General is the main law enforcement officer, including of the nation’s civil rights laws. We knew we were losing a partner in our core work. We can never have all the resources of the Department of Justice, but we decided that we would have to become a private Attorney General. We would have to become a private DOJ.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We started fundraising from that perspective. We were right, they’re not bringing any voting rights cases. They have stopped doing pattern and practice investigations of police departments, so we had to then get into Tulsa and begin to work with that community to help raise consciousness about the need for policing reform there. We had to continue and intensify our work in North Charleston, where Walter Scott was shot in the back. That case may be over, but that community is crying out for real attention to the systemic police discriminatory issues in that. So, we’ve been working with them now for years in the hopes of putting together a case for the future. So, we knew that. COVID happens, same thing; an absolute catastrophe for our community – super catastrophe – raising issues of survival for people.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Even though we’re working on this systemic structural change that presumes there is a tomorrow, our communities are facing the possibility that for some people there is no tomorrow. We had to layer on top of our work, we had to open a new front. Focusing on the four areas that we know – that’s where we leaned in. I just told you about the case we filed in the Arkansas Prison on behalf of inmates who have pre-existing conditions; who suffered from asthma, heart disease, emphysema, who are not socially distanced, who have no masks, who have no PPE.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We really believe that what we are going to see out of the prisons is potentially the greatest catastrophe we are going to see around COVID in terms of illness, infection and death. Disproportionately, these are our people; these are our brothers, our sons, our moms, and our uncles. This is not separate from the black community.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We recognize with our education work, LDF still has about 40 desegregation cases that we monitor from the 1960s and from Southern jurisdictions. We sometimes litigate as well. Issues arise and we use those cases to fight for equity for black children in the South. Almost immediately when the school closures began, we started to inquire about a variety of things. First of all, whether schools were going to continue providing nutritional support to kids. We heard from a lot of jurisdictions, New York and others; they were going to continue to provide that support and that was wonderful. But we weren’t sure about that in Southern jurisdictions. A number of them said they were going to provide support, did it for a week, and then stopped.

Sherrilyn Ifill: In Louisiana, we had to really lean in. New Orleans was fine, but where we work in the rural South – Saint Bernard Parish, Saint John Parish, Saint Martin Parish, Saint Mary Parish – no, no nutritional support. The schools just cut it off. You have kids who are used to getting one meal or two meals a day, and parents were relying on that for their kids’ nutrition, suddenly from one day to the next are cut off from having any nutritional support. We tried working with the school districts to no avail. At the same time, in those same school districts, many of them had just cut off instruction. Once school closures happen in early March 2020, they just decided the school year was over and there would be no instruction. We were beside ourselves; the thought that our children would have no instruction from March 2020 to September 2020.

Sherrilyn Ifill: That’s like the old sharecropping system when these take black kids out of school to bring in the crops. This was so horrifying to us that we again began pushing those school districts around these issues without much success. Some of them agreed to do distance learning but the distance learning was all online. 18% percent of black households in Louisiana have no computer. There had to be worksheets that are mailed, there had to be worksheets that are dropped off.

Sherrilyn Ifill: When you say distance learning, you and I know what that means, and we’re doing it right now, but that’s not the reality for nearly 20% of black families in Louisiana. So, we leaned in with all the school districts to no avail. Finally, we put the governor on blast. We did a letter that we released publicly and began to really put the pressure on.

Sherrilyn Ifill: He agreed to “meet” with us, I’m saying this with air quotes because obviously it was virtual. We had a 1.5-hour-long phone call in the morning. It was critical. We were on the phone with the Governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, and the superintendent of schools. It was interesting because obviously they knew about our letter and they had reached out to the parishes who all told them: “Yes, we are…of course we’re providing food.”

Sherrilyn Ifill: But we knew we had our clients. We had talked with our parents that week, and so we were able to tell them: “it ain’t happening”. Even where some places are providing food, parents can’t get to it, there’s no public transportation. The whole point is that when your kids had school, the school bus picked them up, took them to school, and that’s where they ate. How are they supposed to get the food?

Sherrilyn Ifill: We documented the percentage of black families that don’t have cars and they’re not able to get to the food. We documented the whole distance learning piece. You could hear in the phone call that the governor and the superintendent were alarmed, and it was clear that they were learning as we were speaking. That afternoon, the governor – in his announcement that the schools will be closed for the rest of the school year – issued a proclamation requiring that there be distance learning, high tech and low tech, and that every school district was expected to fulfill the obligation to provide nutritional support for children. We started to monitor that after the governor’s announcement to make sure that that was happening.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We just did it in Leeds City, Alabama where the school district was under a desegregation order, not serving food. They just announced on April 2nd, 2020, no more food will be served until further notice. We went into court…by into court, I mean, we filed papers in court. The judge held a virtual hearing on the phone, I guess 10 days ago, and last week, Friday night, said: “This violates a desegregation order that requires equity. You must begin food service again.” And it just began again on Tuesday. We use the docket that we had to address what we knew were immediate critical COVID needs for our children, which was nutritional support and education.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We have been the leading voice on the issue of ending water shutoffs and utility shutoffs during the pandemic as part of our housing discrimination work. We have been working over the years on the issue of water affordability because we did a report in which we documented the way water tax liens are leading disproportionately to loss of black homeownership.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Black people unable to afford their water bill don’t pay the water bill. The tax lien is either sold to a private party or just taken over by the city. If you don’t pay it there, your home is put up for foreclosure. We began to document the number of black people losing their homes to that process. We did a lot of work in Baltimore in ending water tax lien foreclosures and a lot of work in Detroit. Even Flint was prepared to foreclose on 7,000 families three summers ago…where there’s not even potable water because of water tax liens. They finally overturned that law. We just filed suit in Cleveland, challenging their water tax liens.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We were clear about the issue of water when the pandemic hit. We were deeply concerned. We first asked for no evictions. We knew that the federal government had said there would be no foreclosures, but many black people are renters. We still don’t have a moratorium on evictions. We’ve been working state-by-state, city-by-city, trying to put that pressure on. But we also knew that water shutoffs and electricity shutoffs would be detrimental, particularly in a pandemic in which we are asking everybody to wash their hands all the time. And in which there are school closures, so school children are at home. We’re sending children home in the condition in which there is no running water and there’s no electricity. So, we have been pushing the national conference on mayors, the National Governors Association going state-by-state. We’re actually starting and launching a shaming campaign online, going state-by-state, shaming those jurisdictions that have allowed water shutoffs to continue.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We’re asking jurisdictions to re-engage water where possible. Washington, DC is doing that, and Massachusetts is doing that. Turn the water back on if you really want people to be able to deal with this pandemic. Most of all, don’t create a public safety issue for children who you’re requiring to stay home, but you’re also not suspending evictions.

Sherrilyn Ifill: You’re telling everybody to stay home but you’re also allowing people to be put out of their home or you’re telling people to stay home and you’re allowing them to be home without running water and without electricity. We’re still grappling with that issue and continuing to lean into that issue.

Sherrilyn Ifill: And then, of course, voting. I gotta say, I feel forever changed by Wisconsin. It represents the failure of every level of government for African American people. I wrote a piece about it in Slate, I’m happy to send it to you, called Never Forget Wisconsin. The piece really talks about the images of people standing in line with the mask on and how it’s a snapshot of American failure. I also call it a snapshot of the deep nobility of black people who showed their determination to be full citizens to participate in the political process.

Sherrilyn Ifill: On the theory of Never Forget Wisconsin, we sued in Arkansas, we just filed suit in South Carolina demanding the extension of absentee ballot opportunities. We’re filing another suit this week, but I can’t tell you where it is, but in another Southern state, and then in another Southern state the following week. We are looking to November 2020 and we are very clear that we want to make sure that there are multiple opportunities for voting for our people.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We’re not saying only mail-in voting because there are black people who want to vote in person. In order for black people to vote in person, we cannot have to make a choice between our health and our citizenship. So, that requires a full menu of things. First of all, we need poll workers. A lot of the reason there were so few polling places in Milwaukee on that election day is because so many poll workers called out, understandably. Those poll workers, including in our community, are elderly. We don’t want to risk their health either. That means that we need to be training additional poll workers this summer, younger poll workers. Poll workers have to be trained in how to manage themselves in this pandemic. We have to be providing to poll workers, all of the PPE they need.

Sherrilyn Ifill: The polling places themselves have to be able to assure people that they are wiped down and fully clean. We have to be able to provide PPE at the polling place for voters who come without it, who don’t have a mask or who don’t have gloves. All of that is essential. We have to expand early voting so that we undermine long lines by having a longer voting period and more opportunities to vote.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We’re also really encouraging our community to be more prepared to vote, to not go into the voting booth, and for the first time, be reading the ballot. You’ve got to download that thing Sunday night; you’ve got to know what all the bond questions are because that’s what makes you take long standing in the voting place.

Sherrilyn Ifill: You don’t want to be standing there for fifteen minutes during a pandemic. You want to get in, vote, and get out. But then, also, distance voting means extending the period for absentee ballot requests and extending the period for absentee ballot returns. That was the issue in Wisconsin; the Supreme Court wouldn’t allow the extended time to return the absentee ballot. It means increasing online registration so that people can register online. It means ensuring that people really know that they have to take time to do that process – to order an absentee ballot, have it come to their house, to send it back in, and have it be counted. We’re really serious about leaning into our communities in August 2020 and September 2020 about preparing to vote. You’re not going to be able to just wake up on November 2, 2020 and decide: “Hey, I really feel I want to vote tomorrow.” It’s not that kind of scene anymore, because if you’re going to vote in person, you’ve got to have your PPE and you need to be ready.

Sherrilyn Ifill: If you’re going to vote distance, you have to have ordered your absentee ballot and you have to have send it in, and so forth. All of our voting work is really focused around making sure that that full menu is available so that we can ensure that every eligible African American voter can participate in the political process and vote. Lastly, of course, is the census and ensuring that people participate in the census online.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Everything that we’re doing about stay at home…we just did a joint statement with the leaders of every black church denomination that was released last Friday. When Governor Kim’s order came out reopening the state, basically telling our people to stay home. And it was civil rights leaders and black church denomination leaders saying: “This ain’t the time. You need to stay at home, prioritize your health and prioritize your family.” But we ended the statement by saying, “While you’re at home, register to vote, and make sure that you fill out the census.”

Sherrilyn Ifill: That’s a long way of answering your question. What I say to nonprofits is, “You’ve got to be responsive to the needs of your people in the moment. You’ve got to figure out a way to be doing, if you’re an organization like mine that does structural change or whatever are your long-term imperatives, have to be happening at the same time that you are responsive to what your people need today.” Keep fundraising. Make sure that the work you’re doing is responsive to what is happening in the moment. Don’t give up your structural work, but make sure it’s responsive to what’s happening in the moment. Invest in your communications; this is the only lifeline we have to the people we represent, to our donors, to our supporters. This is no time to skimp on your communications.

Sherrilyn Ifill: You’ve got to invest in your communications, you have to have the apparatus to invest in your communications. Reassure your people, take care of your staff. One of the things I’m proudest of is that at LDF, we’ve just been prudent over the years. So, we’re not facing layoffs, we’re not facing any immediate catastrophe. We have lost our major fundraising event, and like everybody else, we’re reeling. But the ability of our people to focus on their work and not have to focus on whether they’re going to get a paycheck is vitally important. Make sure that you’re doing your best to reassure your staff and your people. We have been increasing our all-staff meetings; we do them now every two weeks. We’re trying to increase that communication with the staff. I’m regularly sending emails to the staff. We created a newsletter of our COVID-19 work because our staff wants to know what we are doing in this pandemic.

Sherrilyn Ifill: They want to feel that they are speaking into the moment. We acknowledge how frightened we all are. This is the first time that we’re doing the work in which not only are we worried for our clients, but we’re worried for ourselves, our families, our friends, our peers, and to acknowledge that reality. We have provided our staff with lots of wellness links and other resources to help, kind of, navigate this period. Keep talking to your funders. Make sure they hear from you and they know what you’re doing. If asked, they should feel that they know what you’re doing. There shouldn’t be a presumption. Ask for advice.

Sherrilyn Ifill: When the pandemic struck and things started to close and the stock market tanked, I was calling people, not for money. I was calling foundation leaders to say, “Tell me how you’re thinking about this moment. This is a moment of crisis leadership. I want to make sure that I’m the right leader. This is what I’m thinking. These are the steps I’m planning to take. This is what I’m doing with my senior team.” This is a leadership moment also, and foundations and donors are not just about money. They’re about counsel, support, and advice for moments like this when we need other leaders to help us think through how we lead in a time that none of us have ever faced.

Nic Campbell: I really like your response for a variety of reasons. I think, at the core, it goes back to exactly what you said which is: be responsive to the thing that is breaking the heart of your people today and be consistent in doing the work. Another reason that I really like it is that you’re providing advice that you yourself are following, examples and context behind, “This is how it’s playing out for us and here’s how we’re doing it.”

Nic Campbell: The last piece that I really like about it is that it’s practical. When you’re talking about just picking up the phone and asking for advice, strategic counsel, and being able to partner. That is really sound advice for nonprofits, particularly those that are fundraising. If I were to say to you then, Sherrilyn, let’s look at the other side of the conversation and look at the funders; what’s the advice that you would have for funders, beyond give more money? What advice would you provide for them to support nonprofit sustainability, both during and after this crisis?

Katy Thompson: And that concludes part one of the series. Next week, Sherrilyn will answer Nic’s question about what funders can be doing differently to support nonprofit sustainability during this time.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources, and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Keep building bravely.

Part Two

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up Podcast and I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity, and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with nonprofits and philanthropies, and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.

Katy Thompson: Hi, everyone! It’s Katy, Build Up’s Manager of Global Operations. This week on theNonprofit Build Up, we are continuing with the recast our very first episode of the Nonprofit Build Up. This week, you will hear the second part of Nic’s conversation with Sherrilyn Ifill, President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Katy Thompson: You can jump back to part one of the conversation to learn more about Sherrilyn’s expertise, major accomplishments, and the transformational work of the Legal Defense Fund. But with that, let’s dive into the second part of Nic’s conversation with Sherrilyn Ifill, where they discuss how funders can support nonprofit sustainability and more.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Some foundations are already doing things like providing webinars and support on various aspects of how we manage this moment, providing free social media training, or communications training to organizations that really may not be sophisticated in that area. A couple of foundations have individually done this. I love the pledge that many of the foundations took but I just think we should be freed up from reporting. It’s extremely onerous. Particularly if you’re not a first-time recipient and the foundation knows you. The time that we spend doing reports is time that we could be spending finding additional gifts. We’re all financially pressed and looking to raise more money. That means that we need to find new foundations, or we need to find new areas of work.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We are people, we cannot show our staff our own fears. We have to be reassuring. We actually need safe spaces where we can convene and talk about some of these issues. Providing a window into the things about what you know; what the financial outlook looks like, and experts who can address us as leaders, or even address our staff about COVID or other aspects of this crisis. Really providing support beyond the financial support, just recognizing that this is a moment that none of us have ever experienced before, and the expectation that leaders will walk into this with some magic ability to navigate all the aspects of it.

Sherrilyn Ifill: It seems to me, just falls. I would say that, especially for your core donors, to just be offering that support is really important. Foundations are taking their endowments. They’re taking a hit too. I understand that. Deciding that you’re going to sustain with the organizations is absolutely critical because all of us recognize we’re not going to make it more than we made in the past. We’ve got to be able to sustain. I advise people to open up a whole other front of work to address this crisis, to be efficient, and marry it with your existing work – which is what we’re trying to do.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We’re not working less; I’m definitely working more. Everyone is working more. The courts have not closed. The Supreme Court is still deciding cases, we still have our virtual trial. We still have a brief due in the Harvard Affirmative Action case. We are still filing cases. We’re still doing all that stuff. We still got to get food for these kids. So, not one bit of the work has stopped and yet a whole other layer of work has been placed on top of it. We have to be able to hold our staff. We have to be able to just maintain.

Sherrilyn Ifill: I would really encourage foundations to bet on their grantees this year. You have to do it. I do think this is a potentially catastrophic moment, not only in terms of just survival but in terms of our democracy. Because what has accompanied the pandemic are all of the threats that always accompany catastrophes like this which is the power grab, the suffering of those who are most marginalized, and the attempt to hold on to power by those who led us during this crisis. Those are all things that always happen.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We are in a moment of tremendous democratic peril. To my mind, I call civil rights work, democracy work; that’s what we do. This is not the time to imagine for one second that we can skimp on the need to lean into not only protecting this democracy but being aggressive and affirmative in our work.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Many of the things that are happening now, we will need to think through how to maintain. People understand that people have to be released from prison. Okay, well we’ve been talking about that for years.

Sherrilyn Ifill: How do we, post-pandemic, sustain that narrative? We’ve been talking about the need to extend voting opportunities. Many people do get why there has to be extensive mail-in ballots and more early voting. How do we carry that forward? That becomes the new normal. There’s a lot of conversation about the new normal in the context of social distancing, flying, and taking cruises but we need to make the expansion of some of these areas, in terms of civil rights, the new normal also. That’s going to take organizing, advocacy, litigation, and empowering our communities to be able to speak and demand that they want that new normal.

Nic Campbell: You’ve provided really practical advice for both nonprofits and funders. We even talked about some of the practices that you’re recommending funders stop. With all of that in mind, what do you wish we did less of as a sector and what should we do more of?

Sherrilyn Ifill: I think that we are in so much peril that I cannot think of anything that we need to be doing less of. I would have said this before the pandemic also. Even before the pandemic, we’re not enough for the moment. That’s why we’re in much trouble right now. It’s got to be more. What do we need to be doing more of? I think people are listening right now and we should be paying attention to increasing the ability of us to touch and communicate with people, and the people we represent in communities around the country. It’s just vitally important, right now, that people feel that they are part of something. The things that we normally do where we meet, we march, and we congregate, or people knock on doors: those are not things that can happen. People also need to see that people are fighting for them. That communication needs to get to them because this can be a really despairing moment also.

Sherrilyn Ifill: We need to be talking to people so that they can see what their own power is. The ability to move quickly…everything is going so fast that if we could just increase everyone’s ability to do rapid response, it would be awesome. We’re all sitting here, and the Post Office is not funded. Do you know what I mean? That’s a catastrophe that just has to be dealt with. New things arise all the time.

Sherrilyn Ifill: I’m very concerned about black businesses and what’s going to be happening in our community with the stimulus and how badly it has done in being assessable to small black business owners. It’s about mom-and-pop businesses. Barbershops that won’t survive, beauty parlors that won’t survive, and nail salons that won’t survive, that are in our community. What’s the plan?

Sherrilyn Ifill: I’ve talked about this in the context with black churches who are some of the biggest property owners in the African American community. Let’s leave aside the spiritual piece. I’m talking about as property owners. When the emergency is regarded as over, foreclosure crisis is over, and the forbearance is lifted, those folks are going to have money. The black church relies on people to come in every Sunday and put something in the plate. Nobody’s been coming in and every church will tell you that online does not approximate that. We’re about to see, unless something is done, a catastrophic property loss in our community, which will increase gentrification.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Think about some of these churches in the land that they sit on and where they’re located. When I think about something like Mother Emanuel in Downtown Charleston, if you’ve ever been there, where the Charleston nine were killed – it’s downtown, a huge church, right there at the beginning of the big shopping street. It’s not a black community around it anymore. That’s prime property. We need a little bit more creativity around the exercise I do, which is I try to do it in the increments of 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. When I look back at this time, what am I going to be sorry we didn’t do? One of those pieces, I think, is to imagine what strengths will still exist, and what anchors will still exist in the black community and have we protected them?

Nic Campbell: I really like talking about being creative and how can organizations show up in that way, because they think about their own planning and their own strategies, but also know that the focus of many nonprofits is often on that programmatic strategy and on the direct asks or the fundraising pieces. I wanted to talk about infrastructure and raise the question with you, which is: is LDF thinking about building infrastructure during this time? If it is, how is it thinking about building that infrastructure?

Sherrilyn Ifill: Do you mean fundraising infrastructure?

Nic Campbell: I mean your organizational infrastructure or the organizational foundation that you have to do that programmatic work, to be programmatically creative. Thinking about how you’re setting up your boards, your operations, and your governance structures. If you’re thinking about that now, how does that thinking shift for infrastructure after the pandemic?

Sherrilyn Ifill: I like to say that we have the unique experience of kind of being a little bit ahead of the curve because we were talking about these very issues and really beginning to make shifts in our board. We had planned to open a Southern office, which, obviously, very few people are opening brick-and-mortar. But it may be a remote office. We understood the need to be physically closer to engage with our communities, to be able to speak more directly to them. We already understood that. We had increased our support for our internal think tank, the Thurgood Marshall Institute, so that we could do more of our own research and really disseminate direct research to our community. We just had done a big communications buildup so that we could increase our communications capacity.

Sherrilyn Ifill: In some ways, we had kind of, not knowing that the pandemic was coming, but feeling that, for all the reasons that I told you before, we’re in this critical democratic moment. We have been talking about who we are and how we show up in the space. We’ve been thinking about our own branding because that really is important to grab the attention of the people that we represent. And just building collaborations has been really, really critical to our work. But I do think, what I was describing black businesses, that’s kind of why we have our Thurgood Marshall Institute – is because we want to spend some time learning. That’s what the Institute is designed to do. It’s to help us learn. One of the things I think is critical in this moment, is figuring out what we need to learn to be able to come up with solutions that actually work.

Sherrilyn Ifill: That means that we need to be able to convene people to say, “Here’s what we don’t know and here’s what we need to learn in order to make this work.” I’d like to see more of that happening. The truth is this is exhausting. We’re all in this box all day. We also have to be a little bit kind to ourselves in terms of how difficult this is. I actually find that where I’ve shifted to right now, is some solitary time; to study, to read, and to write in the four waking hours that I have that I’m not working. Because I think it’s important to try to diagnose this moment and understand what it is we’re in.

Sherrilyn Ifill: I think too many of us are doing so much that we can’t see it. I’m a big legal historian. This all happens within an ecosystem and trying to understand the ecosystem, I’m interested in what my profession is doing. That’s the kind of creative thing that we’re not talking about, about the civil rights but I’m talking about it. What has happened to the legal profession and the need to activate the profession in a way that resets some of what, I think, has been eroded over the past few months?

Sherrilyn Ifill: That really is critical to us and the infrastructure that we need to be able to do civil rights legal work. I think, being able to have a little drawback time to see the whole instead of just seeing the pieces that we’re working on, or the pieces that are in our face, or the pieces that Trump has served up for the day, is one of the biggest challenges of this moment. The Earth is shifting beneath the ecosystem system of civil rights in this country. We need to be able to see that shift to figure out how to take advantage of it. I do think that it’s vital that we spend some time doing the intellectual work of change.

Nic Campbell: Sherrilyn, this conversation has been so powerful, and I want to ask you a question to help us continue to build knowledge through books and people we should learn from or about. What book do you think we should read next or what artists do you think we should be paying attention to?

Sherrilyn Ifill: Well, I’ll just tell you, I’m on my own curriculum right now. It’s not one book. After the 2016 election, literally a week after, I was on a panel with the great Civil Rights historian, Taylor Branch, and with Isabel Wilkerson, the author of The Warmth of Other Suns. Isabel, who’s become a friend, suggested at that event – it was hosted at the University of Maryland – that we were entering the second nadir. The nadir was the period from 1880 to 1920. It is described as the nadir by the historian Rayford Logan as the worst period for black people after slavery. I resisted her a little bit but I kind of knew she was right. Since the first of the year, I’ve been really asking the question, what did they do in the nadir? Because there’s never a time where we did nothing.

Sherrilyn Ifill: In fact, much of what happened in the nadir was the foundation upon which powerful shifts in civil rights ended up happening in this country. I’m trying to write about this now. I’ll get you my nadir reading. The first one is this one, Black Reconstruction by WEB Du Bois. That’s the most important. That’s kind of like the Bible. What other books do I find really illuminating also?

Sherrilyn Ifill: One is Rayford Logan, the one who created the term the nadir; The Betrayal of the Negro from Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow Wilson. And then, Dickson Bruce’s Black American Writing from the Nadir: The Evolution of a Literary Tradition, 1877-1915. I’m very interested in how writers wrote in that period because I’m always interested in what artists do during these dark periods. I think, these are always periods of very important high art.

Sherrilyn Ifill: For me, it’s a bit of studying and a bit of learning. It turns out, at least from my sneak peek of the piece I’m writing, it’s about the institutions that were created in the nadir. The NAACP, the Deltas, all of these institutions that then had the platform to help advance the civil rights movement actually were created in this period, when black people were really just at the very edge and the very bottom. The question for us is, it may not be that that is what we must do, but the question is what must we do? There is a building that has to happen in this period, so that’s what I’m working on.

Nic Campbell: I’ve definitely added some books now to my reading list. Thanks so much for sharing them and I look forward to reading your piece when it comes out. You’ve just shared some incredible takeaways and gems throughout this conversation that, I think, leaders can implement into their own organizations to help them build bravely. I want to thank you again for your insights and your time today, Sherrilyn.

Sherrilyn Ifill: Thank you. This was great. I really enjoyed talking to you.

Nic Campbell: Yes, definitely.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources, and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Keep building bravely.

Read more

Making the Case for General Support Funding with A. Nicole Campbell

Over the next two weeks on the Nonprofit Build Up, we are making the case for general support funding. This two-part series was originally recorded as a webinar with Angelyn Frazer-Giles, Executive Director of the National Network for Justice. Angelyn was previously featured on the Nonprofit Build Up Episode 9- Increasing Access for Grassroots Organizations.

You will hear us talk a lot about general support funding or flexible funding on the Nonprofit Build Up podcast, including Episode 22 – General Support Funding with A. Nicole Campbell. Many leaders in the nonprofit sector are speaking out about how crucial general support funding is for creating sustainable and effective organizations. And we agree. This series goes a little deeper into discussing why the majority of funding is not general support and what the delays are that slow down general support grants from becoming the default grants of the sector.

Additionally, Nic gets technical and discusses how to request general support grants and how to structure these awards to nonprofits and social-impact entities. Angelyn and Nic also address how to build relationships and trust and redefine risk to effectively transition to general support.

Listen to Part 1:

Listen to Part 2:

Resources:

Read the podcast transcription below:

Part One

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up podcast. And I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with nonprofits and philanthropies, and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.

Katy Thompson: Hi, everyone. It’s Katy T., Build Up’s Program Coordinator. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we are making the case for general support funding. This episode was originally recorded as a webinar with Angelyn Frazer-Giles, Executive Director of the National Network for Justice. 

Katy Thompson: Angelyn was previously featured on the Nonprofit Build Up on episode 9, Increasing Access for Grassroots Organizations. You will hear us talk a lot about general support funding or flexible funding on the Nonprofit Build Up podcast, including last week’s episode introducing the importance of general support grants. 

Katy Thompson: Many leaders in the nonprofit sector are speaking out about how crucial general support funding is for creating sustainable and effective organizations. And we agree. This episode goes a little deeper into discussing why the majority of funding is not general support, and what the delays are that slow down general support grants from becoming the default grants of the sector. 

Katy Thompson: And with that, here is Nic’s discussion about general support funding with Angelyn Frazer-Giles. 

Nic Campbell: Thanks so much, Angelyn. It’s my pleasure to be here. And I really love the work that NNJ does. And so, I’m very happy to be having this conversation. When we started to talk about what this conversation would look like and what we would be able to cover, we started to talk about funding, right? And we started this conversation around why can’t we have more flexible funding throughout the sector? What is it that’s preventing funders from just making this a default position? And so, that’s always been my question about why can’t we make the default position within the sector to be general support funding? 

Nic Campbell: And I’ve heard some arguments against doing that. And I think in some instances it just might not work if you’re working with a particular organization and you’re trying to – A university is a great example. If you’re trying to support a school, for example, within the university. Giving general support to the entire university is not what’s intended. But I do think what is intended is flexibility and how that school or the intended grantee uses the funding. And so, this idea around general support is really about flexibility in funding and giving the ability of how to use that funding over to the grantee, right? And what are our steps to get there? 

Nic Campbell: And so, what I want to talk about today is what is general support? I think we use that term a lot. I want to explain what I mean by it. What do we mean when we say project support or project grants? Talk about two concepts; expenditure responsibility and equivalency determination. We’ll talk about when those things come into play. But I do think that we need to talk about them in order to have a real conversation around general support. 

Nic Campbell: Again, I do believe that in the majority of cases, general support is the most effective form of support that funders can provide to nonprofits to support their projects, programs and overall sustainability. This is how we build organizational capacity. You do it with flexible funding, unrestricted funding, and the general support. Yes, of course, you can build an organization that is sustainable through project support funding or project grants. But you want to make sure that the funding you’re providing is as flexible and unrestricted as possible. And I’ll walk through why. 

Nic Campbell: Why aren’t we there, right? This sounds really logical, right? Like, “Okay. Well, Nic, you’ve explained that you want to give flexibility to organizations. You want to get funding.” Why aren’t we there? And in my opinion, I think we’re not there because we have not built trusting relationships, right? And when I say we, I mean, funders and grantees. I think at the base of it, there is a lack of trust and there’s a lack of relationship that’s happening, which is influencing whether or not general support grants are then being made. 

Nic Campbell: And I think that that’s a big statement. And I think people will say, “Well, of course, I trust this organization. Of course, we have a relationship.” But I would actually challenge that and say, “Is it the kind of relationship where you say here is a set of unrestricted funds. Use it as you would like.” And I assured, and I trust that you understand my goals and we understand your goals, and we’re working towards the same aims, right? I think having that conversation and clarifying that relationship is at the core of all of this. And so, we can talk about all these tools. We can talk about giving general support grants, and project support grants, and expenditure responsibility, and how to do that with equivalency determinations and things like that. But to me, those things are tools. And at the core of it, it’s do you have this trusting relationship that will be able to support the use of all of those tools? When we say general operating support, what are we actually talking about? We’re talking about supporting a nonprofit’s mission, right? As opposed to saying, “I’m going to support this line item of a specific project or a program.” 

Nic Campbell: Again, we’ve talked about why funders, grantors should be providing general operating support. One, because it does build strong sustainable infrastructure. You’re not wedded to spending funds on a particular line item or a particular project. You can actually spend it to build capacity. You can help to build out the infrastructure of your organization, build out your governance, build out the way that you’re making grants if you are a grant-making nonprofit. It frees up the time that people are spending on fundraising, because now they don’t say, “Okay. Well, there’s 10 line items in our project. We’ve got two of them funded. Let’s go out and fundraise for the other eight.” Right? 

Nic Campbell: You are now thinking holistically, and it changes the way you start to tell your organization’s story and how you’re trying to say, “Here’s how you can support us.” And the reporting changes as well. Because now you’re giving reports on programs and initiatives throughout the organization and not doing it piecemeal, right? Project by project. I think it does reduce that power imbalance between grant maker and grantee that might exist. Because, again, you’re basing it on a trusting relationship. And this is where it comes from, right? This is where the flexibility comes from. The ability to say you’re going to use the funds the way you determine that you should use them. I think it allows an organization to be innovative and to actually take risks, right? 

Nic Campbell: Like, think of what you would do if you had a safety net, right? Think of what you would do if you had the ability to build your sustainability and your capacity. I think that’s a much different way of looking at things compared to, “Well, we’ve got a line item here. We still have to raise the other seven. How will we do that?” And you’re constantly worrying about how you’re raising funds against line items as opposed to how you’re building an organization. And at the core of all of this, it’s really about how are you giving your non-profit leaders space to lead? How are you giving them space to problem solve? And how are you giving them space to build an organization? I don’t think that once you give the funds, that’s it. 

Nic Campbell: I also think that what a company’s general support should be technical assistance support. You know, a lot of questions have been raised, “Well, if I give a general support award, it’s like writing a blank check. Essentially, how will I be able to find out what’s happened? How will I you know be able to monitor?” And I think, again, once you have that underlying trusting relationship, you can continue to work alongside the organization because of that really strong relationship. And you’re helping to say, “I have networks that I can introduce you to. I have other tools that I can have you use.” Because you’re providing technical assistance along with the money. 

Nic Campbell: I do not think that just providing general support funding is all it takes. I also think you need that additional capacity building support, the technical assistance that comes with it. And what do we mean when we say project or program support? We talk about supporting a specific project, or a specific program, or initiative of the organization. What can it help you do? You can actually respond directly to new and innovative projects. You could help to build out programs focus explicitly on that work that the project grant is funding. You have more control as a funder, right? You’re able to say, “Show me how this particular project has performed, a program has performed, a metric that you have articulated you would be following is doing. And you get into this idea of like not having this heavy reliance on one funding source. 

Nic Campbell: If you’ve got 10-line items and a funder is funding each of those line items, now you’re diversifying funding as a default, as opposed to having one funder giving you general support funding that you’re using any way you’d like. What are some of the limitations? Why do I constantly push for for general support? I really do believe that grantee organizations are the ones doing the work and they’re the ones that actually know the community that they’re serving best. Why not give them the ability to determine how then they want to use those funds, again, along with that technical assistance that’s being provided? 

Nic Campbell: I’ve also found this in my practice over seeing lots of different nonprofit organizations and leaders over the past 16 years, that what happens is you start to write to the grant, right? You start to write and create projects and programs to meet the funding ask, right? You might have an idea in your head where you’re like, “I think this is innovative. And I think this is the way to go.” But instead, what you do is, “Well, I know that there’s a pot of money that is living there for this particular kind of work. Now, let me write to that grant, right? Now, let me make this program fit that mold.” And so, I think that that does happen. 

Nic Campbell: And I think if you’re given piecemeal, you have to think about this, right? You’re giving piecemeal kinds of support and saying, “Okay, well I’m supporting this project or that program.” When you stop supporting a line item or you stop supporting that project, how is it being sustained over time? Because all of the things that you’re putting limits on, like, “Oh, we’re only giving 20% of this. We’re only giving 30% for overhead,” let’s say. Well, people still need desks to do their work, right? You still need electricity to do your work. You need all of those things that constitute infrastructure that we put limits on and we say, “We’re not going to – Our grant is only going to support this percentage of it.” What’s going to happen to the other 70%, the other 80%, that no other funder wants the fund because everyone wants to fund the program, the project, the work so to speak? 

Nic Campbell: What happens then is these projects may not be sustained over time. The project that you’re so interested in, that one might succeed. But what about the others that are not being supported or somebody drops out? Now you have projects being started not being sustained. And the overall effectiveness of the organization is decreasing, right? Just because one program is “succeeding”. If it’s succeeding in an environment that’s not sustainable, it is not succeeding, right? And so, those are some of the limitations that I’ve seen over the years and that I think that project support awards tend to facilitate. 

Nic Campbell: I’m not saying that project support is bad and never ever receive it. I just think that the default, the place we start from should be how do we award unrestricted flexible funding to this organization in order for them to be sustainable and build their capacity while doing the work that we’re interested in supporting. Now, the reason I wanted to talk about expenditure responsibility is because now that we’ve talked through general support and project support, some people might say, “Well, that only works when you’re making a grant to a public charity. When you make a grant to an organization that’s not a public charity, you have to deal with expenditure responsibility.” And this is only if the grant maker is a private foundation. If you’re a public charity and you’re making grants, you don’t have to worry about expenditure responsibility. But private foundations do. 

Nic Campbell: And private foundations then have to comply with all the ER requirements that say you have to do lots of different things. You have to have an agreement. You have to put certain language in the agreement. You have to conduct certain diligence. And you really can’t give a general support grant to an organization that’s not charitable, right? If you think about the example of giving a grant to a for-profit, and the for-profit would say has a really great charitable program, and you say, “Well, Nic said we should always give general support grants. I’m going to give it to this organization.” When you’re giving this general support grant to this for-profit that does for-profit things, you can’t do that as a private foundation because now you’re supporting things that are not charitable. You haven’t really supported that carve out project. That’s the concern when it gets to expenditure responsibility where people will say, “Well, we can’t obviously do general support in that context.” So, it has to be a project support grant, right? 

Nic Campbell: And I agree that you can’t just give the sort of blanket type of support to organizations that are not charitable when you’re dealing with expenditure responsibility. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t build in flexibility, right? It doesn’t mean that when you make that project award, you can build in the maximum amount of flexibility that is allowed under the law. And I don’t see that push to get us to that maximum level of flexibility under the law as much as I would like. 

Nic Campbell: I would love it if the place that we’re starting from is unrestricted flexible funding. And however it shows up, we meet those different situations. If we’re dealing with a for-profit with a charitable program that is carved out, then we give a project support grant that has the maximum amount of flexibility that is allowed in that instance. That’s what I’m saying when I talk about how we should approach funding. I’m not saying in every single instance, general support is appropriate or even legal. But I am saying that there are ways to have it happen. 

Nic Campbell: And so, when someone brings up expenditure responsibility, the thinking here is there’s still ways to do it. And I just want to see us try to get there. Because there’s lots of grassroots organizations that they’re not public charities for whatever reason, right? When we think about innovation, when we think about ways to show up and have social impact, it’s not just the public charity that can have social impact, right? There’s lots of different organizations that are not forprofits, but there are other kinds of entities that would fall under expenditure responsibility. And I don’t think that it’s logical or reasonable to say, “Well, because you’re not a public charity, we can’t possibly give you additional flexibility in this award. And we have to change the way we work or operate.” 

Nic Campbell: The other one I wanted to talk through is equivalency determination, because the question determination is essentially a process that you go through where you determine that a foreign grantee, a non-US entity, is the equivalent of a US public charity, right? You basically say, “Look, if you were formed in the United States, you would basically be a US public charity. But because you weren’t, we’re going to have to go through a process that makes sure that you’re the equivalent of a US public charity.” Once you go through that process, what it essentially does is it allows you to treat that organization as a US public charity. Otherwise, you’re in expenditure responsibility, right? Because you’re making a grant to an organization that is not a public charity. That’s when expenditure responsibility comes into play in the US and outside the US. 

Nic Campbell: Equivalency determination only comes into play when you’re dealing with organizations that are outside of the US. And so, here, it’s another tool to say, “How do we make sure that we can get you flexible funding?” Right? How do we make sure that we can put you under the general support rubric and give you the amount of funding that you need and have you use it in the way that you see best, again, providing technical assistance along the way? And equivalency determination is a process. So, you want to make sure that you’re supporting the grantee through that, because you’re asking for operations information and finances to essentially get to that point where you’re making that determination about equivalency. 

Nic Campbell: And so, that’s really what I wanted to talk through so that we could set ourselves up for our conversation. And again, like just to start us off or have us think about why is the majority of funding not general support, right? After everything that I’ve talked through, why do we think that we’re still in this space where the majority of the funding that’s awarded is actually not general support? And in fact, when COVID hit last year and started particularly within the United States, we had a lot of conversions, right? We had a lot of grants being converted from project support to general support. Why? Why did it take a pandemic for us to get to that point? And there’s some organizations, there’s some foundations, even after they’ve made that conversion, they’re still gone back to providing project support, right? It’s just like we think this is a crisis. And so, we think you need the flexibility. But in a non-crisis situation, you actually don’t need flexibility, and you’re fine with the project support grant. 

Nic Campbell: I would push us and challenge us to ask ourselves why is that the case? And then what’s slowing us down? What’s making us say why can’t general support grants or that approach of unrestricted flexible funding be the default approach for the sector? Like, what’s slowing us down there? 

Katy Thompson: We are going to pause the conversation here. There’s a lot we have to say about general support funding. Nic raised so many important points and questions to ponder that we wanted to space this discussion out over two episodes. Stay tuned for part two next week.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Keep building bravely.

 

Part Two

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up podcast. And I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with nonprofits and philanthropies, and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.

Katy Thompson: Hi, everyone, its Katy T., Build Up’s Program Coordinator. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re continuing our conversation about general support funding. This episode was originally recorded as a webinar with Angelyn Frazer-Giles, Executive Director at the National Network for Justice. 

Katy Thompson: In this episode, Nic gets technical, and discusses how to request general support grants and how to structure these awards to nonprofits and social impact entities. Angelyn and Nic also addressed how to build relationships, and trust and redefine risks to effectively transition to general support. At Build Up, we believe that in the majority of cases. General support is the most effective form of support that funders can provide to nonprofit organizations to support their programs, projects and overall sustainability, which is why we’re dedicating a significant amount of time on the podcast to discuss it. And with that, here is the second and final part of Nic discussion about general support funding with Angelyn Frazer-Giles.

Nic Campbell: And then I also want to turn it on to the nonprofits as well, who are requesting grants. Because, yes, it’s funders that are talking about awarding project support grants. But I also find that as grantees are just asking for project support grants, I think it’s just because this is what we’ve been conditioned to do. So, how do you actually request them? How do you put yourself in a position where you’ve been receiving project grants for years and now you want to say, “No, I actually want to receive general support grants. And I want that technical assistance support so that I can continue to build out the capacity of my organization and become more sustainable.” How do you structure these grants to these innovative entities, right? Entities that are not public charities. They’re just other nonprofits, or they just might be social impact entities? How do we structure those grants to do those things? 

Nic Campbell: And I think most importantly, how do you build relationships and trust and redefine risk? How you’re thinking about risk to effectively transition to general support? Because I do think that without answering that final question, everything else is going to be sort of fits and starts, right? So, you’re going to see a wave of, “Hey, let’s all do general support.” And then you’re going to see it sort of stall. And you’re going to see it start up again. And we’ve seen that already, right? We’ve seen the largest foundation say, “We’re going to focus on general support and providing more flexible awards.” And then there’s kind of been a stop, right? Encouraging other foundations to do the same. But there’s going to stop. 

Nic Campbell: COVID then surfaces. And it’s, “Okay, well, let’s convert to general support. This is great. Let’s give all this generous support so we can provide flexibility to these organizations.” And now there’s sort of a lull. So why do we keep having those lulls? I really think it’s because at the core of it, we need to build those relationships and trust and think about and talk about how we’re defining risk. But I’ve said a lot. And so, I will stop there, Angelyn, and turn it back over to you. 

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: No. Great, great information. I’m going to ask, if anyone does have any questions, they could feel free to put it in the Q&A. But I have a couple of questions. And one of them has to do with the slide that talked about equivalency determination? And if you could just go over that a little bit, because I think I missed the first part of the concept in terms of foreign entities and how that relates to the nonprofit that is a US-based nonprofit. Could you just explain that one a little bit more?

Nic Campbell: So, when we talk about general support, and this idea that we’re giving flexible funding, unrestricted funding to organizations, some of the pushback or challenges might be, “Well, you can only do that with a US public charity.” You can only do that with an organization that is designated by the IRS as a public charity. And so, when you start to deal with organizations that are not US public charities, both within the United States and outside the United States, right, because it’s grassroots organizations around the world working within communities, you can’t then make those grants. So, they have to be project support grants. Let’s not even talk about flexibility when it comes to those organizations. 

Nic Campbell: And so, equivalency determination comes in, because it’s a way of saying we find that this organization that is based outside the United States is the equivalent of a US public charity. Once you go through that process to make that determination, now, that organization essentially can be treated just like a US public charity. So, that means that this organization, that before this equivalency determination process was not eligible for this broad general support client where you could support all aspects of the organization’s work necessarily, now they can, because they have been seen and deemed to be the equivalent of a US public charity. 

Nic Campbell: And so, as a result, you’re able to give broad support just like you would give to a US public charity. You can give them a lot of the flexibility and the options that you provide to US public charities. So, there’s another tool to do that. And sometimes it just requires that you’re going line by line through budgets when you’re in expenditure responsibility. So, now you’re making a grant to an organization that’s not a US public charity. It’s also based outside the US. And let’s say you don’t go through the clemency determination process, because for whatever reason, it just doesn’t qualify. And it doesn’t have to be for charitable reasons, but it just doesn’t qualify, you can still award funding in a flexible way to that organization, right? You literally just have to go through budget line by budget line to ensure that its charitable and what you’re supporting would be charitable. But you don’t have to designate it to a particular line item. I think there’s ways to do it. Equivalency determination is one. But also, being creative and how you’re thinking about supporting organizations that are not US public charities both within and outside the United States is another.

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. We have a question. And I’m going to allow this person to talk if they want to say the question. I’ll just open up your mic. And if you want to say your question, you’re more than welcome to do so. And if not, I can also just read it. So, whichever you prefer. 

Nic Campbell: Cool. Thank you, Angelyn. Can you hear me okay?

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: Yes, we can hear you.

Nic Campbell: Thank you so much. This is really fantastic info. And really appreciate that this is a rare conversation in a lot of these spaces. Thank you, Nic, so much for presenting all of this. My question was around the challenge that I think a lot of smaller nonprofit organizations run into in general, which is, if you’re kind of a small fish, it’s hard to get the attention of foundations at all to fund your work. And so, then asking for general support seems like it’s just out of the question. So, I’m wondering if you find that there is a scale issue or a size issue that goes along with this? And if you have any suggestions for how to navigate that?

Nic Campbell: So, I appreciate the question. And I think what I’ve found – I’m not going to discount the fact that there is a size difference between a lot of the grassroots organizations that I work with and some of the largest funders, some of whom I work with as well. But I will say that scale, I think, is actually perception, right? Because if you were clear about your value add, if you were clear about this is what my organization does. This is our unique value proposition. This is what we’re adding to this ecosystem. This is the kind of impact that we’re having and the problem solving that we’re doing with the community. It doesn’t matter how “small” you are. It’s about your impact. And it’s about how you’re showing up. 

Nic Campbell: And so, when you come to that conversation with a funder to say, Essentially, we’re having this conversation because you’re interested in supporting us. If you’re interested in supporting us, then you’re interested in supporting that impact.” And so, finding a way to, one, be clear about your impact and your unique value prop and what you’re adding. But also, being clear that general support, I don’t think it’s like, “Well, you should start with project and then you get general.” It’s that this is how you invest in this organization. This is how you invest in the people and the capacity in the building of this organization. And this is the way to do it, is through general support grants, is through capacity building grants. It’s not through line item grants. 

Nic Campbell: And I think having that conversation. And again, if you have that relationship, that trusting relationship between whoever you’re talking to at the foundation or the funder, and they have whoever’s talking to them from your organization, that conversation goes a lot easier, right? I think it’s harder when people don’t have the relationship. They also don’t understand the risk. Because at the end of the day, the funder is just thinking in terms of risk, right? You’re thinking, “Is this risky? Will this actually pan out?” And no one really has a shared understanding of what risk means. Risk to them can mean you’re small, right? So, you’re risky. And if that’s the case, then we need to be clear about why that is a risk, as opposed to just being different. Why is it a risk as opposed to being an actual advantage? Because you can now engage with the community in a way that a large organization might not. 

Nic Campbell: I think a lot of these points really just go around how can you establish your impact? How can you make that clear to the funder? You also need a trusting relationship. I know, that’s the hard thing to build. But I think you need a trusting relationship. Because to be honest, even if you get a project support grant and that trusting relationship is not there, you’re going to see it in the monitoring. You’re going to see it in the reporting. You’re going to see it in the way that you’re engaging with each other anyway. So, you need to build that trusting relationship in order for all of those things to come together and see general support as an investment in this organization and getting them closer to the impact that they’re saying that they want. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be having the conversation with you. 

Nic Campbell: And so, that’s how I advise and counsel my clients to approach the conversation. We can talk about ways to be a little more creative. If for some reason the organization might not want to provide general support because sometimes that is the policy of the funder, and if that’s the case, then we think about how do we do this in a creative way as opposed to just saying, “Okay. Well, let’s just default to project support grants.” 

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: Yeah, it really was. Thank you. In that same vein, I have a question regarding – You talked about when the pandemic hit last year, when everything shut down, and folks were trying to do some of that basic support to communities, right? And after George Floyd, it was the conversation about race. And there was this reckoning for people who, I guess, didn’t feel racism existed in this world. There were all of these shifts, right? Where we saw some of the organizations that we support, they then have to like shift their mission and focus because the funders were then shifting their focus and various guidelines on funding. 

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: And you just talked about it slowing down. Like, it opened up. There was some general support. And then it’s starting to slow down a little bit more where they’re now fully re-evaluating, “Okay, where were we a year ago? And how do we continue down that path? Or do we need to structurally change things?” And I’m just curious as to how you’ve been able to talk to folks about not changing their mission to fit that mold that you discussed about the funding that exists and trying to find that one key word that’s in your mission that might be – The one key word that’s in the funding application and really get people to really step back and maybe say, “Well, maybe that’s not a good fit for me. Because if I have to change my mission and my goals, then I’m not being true to what my organization is about.” 

Nic Campbell: It’s a really good question, right? Because I think what it puts into play for me is that a few things. The first is if you’re in an emergency situation as an organization and you have payroll or you have just needs that need to be met immediately, I think, yes, go – If you can pivot easily, pivot easily and get the funding. Because it’s about staying alive at this point. 

I think if you’re in that kind of dire situation, I wouldn’t then say, “Well, no, I’m just going to hold off. And I’m not going to change because of all of these other things,” which are all valid if you’re in that emergency kind of situation. I would say pivot if you can and accept the funds, right? Because you want that lifeline. 

Nic Campbell: If you’re not in that dire of a situation and you’re just saying, “Look, we do need the funds. We need the revenue. How will we do that? Do we need to pivot?” I think you are in a position that is saying a ton about your infrastructure, right? It’s telling me that you are not diversified. It’s telling me that something is missing in that compelling story that you’re telling in order to fundraise, right? It says to me that you might be telling a great story around impact, for example. How you’re working with communities? But you’re not necessarily telling a very good story about your infrastructure, and all of the infrastructure that it takes to get to that impact. 

Nic Campbell: I think that once you get to the point where you’re thinking, “Should I pivot? I need this money. I need the revenue.” It’s actually a time to think about what in your infrastructure is not in place that have put you into this position? I think, one, very easily, could be diversification of revenue. Because there’s a series that I do on Fridays. It’s called fastball Fridays. Just like a few minutes of video, and we talk about infrastructure in each of those episodes. One of them that I put out is can you say no to a grant? Like, are you in the position to say no to a grant because it does not align with the way you want to problem solve alongside the community that you’re serving? And if your answer is, “No, Nic. Actually, I can’t say no to a grant at this point.” Then to me, it’s a signal that we need to work on governance. We need to work on your capacity. We need to work on how you’re doing your fundraising in terms of diversification of funding. Who you are actually reaching out to? 

Nic Campbell: There’s a lot of infrastructure pieces that I think that we should delve into that will actually strengthen your organization and put you in a much better place than you having to think about should I have to take this money or not? I think if you are at that stage and you have some space to at least say, “Look, it’d be nice to have, of course. But we actually don’t need it right now.” I would spend some time thinking about my infrastructure. I’m thinking about your board’s engagement and involvement oversight and accountability within the organization. How your capacity looks within your team, within your systems, your processes? Because something has gotten you to the point where you are now thinking of pivoting, changing your mission. You’re not talking about kind of a tweak. We’re talking about you changing your mission the way you work. I would say that you are almost at that stage of being really in dire condition. It’s a signal to me to start to focus on the infrastructure a lot more. 

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: Wow! Thank you. Thank you so much for. That’s really telling. Because I think we’re all in the position of having to look at our organizations and determine whether or not what we’re doing for the infrastructure is working. And is it sustainable over time? And asking yourself that question, can you turn down a grant? Because I think a lot of folks are also looking at situations where someone may be a great – Willing to offer you some money. But maybe it doesn’t fit in with your heart strength. So, it may be what their mission is, is really not necessarily what you want to align yourself with. Especially being able to step back and look at that situation and say, “Well, maybe that is what we shouldn’t do. Maybe we keep looking.” Do you have any advice for looking at foundational grants versus more uh corporate type grants? And that goes along with what I was just talking about. Making sure that whatever the mission is of that corporation fits in with your model or your vision. Do you have any suggestions or ideas on how to look at those? 

Nic Campbell: Yeah, I think when it comes to fundraising and development, the work that I do around infrastructure necessarily touches on it, right? Because you want to make sure that you’re strong enough to actually take funds, to actually go out and ask for funds. And so, when I hear – When I ask organizations about donors. Who are they receiving money from? Who’s in their donor base? And when it comes to fundraising and development, the work that I do around infrastructure necessarily touches on it, right? Because you want to make sure that you’re strong enough to actually take funds. To actually go out and ask for funds. 

Nic Campbell: And so, when I ask um organizations about donors. Who are they receiving money from? Who’s in their donor base? And when I hear it’s just all foundations. All private foundations. I like the fact that it’s diversified and it’s not like two foundations or one foundation. But I always want to ask about what about corporations? What about individuals? What about high-net-worth individuals? How about individuals that want to do sort of crowd sourcing, crowd funding types of contributions? 

Nic Campbell: And if they have a strategic response to that to say, “Oh, actually, here’s why corporations are not necessarily interested. Or here’s why they’re making up 2% of our donor um base.” I think that’s fine. But I want to make sure that we’ve had the conversation and I’ve asked the question. Because you need to know who your ideal donor is. And you make sure you’re as diversified as possible. I also think that we need to consider and explore earned income options and models as well. And again, it’s not to say that it is for everyone. But again, I want to make sure that you ask the question and you have a conversation as to why it’s not. 

Nic Campbell: And what I find a lot is that we start off from a place of we are just going after foundation grants. And I think that there’s a lot of other types of donors out there that might be interested in the work that you’re doing and the impact that you’re having that are not foundations. And so, it’s a matter of having that strategic conversation around does it make sense to have a campaign around corporations? Around individuals? Around different types of social impact entities that might be interested in the work that we’re doing? And again, you may not come out saying yes to all of those things. But at least you have the conversation and you’ve raised the question. 

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I have one other – It’s really not a question. It’s just a statement for you to, first of all, say thank you so much for you being a partner with National Network for Justice. You have helped a couple of our members in their infrastructure and their strategic planning. And everybody loves you and thinks that you just are able to just put your thumb on the issue and really help aboard and help the staff work through whatever the issues are that they’re dealing with. So, I want to thank you for that. And please tell people how they can get in touch with you. Any type of service that you want to say that you are here for, that you are doing for folks. I know you are very, very busy. And so, you taking the time out to do this for us is really, really appreciated. And just want to give you the opportunity to talk about – 

Nic Campbell: I really appreciate that, Angelyn. And as I mentioned at the the top of our conversation, I do enjoy the work that we’re doing together and all that NNJ is doing for its members and for the community generally. If people want to be in touch, I would love it if you would be. We have a podcast. It’s called the Nonprofit Build Up. And so, it’d be great if you could take a listen to our episodes and also subscribe, because we would love to have you share all of the new episodes that are coming out. We have conversations with leaders and problem solvers within the sector about how to build infrastructure, fundraising and development. The same kinds of questions that we’ve talked through around do we pivot if we need the money? What does that say about our message and about our organization and sustainability? That’s definitely one way. 

Nic Campbell: Another is to please sign up for our newsletter. We send it out weekly. And we share lots of tips and resources within it. And you can just do that at our website, which is buildupadvisory.com. And you can sign up right there on the website. And right before you sign up, it’d be great if you could take a governance assessment, right? And so, we offer a free governance assessment where you can go on to the assessment and you go through it, answer questions about your board. You can have your colleagues take it as well if there’s more people on staff within your organization. And what we do is we take the information and then we come back with a governance assessment for you to give you an idea of where your organization is in terms of its governance and in terms of its development. Please pop on over to buildupadvisory.com. Take the assessment and also sign up for our newsletter. 

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: Sounds great. I get the newsletter. NNJ was featured in the newsletter a couple times. So, thank you. 

Nic Campbell: That’s right. 

Angelyn Frazer-Giles: So, we appreciate that. But – 

Katy Thompson: And that concludes this week’s episode. As you heard, general support allows nonprofits to have long-term vision while flexibly and easily addressing their immediate needs, which is particularly relevant in crises as we saw when many funders quickly converted their project support grants to general support grants in the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are curious to know how you are thinking about general support funding as either a nonprofit or a funder. Send us your answers and infrastructure comments and questions to hello@buildupadvisory.com.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Keep building bravely.

Read more