philanthropy Archives - Page 3 of 5 - Build Up Advisory Group®

The Call for Nonprofit Leadership with Shawn Dove (Part I & II)

June 24, 2021 Nicole Campbell Podcast

This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, Nic is talking with Shawn Dove. Shawn was the founding Chief Executive Officer of the Campaign for Black Male Achievement or CBMA, a national membership organization committed to improving the life outcomes for Black men and boys. Under Shawn’s leadership, CBMA leveraged more than $212 million in national and local funds for Black Male Achievement, and has grown to include nearly 6,000 individual and 3,000 organizational members across the U.S.

Shawn shared so many rich insights during this conversation and we wanted everyone to receive those insights so we broke this conversation into two parts. Stay tuned for part two next week.

—

Listen to the podcast here:

Part One

Part Two

Resources:

About Shawn Dove

Shawn Dove is the Chief Executive Officer of the Campaign for Black Male Achievement (CBMA), a national membership organization committed to improving the life outcomes for Black men and boys. Under Dove’s leadership, CBMA has leveraged more than $212 million in national and local funds for Black Male Achievement, and has grown to include nearly 6,000 individual and 3,000 organizational members across the U.S.

Since 2008, Dove’s stellar leadership has propelled CBMA from being an initiative of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) into an independent entity that has established an emerging field of Black Male Achievement. Among Dove’s key accomplishments are helping seed the launch of President Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Initiative; brokering a partnership between OSF, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the City of New York to launch the Young Men’s Initiative; and serving as a lead organizer of the Executives’ Alliance to Expand Opportunities for Boys & Young Men of Color.

Prior to CBMA, Dove held more than two decades’ experience as a youth development professional, community-builder and advocate for children and families. For 10 years, Dove served as Program Director of the Harlem Children Zone-operated Countee Cullen Community Center, where he helped spearhead the launch of HCZ’s Fitness & Nutrition Center. His additional leadership roles include Executive Director of The DOME Project; Director of Youth Ministries for First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset, NJ; Creative Communities Director for the National Guild for Community Schools of the Arts; and New York Vice President of MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership.

As evidenced by CBMA’s commitment to narrative change, Dove has continuously created platforms to amplify voices and stories by marginalized people and communities. While at HCZ, he became the founding Editor-In-Chief of Harlem Overheard, an award-winning youth-produced newspaper.

For his catalytic leadership, Dove has been recognized with numerous awards. In 2018 he was awarded the key to the City of Louisville by Mayor Greg Fischer, and was named Black Enterprise’s 2017 “BE Modern Man of the Year.” Dove is also a recipient of the Charles H. Revson Fellowship at Columbia University, and was named one of Ebony Magazine’s Power 100 in 2016.

Dove earned a BA in English from Wesleyan University and is a graduate of Columbia University Business School’s Institute for Not-for-Profit Management. He currently lives in New Jersey with
his wonderful wife and four amazing children.

—

Read the podcast transcription below:

-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. I’m Katy Thompson, BU’s PC and I am doing this week’s guest introduction. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, Nic is talking with Shawn Dove. Shawn was the founding Chief Executive Officer of the Campaign for Black Male Achievement or CBMA, a national membership organization committed to improving the life outcomes for Black men and boys. Under Shawn’s leadership, CBMA leveraged more than $212 million in national and local funds for Black Male Achievement, and has grown to include nearly 6,000 individual and 3,000 organizational members across the U.S.

Katy Thompson:

Since 2008, Shawn’s leadership propelled CBMA from being an initiative of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) into an independent entity that established an emerging field of Black Male Achievement. Among Shawn’s key accomplishments are helping seed the launch of President Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Initiative; brokering a partnership between OSF, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the City of New York to launch the Young Men’s Initiative; and serving as a lead organizer of the Executives’ Alliance to Expand Opportunities for Boys & Young Men of Color.

Katy Thompson:

As evidenced by CBMA’s commitment to narrative change, Shawn has continuously created platforms to amplify voices and stories by marginalized people and communities. While he was the Program Director of the Harlem Children’s Zone, he became the founding Editor-In-Chief of Harlem Overheard, an award-winning youth-produced newspaper.

Katy Thompson:

For his catalytic leadership, Shawn has been recognized with numerous awards. In 2018, he was awarded the key to the City of Louisville by Mayor Greg Fischer, and was named Black Enterprise’s 2017 “BE Modern Man of the Year.” He is also a recipient of the Charles H. Revson Fellowship at Columbia University, and was named one of Ebony Magazine’s Power 100.

Katy Thompson:

Shawn shared so many rich insights during this conversation and we wanted everyone to receive those insights so we broke this conversation into two parts. And with that, here is the first part of Nic’s conversation with Shawn Dove.

Nicole Campbell:

Hi, Shawn. I am really excited to have you joining us for our Fast Build Leader Series.

Shawn Dove:

Hi, Nicole. Thanks so much for inviting me. I’m excited about what you’re doing and just being a part of the Build Up great infrastructure design.

Nicole Campbell:

Yeah, I’m really looking forward to this conversation. To get us started, can you tell us about the Campaign for Black Male Achievement, your role, and the Campaign for Black Male Achievement’s immediate priority?

Shawn Dove:

Sure. So I know we only have about 15 minutes or so. And so I’m going to try my best to give you the microwave answer, you should know better than asking me that question with such a short limited amount of time. The Campaign for Black Male Achievement is a national membership organization that focuses on working with leaders and organizations committed to improving the life outcomes of black men and boys. These are men and women across the country that are committed to this movement. As you know, we were launched 12 years ago at the Open Society Foundations and we were supposed to be a three-year cross fund campaign and with partnership, with commitment, with urgency and momentum, we were able to extend those three year term limits…taken off those term limits and being scaled up. And we spun off into an independent entity in 2015.

Shawn Dove:

And our focus is really about ensuring that the work of this movement in this field, that it grows, it sustains, and that it has an impact. I like to say that CBMA focuses on pouring into the hometown heroes and local leaders across the country, not just black men, you know leaders and cross sector men, women, all races, and genders. And as you know, we just recently announced after 12 years that we are sunsetting the organization in 2020, kind of a sad announcement for sure, but you know, one of my mantras and just lead in organizations is that, you know, if you can reframe what seems like failure, if you can reframe your future. So we’re focusing on so much that CBMA has built and ignited and seeded over the last 12 years, but priorities ensuring that there’s a connectivity that leaders and organizations not within our network that are committed to this word, that they are connected to other leaders in organizations in the field to continue the work and really also to celebrate the legacy of a campaign for black male achievement, right? We’ve, in 12 years, helped to catalyze a field that really did not exist. And I’m really proud of that.

Nicole Campbell:

No, I’ve had the good fortune to do work with CBMA both when it was with Open Society Foundations and then spinning off into its own entity and, you know, serving on the board of CBMA. So I’ve witnessed firsthand the great work that CBMA and the CBMA team is doing. I would love it, Shawn, if you could talk a little bit about just what that transition was like from being a campaign, like talk about what it is, what it means to be a campaign within a large philanthropy to then go into that spinoff where you become an independent entity and how do you maintain some of those campaign elements that made the work super exciting and had so much momentum around, but now you’re building a sustainable organization and you became that independent entity.

Shawn Dove:

I think that’s a really a great question that I’ve been reflecting on a lot these days, as I think about the journey over the last dozen years. And I think one of the things I’ve learned you know, everything dissolves revolves around and resolve around leadership, right? And, you know, the proverbial adage of getting the right people on the right seats on the bus. And I think when I think of when we launched in 2008, I think there are three things that are really important about this whole notion of a campaign. One, Open Society Foundations was taking a risk, right, of creating a fund explicitly focused around black men and boys unapologetically. Two, this whole sense of urgency that originally it was a three year campaign and like, wow. You know, typically the down side of philanthropy and there are, you know, sometimes I started to have a love, hate relationship with philanthropy, has been very catalytic and has ignited a lot of change.

Shawn Dove:

But on the other side, I think that philanthropy sometimes looks at generational and even centuries long issues and systemic issues in this nation and around the world. They believe that they’re going to tap a three-year or five-year grant making cycle. And I think that I am both a social entrepreneur and being able to work with in large institutions, like Open Society Foundations and social entrepreneur, and had the ability to transition from social intrapreneur to social entrepreneur over the last 12 years. But when I think of the launch, I think of three things, I mentioned one risk taker that is important first of the institution, but me as a leader, right. And pushing boundaries out within the organization, acting with urgency. I remember [inaudible] and I always approach in our grant dockets or our next event, or gathering that saying, you never know this might be our last, right, and treating that work and mission with a sense of urgency. And the other is a momentum, risk, urgency, and momentum, and find out where there is momentum. It is clear when we are looking at structural racism and oppression in this nation that no one entity, one note, one leader is not going to create a shift or a change that it requires strategic partnership. It requires where is there momentum. And I think those three things, this whole campaign mindset, risk, urgency, and building momentum.

Nicole Campbell:

And you also talked about that shift of moving from a campaign and a philanthropy to becoming an independent entity. And now you’re talking about sunsetting and you mentioned that during this period, you’re really focused on how do you maintain that connectivity among leaders like the home grown, home town, leaders and making sure that happens. And so in your role as CEO of CBMA, how are you ensuring that that connectivity is happening long after CBMA sunsets?

Shawn Dove:

One thing I will say is that, so while CBMA is a sunset, the work and the need for the work of the black male achievement movement certainly is not sunset at all. I would say that, you know, through our membership network of 8,000 leaders and 3000, our organization, CBMA, I think has done a really phenomenal job through just community building, connecting leaders, to give folks a sense of belonging and a sense of that they are part of something larger than themselves. And so, you know, out of convenience like rumble, young men, rumble promise of place have been opportunities for our leaders and organizations to not just identify with the campaign for black male achievement, but to identify with other leaders both in their own cities and across the nation. And I think that that will certainly continue, you know, when we announced the sunset and I was clear that CBMA had done groundbreaking work over the last 12 years, but a wave of emails, texts, phone calls, where folks said, if it were not for CBMA, they would not be doing this work.

Shawn Dove:

They would not have continued this work. And, you know I think that mission field that CBMA has provided is not necessarily within an organization. It is in, I would say more of this organism, this movement and this connectivity that we’ve helped to engender. And so there are plenty of partners in the field of many of whom that CBMA helped to seed and fund to get started groups like Cities United, Kohl’s Bach, the Coalition of Schools, Educating Boys of Color, Be Me Community, Echoing Green at BMA, a fellowship. And that’s just a small sample of the many organizations and efforts both locally and nationally as CPMA has seeded. I think more importantly behind those organizations are leaders that we have poured into that we have, in some cases validated their work. Where the field is, is fragile. It’s a, wow, this has been a 400 year, I think, battle and fight for racial or social justice.

Shawn Dove:

Still, the black male achievement is relatively a nascent field. And I think we are dealing with many issues of inequity when it comes to funding when it comes to who gets supported and who doesn’t get supported. And so I do think that moving forward that there will certainly be more of a need of deeper collaborations. In some cases, consolidations of organizations, a merging look, some organizations are not going to survive this COVID-19 season. I think CBMA is an example of that. I think that we had some underlying conditions before the pandemic and were placed on a organizational while respirator, once COVID-19 really began to create some shifts with just relationships and with funding. And I just see there’s, I guess, two ways to look at it, right. You know, what’s the opportunity. And I do think the opportunity is all right, here’s an opportunity to start something new in something and begin a new, but I think that we need to see the infrastructure and sustainability of organizations focused on, you know, one of the things that has struck me during the pandemic that, you know, some folks have seen surprised about racial disparities and inequities that COVID-19 as a lifted up, has amplified.

Shawn Dove:

Look, if you’ve been doing this work it’s not a surprise, these inequities and disparities existed for COVID-19. And I do think that you have to be very careful. I look back at Katrina. I look back in 2015 when Baltimore as a city dealt with the uprisings around Freddie Gray and there was a great deal of talk in some cases, actions about change and resources coming in, and the ability to build the infrastructure and with organizations and leaders that are closest to the issues and closest to the solutions are going to be important. And when you talk about philanthropy and we look at our mutual history in the field of philanthropy, I think we have to be really careful to ensure that we don’t make the same mistakes. I have seen where some foundations are creating positions around culture and racial equity, and that we have to be mindful that we cannot put a racial equity icing on a cake that has ingredients of white privilege and white supremacy and disparities because when you cut that cake and you bite into it and you get past the racial equity icing, the ingredients will remain the same, right.

Shawn Dove:

So we got to start all over and we have to build a new infrastructures and systems and get everybody in the kitchen, right. And to contribute. And I think that that’s what I am most excited about what the work that’s happening. And the other thing I will say is that finding the right place for right leadership and right organizations, I think one of the challenges that CBMA face was organizational identity, whether or not we were going to do direct service or be an intermediary organization. And I think since the spin off, we went through at least two strategic planning processes and engagements, trying to figure that out. And I would advise any CEO or leader of an organization that’s listening to this as to number one, get really clear on what you want and what type of organization that you want to lead. I had a mentor that said to me, be clear on what you want, and I need that clarity of all results. And what you’re trying to achieve is going to be like really important in this next phase. And I will say that black people in this nation, we have a history of transforming adverse conditions and challenges into assets. And this COVID-19 pandemic moment is an opportunity to gain deeper purpose, deeper power, but it’s going to certainly have to come with deeper collaborations and connections. And in some cases consolidate, I don’t remember what the question was.

Nicole Campbell:

No, it was really powerful. And you said, you said a lot of things that really resonated with me and talked about validating other organizations and leaders, and I’m really focusing on connectivity and collaboration, looking at how organizations are set up and making sure that infrastructures are strong and sustainable, because those are things that all resonate with me and make me really think about how we’re building organizations and how philanthropies are funding these organizations. And so coordinating them. And so a question I would have for you based on all of what you just explained and the work that CBMA is doing, that you were focused on, what would be your advice to funders beyond the advice of give more money, but what would you say to them so that they could support nonprofits sustainability, both within the crisis that we’re currently in and also beyond?

Shawn Dove:

Yeah, so I think the number one thing, Nicole, I would say to a philanthropy and funders is to trust the leadership of the organizations that you are. That’s number one, I would say trust that you don’t have all the answers, right trust even the leaders that you’re investing in is, does not have all the answers and they may have the vision, but the importance of investing in building a team and building the infrastructure of the organizations. And there has been so much talk about projects, support versus general operating support. And I think the best way to demonstrate trust is to give general operating support long-term. I would also say infuse a spirit of entrepreneurship in your grant making, and then your relationships that comes with the trust that allow and leaders and organizations to be transparent or creating a space to be transparent about mistakes and accountability, and that everything is not going to work right.

Shawn Dove:

And where there is a space where this is a learning environment, there is a partnership and kind of dismantling the power dynamic of the funder here. And the grantee here creates I think, a space where there is more of an exchange or a learning. I would also ask funders to help grantees, to diversify their revenue streams. If we are dependent upon a social justice and racial justice leaders and change agents and social entrepreneurs, we’re dependent upon philanthropy as our sole source of revenue. We are in trouble and the ability to partner with leaders and organizations to create other revenue streams, whether it is you know, fee for service or other ways to generate ironically, at the time CBMA made their decision to sunset. We had laid the groundwork for a membership, the paid membership fee structure, but that kind of collided with the a pandemic. And I think philanthropy can be really helpful with let’s look at ways to create alternative revenue streams for for leaders. And I mean, that, that would be an advice and to be a partner more so than just a funder.

Nicole Campbell:

I really liked that. When you’re talking about trust, I think it’s so true that that transition from project support, certain deliverables, or for limited periods of time versus general support over long periods of time, multiple years, for example, it really does depend on, do you trust this organization to do what they say they’re going to do, right. And having a relationship that is built on trust. But I want to push that answer a little bit more to find out how does a philanthropy take that first step? Because I hear a lot particularly now that everyone’s talking more about, yes, you need to trust the organization and trust the leaders that you’re funding or supporting. But how does the philanthropy who has been giving project support for years upon years has only provided general support to large organizations that, you know, they have been working with for a very long time. How do they make that transition to provide general support of multiple years to some of these organizations that you were talking about earlier, the grassroots organizations that are closest to the communities in need, but also closest to the solution, how do you help them take that first step? What does that look like?

Shawn Dove:

Wow. So that’s a powerful question, Nicole. And it’s almost hard to infuse within the funder, the permission for them to fail. Right? I do think that as grant makers, we have to be comfortable with, you know, what this may not work out right. And giving ourselves permission to fail. I think that that’s one thing, right? I think the other thing is also incumbent upon leaders of the organization and their teams, right. That I still think that you have to state the case that this is, or your organization is a sound investment, right. And that there is one track history, two, there is a vision and there is a plan, three. There is a team…’cause look, you know, at the end of the day, folks are investing in leadership as opposed to programs and projects. And I think just, I would go back to the ability that, you know, this is a learning experience and what are we learning together?

Shawn Dove:

And one of the things that the Campaign for Black Male Achievement had, it still does, a number of mission mantras. And one of them is that together, we are a thinking, doing, learning, growing teaching enterprise. And I think it’s really important that funders allow a organization and leaders space not just be doing, doing, doing, doing because the first date, well, the first thing is together. The second thing is thinking the opportunity to have space for a plan in, right. And I would say room to think about the path forward, particularly when we’re living in a society where the stuff is just changing rapidly. Right here we are on May 25th and on February 25th, the world for us was totally different. And then after the doing, number two, what are we learning here? What do we learn and what are we even learning from our mistakes and failures?

Shawn Dove:

And then the growing piece and understanding that everything does not have to be like scale is not the alter that we all need to go to and throw our resources and our vision. So some stuff certainly needs scale, right? And for some organizations, a scale is not necessarily the end all that impacts where they are, right. And the ability to teach and help others learn what they’re growing. So I think that those factors are truly important in the funder, the donor, you know, grantee leader, organization, you know, investment and understanding that shift, you know happens on, you know, there are going to be changes and the ability to be flexible and adaptable. I think one of the things that we have seen in this pandemic is our ability to as leaders to be adaptable and creative, right? And sometimes that requires making tough decisions saying no to the status quo.

Nicole Campbell:

No, I liked that response a lot, Shawn, because I think what, in addition to scaling, I hear a lot about innovation and what we don’t hear as the book for innovation, which is exactly what you’re talking about, which is permission to fail the learning, the growing experimenting with things that may not work out when you’re all working towards a particular goal. So I really liked that on the other side of that conversation, we talked about the advice that you provide to funders, but what’s 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 particularly now during this time of uncertainty?

Shawn Dove:

Okay. So I was just sending a text to my executive assistant extraordinaire, Valerie, I’m letting her know that we’re going over.

Nicole Campbell:

What time do you need the…what time do you need to jump off?

Shawn Dove:

You know, I want to give you all the time that you need since….

Nicole Campbell:

Because you know, the guilt, right?

Shawn Dove:

I’m often accused of not giving adequate time. So this is the advice that I would give not-for-profits. And most specifically leaders of non-for-profits one work harder on yourself than you do on your job. And one of the primary epiphanies for us over the 12 years with the Campaign for Black Male Achievement is that kind of reaffirming…and less of an epiphany, but an affirmation when you’re doing race work. So to speak, there’s a psychology around it. It is draining. It is hard. It is emotional. It is historical. We are blessed to do this work, but we are also burdened to do this word. And so when I say, you know, work harder on yourself than you do on your job, I would tell leaders that you are way more than your resume.

Shawn Dove:

You are a way more than your organizational charts. If you do not have and are not using mentors, executive coaches, and a therapist, you will be hard pressed to be sustained and doing this work right. And one of the books that I would recommend, no, not the only book, this is not my book question, is this book by Scott Belsky called ‘The Messy Middle.’ Right. And I think I may have sent you that book that really dives into you know, we hear about the launches and we hear about the finishes, but the messy middle is a, every boat adventure deals with this, with organizational challenges and leadership champ challenges. And one of the things that Belsky says in this book is that the only sustainable competitive advantage in business and social entrepreneurship is self-awareness, right? I have on my wall, a bubble to dine on self, be true, and it must follow as the night, the day pants not then be false to any man.

Shawn Dove:

Right? So be truly yourself. So beyond that, which is a lot about work and carving out time for that, I would imagine that at least 20% of your listeners right now are feeling burnt out, feeling pressured, feeling that they are at their wits in trying to stand up an organization, sustain organization and not giving enough attention and focus to sustain and, and standing up themselves as human beings. The other thing I would provide leaders and organization not-for-profits right. And tempted not to say not-for-profits because what we’re really talking about is people and the people make up the organizations. And I think and you’ve heard me talk about these five building blocks, right? And one is, you know, focusing on building your team, you are only as good as your team and the folks around you. And that team includes not only your staff but also on your board.

Shawn Dove:

Right? So that’s the, you know, first thing, you know, building the enterprise, the other thing is building capital. We know that cashflow is king, right. And being able to build and manage capital. The third building block, I would ask folks to focus on is a building community. And what I mean by that is building your tribe, building your network, building your strategic partners that no one organization, you know, it’s a cliche that dream work takes teamwork is a cliche, but it’s true, right? That your ability to build community and folks that are believers in you and your work is really important. The fourth building block is around building the brand and build the strategic communications and the voice and the stories that you want to tell. An organization that does a good job of that is BMe Community and their leader and founder Trabian Shorters often says that, you know, we lead the lies around the stories that we tell to ourselves, right.

Shawn Dove:

And being really clear about a story that the organization, and then you want to tell, you know, for example, CBMA’s chief mission mantra, and story that we convey is that, you know, there’s no Calvary coming to save the day and black communities, right. That we are iconic leaders that we’ve been waiting for, the curators of the change that we’re seeking to see. Right. And so a grant is not necessarily going to save the day in my time open society foundations the most empowering interactions for me have been when leaders have said, you know what? It would be nice to get a grant for Open Society Foundations for the Campaign for Black Male Achievement. But I don’t care if I get a grant or not being part of this movement is an important thing. And because there’s always more demand than supply.

Shawn Dove:

And the building block is building value, right. And being really clear on the value proposition and the unique change that your organization and that you bring as a leader. Right? And so in summary, those five building blocks of building an enterprise slash a team, building capital, building community, building the brand, and building value. Right. And your challenge is, if you are a CEO of an organization, is one understanding that you can’t do all of those and that making the right hires at the right time and being able to manage your time and energy on where you’re going to focus and your time and energy on those five building blocks is, I think, the big challenge that leaders of organizations have.

Katy Thompson:

And that concludes part one of our conversation with Shawn. [Shawn provided so many leadership gems and wisdom that we could not fit it all in one episode.] 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.

The Formula for Action with Veta Richardson

June 17, 2021 Nicole Campbell Podcast

This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re talking Veta Richardson. Veta is President and CEO of the Association of Corporate Counsel or ACC, the world’s largest professional association for in-house counsel. With more than 43,000 members spanning 85 nations and staff located in North America, Asia, Australia, and soon, Europe, ACC offers a global voice and thought leadership for the in-house community.

Veta is widely recognized for corporate governance leadership, having been named to the prestigious Directorship 100 list four times. Previously, as executive director of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association , Veta was widely recognized for thought leadership in the areas of diversity and inclusion and advised hundreds of Fortune 1000 companies and multinational law firms to establish and strengthen their diversity and inclusion programs.

—

Listen to the podcast here:

Resources:

About Veta T. Richardson

Veta T. Richardson is President & CEO of the Association of Corporate Counsel, the world’s largest professional association for in-house counsel. With more than 43,000 members spanning 85 nations and staff located in North America, Asia Australia and soon, Europe, ACC offers a global voice and thought leadership for the in-house community.

Veta is widely recognized for corporate governance leadership, having been named to the prestigious Directorship 100 list four times. Her advocacy regarding the role and positioning of the chief legal officer serves as the basis for recommendations issued to corporate boards by NACD, a US-based multinational directors society.

Previously, as executive director of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA), Veta was widely recognized for thought leadership in the areas of diversity and inclusion and advised hundreds of Fortune 1000 companies and multinational law firms to establish and strengthen their diversity/inclusion programs. Her in-house expertise was shaped over more than a decade as in-house counsel at Sunoco, Inc. in Philadelphia, where her practice focus was corporate governance, transactions, securities disclosure, and finance.

Veta has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Financial Times’ Agenda Week, Bloomberg News, The Financial Post (Canada), Law Society Gazette (United Kingdom), and countless other business and legal publications. She has also authored op-eds and articles in Corporate Counsel, Law360, Forbes, China Business Law Journal, India Business Law Journal, and Ethisphere Magazine. She serves on the editorial advisory board for Asia Business Law Journal and as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law School.

She received a B.S. in Business Management from the University of Maryland at College Park and a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law.

—

Read the podcast transcription below:

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell:

Hi, everyone. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re talking Veta Richardson. Veta is President and CEO of the Association of Corporate Counselor (ACC), the world’s largest professional association for in-house counsel. With more than 43,000 members spanning 85 nations and staff located in North America, Asia, Australia, and soon, Europe, ACC offers a global voice and thought leadership for the in-house community.

Nic Campbell:

Veta has been quoted in several prominent business and legal publications including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the New York Times. She has also authored op-eds and articles in several Law Journals and Forbes and is an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law School. And with that, here is Veta Richardson.

Nicole Campbell:

Hi, Veta. I am so excited to have you joining us for our Fast Build Lead Series and to get us started, can you tell us about the Association of Corporate Counsel, your role there, and the Association’s immediate priorities?

Veta Richardson:

Yes. Well, Nic, first of all, thank you for inviting me to participate in this series. The Association of Corporate Counsel is a global bar association or legal association, and our membership consists solely of in-house counsel or counsel who are employed by the corporations that they serve and advise. And our membership now numbers more than 46,000. It spans 85 countries around the world, and we’re the largest association of our kind.

Nicole Campbell:

And can you talk about your role with the Association and what you spend most of your time on?

Veta Richardson:

Thank you. Well, you did ask me that didn’t you. I didn’t get to that part of it. My apologies. So as President and CEO, my focus is working with the board of directors, which is also global in scope. They are people who come from our membership and generally serve as chief legal officers or senior level counsel to the corporations where they work. And my role is to work with them on setting and executing strategy for the Association; strategy designed to think about how we position the organization best to remain relevant and continue to serve our members all over the world. So we serve through a variety of programs and services. We’re in the education business. Many lawyers are required to complete educational credits to keep their licenses current, as well as keep up with all the laws and regulations that are constantly changing. So education is an important component of our services.

Veta Richardson:

We also support with resources that are designed to help in-house counsel avoid recreating the wheel. So what we do is we leverage the power and knowledge of our membership who help one another. So if someone has to develop a cyber security policy, there will be another member who’s already gone that route and may have contributed theirs. That can be redacted, of course, but then shared. So if you need a sample policy or form, or to understand how to do something that may be novel to you but someone else has experienced, we provide resources that are practical help-guides for our members to do their jobs. And then the third way that we serve is for professional development and career advancement reasons, members like to connect with other people and peers. And so we serve a very important networking function and our networks are established at the local level through our chapters.

Veta Richardson:

We have 60 chapters around the world, but in addition to our local network of chapter members, we also have online for it that exists, that are more focused around a practice area and focus. So labor and employment lawyers, securities, and finance lawyers, people who do compliance and ethics, people who do intellectual property. So different practice area focused networks, as well as networks that are focused on how to run the law department, law department management, legal operations, running a small law department, which has challenges that are separate and unique from running a larger department. So that’s how we serve. And I’ve been CEO of the association since 2011, way back when I started practicing law, I was a member and joined ACC right out of law school.

Nicole Campbell:

Well, that is really great, Veta. And when you’re talking about the Association is global, it’s in many different countries, different jurisdictions. And I wonder if you could talk about how do you as a leader create that kind of environment where people want to network, where they want to do this kind of information sharing. And you mentioned policies, for example, how do you foster that kind of comradery quite frankly, across the globe from where you sit?

Veta Richardson:

Yes. Well, you know, it’s a very interesting dynamic within ACC. Certainly coming from the community, having been a member. And I was in-house counsel to an energy company for a little more than 10 years. So I came from a very large law department, understood how they work, understood some of the challenges and opportunities potentially for service. So as I moved from a practicing lawyer into the bar association community in a service role for two positions before I became CEO of ACC, I brought that perspective with me. And what’s interesting about the in-house counsel community, Nic, unlike other areas for lawyers is lawyers, perhaps in law firms, compete with one another and other law firms to generate the business that they need and to develop client relationships. But in-house counsel are unique in that they have one client, their employer, from whom they get more than enough things to do and work.

Veta Richardson:

So it’s not a competitive relationship per se, between in-house counsel. So there is greater opportunity to encourage them to share and to get to know one another, there’s this natural desire to connect with one another because they all share being part of a larger corporation where the business is not law, the business is some other sector or focus, and they all share the responsibility to get to know the business, but apply that legal knowledge to the business to help them advance their objectives. So there’s this natural commonality to want to know, Hey, you’re like me, one small sector law within a bigger corporation that has very additional verticals and we have to be able to serve the organization well. So tell me, how do you do this? And there’s a natural desire to share and to have that exchange. So that really preexisted me. It’s one of the reasons that ACC was founded.

Veta Richardson:

So I was fortunate to, when I graduated from law school, be hired by one of ACC’s founders and he had the perspective that he wanted lawyers to come into his law department, who were, what he called baby lawyers, not people who had worked someplace else, but who would work and learn through his model of teaching about how to be a good in-house counsel. And so coming in with that type of general counsel, as my first employment situation showed me and the organization was founded on wanting to create opportunities for in-house counsel to be able to share and to serve their corporation better. So there isn’t competition that way. There’s a desire to connect and compare, contrast exchange war stories. And that’s always been a part of ACC since its founding. So my delay is figuring out how to harness what they want and offer opportunities for them to be able to share and post and exchange and come together and learn.

Nicole Campbell:

I think that’s great because you have a sort of natural environment for the cooperation to exist and for members to work with each other. And so a question I have around your membership and what you’re doing, and this pandemic, this environment that we’re in, what has changed or what have you started doing more of, or less of within ACC for your membership, given the uncertainty that we’re in? You know, we’re also in this moment of social justice unrest and what has changed or what have you been thinking about more or less during this time?

Veta Richardson:

Wow, that question is so big in terms of what’s changed. So what’s changed for our members, is everything from where they work, because the majority of our membership were moved from working in a normal office environment, like I was accustomed to, and many of us are accustomed to, two because of COVID having to move their work environment to home. So that was the biggest shift. And we do know from surveying our members, doing a flash poll, the overwhelming majority of our members, you know, like in the 80 and 90 percentile, told us that that transition to home, because of being technology enabled, was pretty seamless. That way that they were working effectively from home, which was a delight to be able to hear, because I know that a lot of other sectors and other professionals had more difficulty making that transition. But many of our lawyers also because of being a global organization, many of them had clients, anyhow, client like business people, that were not located within their physical space.

Veta Richardson:

You know, so if you were based in New York, but you also provide legal support to a division in Europe or in the Middle East or in South America, you’re always having to communicate virtually or through online or a telephone, anyhow. So making that transition to home, people felt that they were very technology supported by their employers as lawyers to be able to do that effectively. But then once people got home, the challenges that we all face about being at home, and there are others potentially in your home with whom you’re sharing space. So well, our members then, when we had flash polls, reported that they had challenges; negotiating children who may be at home, but who are involved with online education, having to tutor kids, because they’re not going into a physical classroom with a teacher like they were. So people are balancing that you’re also balancing trying to stay safe because COVID is a vicious disease, trying to make sure that you have the things that you need outside of the work environment and all that is going on within the home environment too.

Veta Richardson:

I noticed that for our council, they said that work-life balance became even more difficult because when you work in your home; cutting it off was a little more of a challenge than it is sometimes when you physically separate from your space and make that commute home. Now the commute home may be to a different room or the stairs or down the stairs in terms of separating from your office environment, and then some had spouses or partners who were working from home too, who you had to figure out, how are you going to negotiate that space? Because most people did not have their home environment set up with two complete office environments for perhaps the two adults and then children having to use space as well. So people were having challenges, negotiating all those boundaries, as well as just worrying about the impacts of COVID on themselves, their loved ones, their communities.

Veta Richardson:

So when we conducted wellness surveys, we heard that our members were feeling extreme stress. Some reported that they were having depression, having anxiety waking up in the middle of the night, having difficulty sleeping. These things were going on, probably just the same as, you know, the general population and citizenry, people were feeling stressed and concerned. So we saw that although lawyers are very fortunate, tend to be among the most educated in society, most have very good incomes, are in safe spaces in terms of having a safe home to retreat to, but the other things were causing all kinds of stresses on our membership. So one of the things we saw that was interesting, Nic, is a spike whenever we would offer wellness programs. And as a leader, when we first discussed it, I thought, oh, I wonder what wellness programs, lawyers being so stoic, will this be something that they gravitate to, or see ACC as a place to seek assistance and guidance in managing?

Veta Richardson:

And we found that our wellness programs really went off the charts in terms of participation, hearing from people that it was appreciated, that they liked knowing that other in-house counsel were experiencing the same thing. They were not alone. And I think that was a dynamic of being at home. You have less of a connection to know about the challenges that others like you are facing. So sometimes you feel like it’s me who’s having a problem. Everyone else is doing okay. And it was validating to hear, no, everyone’s having a difficult time trying to navigate these new circumstances. I will also share that in terms of some of the racial justice issues that have come to the fore, ACC was reasonably quick to issue a statement regarding the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of police. The extreme upset that caused anger, that humanity of any individual would be violated that way, concern as lawyers about what are going to be the next steps, because that was a situation that cried out for attention justice, re-examination of problems, concerns the societal failings that had resulted in loss of life, the way that we’ve seen.

Veta Richardson:

So when ACC issued its statement and did so I think back on June the second or so, and it went to all 46,000 ACC members and it was posted on all of our social media accounts, I received an overwhelmingly positive response from members all over the world who were saying, thank you. We appreciated your statement. We appreciate the fact that it was not watered down, that it was specific in terms of calling out the violations on humanity that we all witnessed. But beyond calling it out, we also said that we want to be part of a dialogue to empower in-house counsel as leaders in their organization.

Veta Richardson:

And lawyers are leaders in their communities. We needed to empower people so that they could, in their communities and their corporations, be a positive force to make a difference and address some of these systemic issues. After that we’ve launched Allies for Change partnership with the Society of Human Resources Management, SHERM. SHERM is global in scope like ACC, but much bigger. They have more than 300,000 members, are in hundreds of countries around the world and have quite a reach. So ACC partnered with SHERM. We’ve held a couple of webcasts that first sought to define some of the concerns that we see, bring in other corporate leaders from the chief legal officer and chief human resources officer community, to talk about how the lawyers and the human resources professionals in their organizations can come together to really look at policies, programs, approaches within their workplace in order to address and make sure that they are not inadvertently unconsciously or even through neglect, consciously creating workforces that are less inclusive than we would all feel proud to be a part of. So those dialogues started.

Veta Richardson:

Then we had a second dialogue with SHERM that was led by Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHERM CEO. The first one I moderated that was all about looking at some workforce surveys that SHERM, which has a fantastic research conducted to look at how people are feeling in the workplace and look at some of the differences between how black people and white people in the workplace look at how their organization is doing. They also look at what may be going on in society. There were stark differences there.

Nicole Campbell:

What really comes out for me is just one, having that foresight and insight into your membership to say, let’s do a wellness survey. Let’s find out how people are doing, how they’re coping and understand where they’re coming from. And then on top of that, add an action, right, to the information that you get. So not just hearing it and saying, oh, now we know, but here’s what we’re going to do in response to that information, to receive that information. And similarly with the racial justice statement that you made. So not only just saying this is where we stand, which is just, I think bold for a lot of organizations, but this is how we are coming on in terms of racial justice. This is what is important to us. This is what matters, but then also adding action to that and saying, okay, with that being said, here’s what we will do. So I do appreciate it just from being so insightful, but also taking that action behind it, which I don’t think that combination you’re seeing on a lot of organizations doing your responses resonates so much with me. And I know, Veta…

Veta Richardson:

I just want to share that that approach is pretty much ACC formula. We start first with trying to dig in and understand where are our members? Because we’re a membership association. We’re not trying to serve all lawyers or all of society. Our focus is on in-house counsel and how to serve them, how to empower them. And however, they need to be empowered to do the best job that they can in their corporations and their communities. So when you focus on who is it that we serve and being real crystal clear about who that group is and who that group isn’t. Now there may be things that ACC does that the accountants might say that resonates with me and I can try it. Or the tax professionals may see it, or someone who has retail might think, oh, I could do those things too, but we’re not trying to serve them.

Veta Richardson:

We’re focused on in-house counsel. So it starts for us with being clear on who we serve. And then being curious about where are they? Oh, you’re here. Sounds like you might need, is this what you might need? Yes. Develop it, offer opportunities for them to come together and share because the power of this network is really when they get together and exchange with one another and identify, oh, you may be doing this. I could see us doing that, but maybe we should put a spin on it a little bit. That makes it better for our own organization. So then bringing people together so they can hear what others are doing to either replicate or modify it. So it works for them. And then collecting practical steps to make it easy to implement and do or undertake that’s our magic formula. So it’s about who we serve, what they need, what can we do to help deliver it, give them opportunities to share, to make it the best it can be for their personal situation, and then equip them with resources that are practical in nature so they can implement and do.

Nicole Campbell:

And I think it’s about knowing your why, and being able to live out your organizational values so that it shows up in everything you do and naturally that’s coming through in what you’re explaining ACC does. And I know that you are not a 501(C)(3), as many of the listeners probably are in. But I wonder if you could talk more about your organization structure and your tax status as it relates to the sector.

Veta Richardson:

Yes. So Nic, I’m going to start off by saying I’m not a tax attorney to know why they chose 501(C)(6) versus (C)(3). All I can speak to is the differences as best I can communicate it, which would be a 501(C)(3), that would qualify more as a charitable organization, an organization that individuals can make a donation to and take a charitable deduction in the United States for income tax purposes. We were a 501(C)(6), so donations to us, maybe it will qualify as a business deduction or business donation. People who join our membership, don’t get a charitable deduction. The dues they pay would be a business expense. So it’s very different. Our structure allows us two buckets of funding possibilities, dues, which is a fee that you pay per individual, or there are group discounts for the whole organization to sign up it’s lawyers.

Veta Richardson:

That’s one category dues revenue, and then we have non-dues revenue. And that would come from things like our educational conferences. We do research reports and people buy access to them. We have organizations who serve in-house counsel or the legal profession, law firms, e-discovery companies, executive recruiting firms, people who provide services that in-house counsel may want to buy to make their organization run or buy because they have that purchase responsibility on behalf of the company. So organizations that want to promote what they do for in-house counsel to consider buying those products or services also offer us underwriting or sponsorship revenue to support our events, to advertise online, to want to put forth their white papers and pay a fee for people to be able to distribute for ACC, to distribute that so that they can get visibility and perhaps be considered for retention or purchase opportunity. So those are only two buckets; dues, non-dues, on the dues side, education. People would pay a fee to attend, or people are paying to sponsor to get visibility at that educational conference and showcase perhaps their expertise in an area.

Nicole Campbell:

Well, you know, it’s interesting because I think a lot of (C)(3)s actually are thinking about membership structures. I think we’re just in a time where membership subscription types of models are really prevalent and many organizations that I’ve talked to are exploring what that could look like. And when you think about your membership dues, I know you mentioned that you have some people in more departments that are very large and some people in all departments that are very small. And can you talk about how you go about thinking through the membership peers or the membership for different types of members based on size? Is it based on the amount of benefits that are provided to different team members? You know, like a tiering type of structure, just to really give us a basic understanding of, for an organization that’s thinking I would love to pursue this membership model. I’d love to get dues. We have really active quote-unquote members, but how do we monetize that, but still provide a benefit to those members?

Veta Richardson:

Yeah, well, for us, we don’t make our membership dues structure overly complicated. You can join as an individual or you can be signed up as part of a corporate membership. So there are those two ways now, as ACC went global, one of the things that our board of directors had a conversation about is that our basic dues rate, however many dollars that translates in us dollars for certain sectors of the world, where the economies may not be as developed to pay the same rate X dollars us in other locations where in-house counsel salaries are not at the same scale would have prevented ACC from potentially being able to reach different sectors around the globe. So in that regard, we use standards that are published from world bank standards regarding how nations are tiered in terms of their economies. And by reference to where the nation is tiered, it may result in injustice and up or down with respect to the basic dues. And so that’s how we adjust being global in scope, if someone wishes is located in Egypt and they wish to join ACC, the cost that an individual in-house counsel would pay based in Cairo, would be different than the cost of an individual membership for someone headquartered in New York city.

Nicole Campbell:

No, that makes sense. And the fact that you’re taking that into account, right, it goes back to what you said about knowing who you serve and who you want to reach. And so being able to tailor even your membership structure to pull in those people, I think is extremely important. And so if I’m looking at a leader who is running a (C)(3) organization and he, or she is thinking about how do I scale my impact, how do I start to think about leading this organization in a way that will allow it to consistently and sustainably show up for the communities that we’re working with? What advice would you give to that leader? If that organization were just getting started? So on the more the startup side versus an organization that has been around for a longer period of time is out of that startup phase.

Veta Richardson:

Yes. Well, if I were starting up an organization, I would think about one focus on your mission and what is it that you’re trying to do to make a difference? Because every mission statement is about service and making a difference in one or more particular types of ways. So I would start with really being very mission focused in terms of what is it that you’re trying to achieve for individuals or for society or whatever your constituency of need or focus might be. Then secondly, once you think about that, we all have to naturally think about, well, what are the programs and services that we can execute that will be mission furthering? And then how are we going to fund it, right? Because you can make up as many great programs as you wish, but what are sources of revenue going to be to enable those programs that, you know, we believe will make a difference to be able to come to fruition and all programs require financial investment, as well as human investment in order to be able to do that.

Veta Richardson:

So assuming that, you know, you think about the competencies of the people that you need to execute. And that’s very, very important. I think sometimes that organizations can get a little bit too focused on one or the other meaning finances or people to help with execution and ignore one. But you have to be focused equally on both because if you don’t have good people to execute your programs in a highly professional way where you can demonstrate a return on the investment that someone may make through a contribution or a membership, then you’re going to be at a loss because you will find yourself in a situation where people like what you have to say. So they make that initial contribution. But the way that you execute is faulty or leave something to be desired. You don’t get an additional investment. So it becomes a one and done, and how I look at every relationship as a leader, whether it’s members, it’s board members, it’s people I interact with externally it’s people who fund sponsors.

Veta Richardson:

I don’t want any relationship to be one and done when you’re in the business of a nonprofit, trying to make a difference in communities. However you define your community focus may be, you have to be about building relationships for that organization, for the long-term. So when people make a donation as a leader, you have to be really mindful about the value that they receive back. If it’s someone who’s donating so that you can help a community in need, and all they want is the satisfaction of knowing that their dollars were well spent. You have to be about demonstrating to them what the positive impact you were able to make from their donations and those of others. So the first thing you want to do is to focus on your mission, be clear about who you’re wanting to serve, be focused on what programs or initiatives are going to be mission furthering to advance service to that community or constituency.

Veta Richardson:

And then thinking about how are you going to fund it, whether that’s through donation, you know, it could be through a membership model, but however, you are collecting a contribution, you have to think about how am I going to demonstrate back to the person who makes that contribution, whether it’s an annual membership dues or contribution underwriting program, or a service, how am I going to demonstrate back to those who have given me money, that there is value that we’ve created value and been good stewards of what they’ve entrusted us with. And only when you focus on that, do you have relationships that aren’t one and done, but that stick with you and that you can cultivate and advance for a longer term, but what’s important to your execution or the people who are in your organization and making sure that they’re engaged, that they’re delivering, they’re communicating and giving you what you need as a leader, to be able to manage those constituent relationships.

Nicole Campbell:

You have these core pillars that you’re using to build out this organization. And what I like is that you’re keeping at the core of all of that relationship building and value creation, right? Like what if this person does contribute money or their time? What is the value that they’re receiving in return? And a question I have for you, Veta, on all of that is what does infrastructure look like to support those things? When you think about infrastructure. And I know that that word is used a lot of different ways, but when I use it, I mean about your governance, thinking about what the board looks like, your governance structure, your operations or policies, practices that are turned into actual policies are formalized that way. And then how you’re structured, you know, are you a C6, a C3 externally, but also as you mentioned, like having the right people in the right heat, so to speak, so they have the right core competencies to actually do the work. Then you start to think about infrastructure that way. And what you mentioned in terms of this is what, as a leader, you should be focusing on, how does infrastructure come into play for that leader and for you as a leader of ACC?

Veta Richardson:

Yes. Well, infrastructure and governance are really important. And I, as a leader, you need to spend time proactively thinking about it, not just accepting structures that may have existed when you came into the role, you know, and if you are coming into a role fresh, that I would say coming into it fresh and having the opportunity to create the structure and governance approaches from the initial days of the organization, you have a gift. But for that, it’s going to take a lot more effort to look at how others who may be in similar space or doing similar service models, to be more curious into how are they structured or set up. So you can cherry pick the best. But when you come into an organization that already has existing structures, as I did, you’re looking at it more from a critical eye about how am I going to revamp or revise, not blow up and start again.

Veta Richardson:

So especially for an organization that was around for decades, by the time I was named its third CEO. So in that case, my challenge is I came into ACC, was that for more than in 10 years, ACC had set a goal of being a global organization, but for a variety of reasons, had not done well in ability to execute acute that vision. I believe that one of the key revamps or approaches ways that I looked at it that was different from ACC previously was, I went about focusing on the people to make sure that they had global competencies and more of a global perspective. So, if you’ve only thought about serving and doing business in the United States, it’s quite a shift to all of a sudden think that your service model is now going to address people whose experienced culturally language, legal jurisprudence structure is entirely different.

Veta Richardson:

Easy example is when we write in our publication Supreme Court, here in the U S everyone presumes, oh, everyone knows. We mean U.S. Supreme Court. Well, no, that’s not true because there is a Supreme Court equivalent that may not be called that. And that is very distinct and different in every nation around the world. And so it required with our own team, disrupting our own biases and presumptions that the team had come to have focused solely on serving a us and north American market for in-house counsel. So we had to do multi-cultural training. We had to think about how we hire people and what are the skills and backgrounds and competencies that we want people to have. Now, our interview process asks people about their global competencies. They can be demonstrated because they may have been born and educated outside the United States.

Veta Richardson:

They may be first immigrant from a first immigrant family. So they didn’t grow up necessarily in the United States and educated here. It may be someone who studied international studies and has more of a competency through academic, you know, training and focus, or it could be because the person’s traveled extensively and has spent time living or working outside the U.S. So those things are prized when we have people apply. Those are the resumes that, you know, move to the top of the list because we believe that they will come to the organization with greater sensitivity on serving, beyond our headquarters, geographic boundaries. And in addition for our board of directors, which was not nearly as global as our board is now, it meant that as we go through nominations process and think about people who will be invited to join our global board of directors that we do.

Veta Richardson:

So with building it to be a global board. So I’m really excited about the fact that previously you could probably have counted on one hand, the number of ACC board members over a span of almost 30 years. By the time I became CEO who had come and worked from outside the U.S. well, now you count the number. And it is so global that when we try to host a conference call, we’re trying to deal across eight or nine different time zones. And recently held our global board meeting. We had some board members in Pacific, us who are getting up at 5:00 AM for the two hour board meeting. And we had our members in Australia who were, you know, starting at 10:00 PM their time and all times in between. And so how you go about even scheduling those gatherings to have strategic discussions is a management issue in itself.

Veta Richardson:

But it’s one that we’re delighted about because having those diverse perspectives have made us such a better high performing organization. A little metric is when I started at ACC, we had about 29,000 members and about 28, 20 9,000 members. And our out of us presence was largely Europe and Canada, but it was around 9% outside the U.S. Today. Our presence has grown in, you know, about nine year span to 46,000. And our outside of us presence is about 25 or 26% of our global membership, which gets harder because every year, the denominator of how many members we have keeps going up. So to get that percentage to 25, it’s been really a journey for us. And one that’s enriched our association and allowed our members to really connect with their peers around the world, which is what they told us they wanted.

Nicole Campbell:

Everything you said about working globally really resonates with me. And it’s the reason that I love international work because it forces you to step outside yourself, so to speak and outside of your own box. And it forces you to keep in mind different perspectives is a constant reminder of that. So everything that you’ve said about why you think of that sort of global competence as important when you’re recruiting and trying to get people onto the ACC team and the board completely resumes with me, because I know just from working in that space, it’s very true. Even down to scheduling calls, like you’re constantly reminded, not just, you know, Eastern time, for example.

Veta Richardson:

I will also say Nic, what has been instrumental in making our team so diverse and high-performing is being purposeful about how we recruit. So when I came to ACC, they had a program where people would refer people that they knew and get paid a bonus. You know, if they refer to successful candidate, I didn’t want a friends and families sort of network, and I’m not criticizing that. But if you’re trying to move the composition of your group to have perspectives and abilities that are diverse and different having referral systems before you’re diverse, doesn’t get you there. You know, if we were to implement that now, given how diverse and there are like nine or 10 languages that are spoken within our staff, maybe more. Yes, but we’re ACC was versus where it is now to get there. We had to have open competition. We had to spread word about job opportunities as widely as we can. We specifically outreached to diverse communities of color as well, to make sure that when there is an opportunity, people would hear about it widely. And so we would get very, very high, highly capable applicants that we then were able to pick from among. And so we made it very competitive to get into our organization and are really pleased with the quality of people that we have as well as we’ve been able to bring on.

Nicole Campbell:

That definitely comes through, because what I’m hearing is just very deliberate. So it doesn’t just happen. And you say, well, we want this. And then it just organically happen if you’re being deliberate about it. And I think it’s really important that, like you said, you can’t have a diverse workforce, a diverse board, rich is just going to produce much better results for the organization, unless you are deliberate about that. We can’t just hope that into being, but I think you’ve come through very clearly that what ACC does is deliberate and it’s clearly working, right? When you have the increase in membership and also that significant increase in the diversity of that membership.

Veta Richardson:

Yeah, but, I’ll also say what this team has been able to achieve being so diverse. And high-performing when I first came to ACC our budget or our revenue was in the range of about 16 million. Now with COVID, it’ll be 23 million, but a normal year for us would be in the range of 26, 20 7 million for our budget. So that’s substantial growth and it would not have been achievable without such a diverse and high-performing team to really dig in and have competencies to serve a global membership.

Nicole Campbell:

You know, your responses and our conversation has just been so powerful because of the insights that you brought to that conversation. 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 in order to close us out. What book do you think we should read next? Or what artists do you think we should be paying attention to

Veta Richardson:

A book or an artist? What’s funny is there’s a book. It’s a really simple little book that I read all the time. And it has a companion book too, that I especially like. I read it more to remind myself about what’s possible. So the first one was ‘Who Moved My Cheese’. And I like it cause it’s just a fast little parable, but a professor from Harvard wrote a counter to it called ‘I Moved The Cheese’. And it’s more about how you are empowered to influence your environment. And that’s something that I spend time as a leader focused on. I like books that really help you as a leader, focus on understanding where you are, but also the awesome responsibility that you have to move an organization forward and not feel that COVID is doing this to us or the economy is doing that to us. But what is it that we can do notwithstanding these challenges to continue our mission, make a difference, stay well-funded. And that reminder of the awesome power that you have as a leader, to be central, to figuring that out and executing that those are the messages that I need as we face the challenges that we’re facing. So I find that most helpful and instructive.

Nicole Campbell:

I think they’re incredibly relevant for the times that we’re in now, where people are thinking hard about what can they do as individuals and to just have that reminder is critical. And so you mentioned ‘Who Moved My Cheese’ and that’s by Spencer Johnson.

Veta Richardson:

Yeah, and ‘I Moved The Cheese’.

Nicole Campbell:

And then we’ll put that in the show notes so everyone can have access to it. And again, you have shared such knowledge and insight that I think leaders across the sector can practically use in their own organizations to help them build bravely. And I think that that is where the difference is made. So not just this theory that people take in, but theory plus action. And I think you’ve done both so well today. So thank you again for your time and for joining us.

Veta Richardson:

Thank you, Nic. And I want to say to all the other women, particularly African-American women, who are in leadership roles too, the other resource that I would recommend that just reminds you of who you are and where we come from would be ‘Phenomenal Woman’ by Maya Angelou. That is a favorite poem of mine.

Nicole Campbell:

Agreed, thank you so much, Veta.

Veta Richardson:

Thank you. All right, bye.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell:

Leveraging Systems for Sustainability and Opportunity with Jim Shelton

June 9, 2021 Nicole Campbell Podcast

This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re talking Jim Shelton. Jim is the Chief Impact and Investment Officer at Blue Meridian Partners, a philanthropic vehicle that identifies and scales solutions to the problems trapping youth and their families in poverty. He also serves as a Senior Advisor to KKR Global Impact and is a nonresident Fellow at the Brookings Institute.

Jim was the co-founder of Amandla Enterprises and the former Deputy Secretary of Education and founding Executive Director of My Brother’s Keeper under President Barack Obama. He also worked in business, government, and the non-profit sectors as an operator, investor, and entrepreneur. In these roles, Jim has utilized management, policy, and programmatic innovations to increase access to opportunity.

—

Listen to the podcast here:

Resources:

Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do

About Jim Shelton

Jim Shelton, is the Chief Impact and Investment Officer at Blue Meridian Partners a philanthropic vehicle to identify and scale solutions to the problems trapping youth and their families in poverty. He also serves as a Senior Advisor to KKR Global Impact and is a nonresident Fellow at the Brookings Institute.

Jim was the co-founder of Amandla Enterprises and the former Deputy Secretary of Education and founding Executive Director of My Brother’s Keeper under President Barack Obama. He also worked in business, government, and the non-profit sectors as an operator, investor, and entrepreneur. In these roles, he has utilized management, policy, and programmatic innovations to increase access to opportunity.

Jim holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science from Morehouse College and Master’s degrees in both Business Administration and Education from Stanford University. He lives in his hometown – Washington, DC – with his wife and two sons.

—

Read the podcast transcription below:

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell:

Hi, everyone. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re talking Jim Shelton. Jim is the Chief Impact and Investment Officer at Blue Meridian Partners, a philanthropic vehicle that identifies and scales solutions to the problems trapping youth and their families in poverty. He also serves as a Senior Advisor to KKR Global Impact and is a nonresident Fellow at the Brookings Institute.

Nic Campbell:

In these roles, Jim has utilized management, policy, and programmatic innovations to increase access to opportunity. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science from Morehouse College and Master’s degrees in both Business Administration and Education from Stanford University.

And with that, here is Jim Shelton.

Nic Campbell:

Hi, Jim. I am really excited to have you joining us for our Fast Build Leader Series and to get us started, can you tell us about Blue Meridian Partners, your role there, and Blue Meridian’s immediate priority?

Jim Shelton:

Sure. So Blue Meridian Partners is a pretty unique non-profit vehicle where high net worth individuals and foundations come together to invest at scale and solutions that take people out of poverty. In recent days, we’ve made sure that our work focuses in two areas. One is accelerating and improving economic and social mobility. And the second is centering on the issues and the systems and structures that will allow for greater racial equity. Those two things go together as you well know.

Nic Campbell:

And can you talk about what you do there and…

Jim Shelton:

Sure. So I’m, what’s called the Chief Investment and Impact Officer. So I help with setting strategy across all of our investment areas. We invest in solutions that work on national scaling. We have a place-based portfolio, we have a portfolio that’s focused on, we call it justice and mobility. So not only focusing on getting people out of the criminal justice system, but if you are involved in criminal justice system or impacted by it, how do you actually get a real second chance and get mobile. So involved in each of those strategies, as well as working across the strategies to look for alignment and ways to get maximize our impact?

Nic Campbell:

When I think about the structure of Blue Meridian, what should come to mind for me? Is it similar to a donor collaborative, a giving circle, or is it something else?

Jim Shelton:

Yeah, I think that for folks who are familiar, it is a lot like a giving circle, right? There’s a set of folks who have committed to working together to invest. The thing that is distinct is that there is a professional staff that’s in place to source new opportunities, to bet the opportunities, to frame up the investment in a way that will drive the kind of improvement in organizations’ impact, and reach, and influence that they aspire to most importantly, but also that the philanthropic investors would aspire to. And so if you think about it almost like a private investment firm for impact, right, but where the investment committee is made up of the partners who are the largest investors.

Nic Campbell:

And given the time that we’re in, Jim, I know you talked about the two focus areas for Blue Meridian, how is that showing up in terms of the work that you’re doing now?

Jim Shelton:

Sure. So it was really interesting is like we had, in 2019, we had actually made applications to our strategy to kind of make these adjustments to the overall strategy, to move from youth development to broader focus on economic mobility, understanding of racial equity. So what’s really interesting about it is, is we had COVID and everything else, taking a hard look to say, so what needs to change about the core of our strategy? And the reality is the core of remaining the same, right? Like economic and social mobility still remains critically important. It is actually, in many ways, the issue of the day when you get past the fundamental rights of human beings and taking a systemic look at that is also critical, which is the way we tend to approach the work. And then what we’ve seen is both for COVID and through the racial unrest that has come after the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd Mathers is that our country was just showing us the fault lines that we already had around inequity and that the work that we were doing to lean in to the criminal justice system to lean in on economic mobility was more important.

Jim Shelton:

What we did was we took a hard look on what would be immediately relevant, right? What kinds of things could had a special need right now? So we had a set of relatively early stage organizations for Blue Meridian that we had invested in. And we decided to say, not only what we helped stabilize our overall portfolio, but were there any that, because of the context, might have a real opportunity to expand to meet need. And so, for example, you may have heard of the Family Independence Initiative, that is one of our investees. And we had the opportunity to help invest in scaling their infrastructure, as well as doing some emergency response, to pass through some additional dollars to families that might need some crisis intervention. Again, the bulk of our work basically remained the same, right? We’re trying to build solutions to the problems that actually getting the people’s a way to coming up really mobile and then having more power in their lives.

Nic Campbell:

Jim, I like how you phrased it, right? Which is this, this pandemic, this unrest, is just showing us the fault lines in our system. And we were talking about Blue Meridian and saying, okay, what is immediately relevant to us? And what should we be focused on? And along those lines, I’m wondering if you could tell me what kind of advice would you share with nonprofits that fundraise as part of generating revenue during this time, when you’re thinking we need to focus on things that are immediately relevant, look at the fault lines to really instruct us where we need to go. But you have organizations that are trying to raise money during this time as well. So how do they prioritize and what should they be prioritizing?

Jim Shelton:

Yeah. So I think that it’s important to remember that people have now gotten clear that this is not going to be quick, that even the health crisis has been protracted, the economic impact is going to be protracted. The racial issues that we have to address are not going to resolve quickly. So while people are still…philanthropists in particular, are still interested in being responsive to the need. People are also starting to think, okay, how do I make sure that what I’m doing today is going to have a lasting impact? How do I make sure that it doesn’t…there’s not just one time aid, but it’s something that can go a bit further. There is still an interest in emergency relief and things like that, but people are saying, how does this set up someone to make it to the next run? As opposed to there was, I think, early on, Hey, people are going to be hurting, let’s just get more resources in their hands.

Jim Shelton:

And so for the nonprofits, what I would say is, I think that you wanna keep yourself in that context of saying, here’s how we’re being responsive, but here’s why we were a part of the recovery. And frankly, here’s why we’re important to the systems in the long-term. Relevance in this near-term, the medium-term, and in the long-term, is I think still one of the most compelling arguments. And I think that there’s going to be too, did you have a compelling value proposition that you bring it to the folks that are going to be most impacted. Or at least your particular population, wherever that might be.

Nic Campbell:

Right, and just really looking at it in terms of sustainability at the end of the day. Like when you’re thinking about what’s relevant now, what’s relevant in the immediate future, and then what’s relevant longer term. You’re thinking about how can you yourself as an organization be sustained throughout those periods, as well as the communities that you’re working with. Right? And then trying to really show your value proposition to donors or partners or other stakeholders. So that makes sense to me. Now, if I’m a funder and I’m receiving that message, you know, it’s still COVID, we still have all these issues happening around us. What advice are you giving me? I’m having a lot of these conversations. I’m getting a lot of these inquiries. What do I need to do during this time?

Jim Shelton:

So one, I’d say there’s no cookie cutter answer because a lot of philanthropic investing is tied to both the values and the preferences of the folks who you are representing. And also whatever particular mission you set out, with the funding that you may have access to. And what I mean by that is that there are still going to be pressing needs, right? And it is not in Blue Meridian’s history that we would invest in short-term meat. But when COVID hit, we set up a hundred million dollar emergency relief fund and a little bit more than half of that went to ways of providing aid to people who might not get it otherwise. And so leaning into domestic workers, leaning into restaurant workers, leaning in African-American communities around the country that were particularly hard hit. And so I think that for folks for whom that opportunity is something that fits within their value set, either in the long-term or in the shor- term, that there’s a critical role for them to play in doing that in ways that are strategic and that leverage the resources and infrastructure that exists out there.

Jim Shelton:

So we were really excited to partner with organizations like Propel to get dollars out or CDO, which works with folks who’ve recently been incarcerated, to get…they’re not eligible for lots of benefits, so we were able to utilize them to get dollars using their pay card system out to folks who were not going to be employed in this current context. So use the infrastructure that’s there to reach the target populations that are most in need and maybe frankly, hard to reach otherwise. Look for those efficiencies to look for scale. Then there is the opportunity to really think about how you are leveraging this opportunity, for lack of a better word to describe it, where people are suspending their belief about how things have to work. Whether you’re an education person and now, all of a sudden, online learning has been off the table, off the table, off the table for many, many people for a long time, not it is required in many contexts.

Jim Shelton:

And so how do you make sure that you’re not just enabling that, you know…a quick patchwork effort to get people online, but you’re starting to say, what would it look like to help us get much better at understanding what it looks like to use online learning where it could actually have a real benefit to the students. Where it can provide greater access or can provide better use of tools and resources to meet student needs? I mean, how do I use this as an opportunity to have people to experience that in a way that can shift mindsets about what’s possible? And the third thing is how do I do that in ways that builds an infrastructure that I can leverage later and that is sustainable, to your point, over time, right? It’s really important that, for example, we’ve made an investment through Code for America and trying to get the…there’s normally a very robust infrastructure of people who do with tax preparation for low income people.

Jim Shelton:

And that’s what you basically had to do to get access to your stimulus check. Well, what we realized is that that infrastructure was broken down at the time because the centers were closed. And so a lot of the people who needed the money most were not going to get access to those supports and services. So we worked with a nonprofit called Code for America to develop the online platform to work with those providers to be able to do their work, even though their offices were closed. We hope to reach scale, reach millions of people with it. Actually, didn’t reach millions of people with that, but it doesn’t…it’s two things. One is that infrastructure is going to be there no matter what. Now people who are amending their taxes, people who filed tax extensions to October 15th next year, that infrastructure is going to be amortized over many, many years.

Jim Shelton:

And by the way, like we made a very relatively small grant we already got, that looks like three to four X just on that part of the investment. And there’s another small investment alongside it. We invested in something called Pandemic PBT Infrastructure, which is context. It basically is, they allowed the dollars for free and reduced lunch to go home to the parents. And so they had to put together a plan, the state had to put together a plan, for how the dollars would get there. The first thing that Code of America did was partnered with states to figure out a better way to match parents with their kids. And so I’ll give you an example of California, in California there were like 3 million kids in this category. The algorithm got them to half of them without ever having parents have to apply separately. And then…but that still leaves like 1.7 million kids and families without having been connected.

Jim Shelton:

So they built their quick application online that allow people to sign up for the benefits. Let’s put it up on a Friday morning at eight o’clock and by three o’clock, there were 200,000 plus signed up, by the end of the weekend, Sunday night, close to a million people had already signed up. Two weeks later, 1.5 million people had signed up. So very quickly, like tens of millions, like 50 X on the investment, 50, 75 X on the investment was able to be returned and an infrastructure that now when they do to the stimulus round two, it’s going to be used again. So those are the kinds of things that if we’re thoughtful about the ways in which infrastructure, the ways in which organizations that are doing smart work can do this work. It’d be great. And the last thing I’ll say is notion of providing access to benefits and making it easier for folks to get the things to which they’re already entitled is the high leverage infrastructure investment. People don’t usually love plumbing, but that you couldn’t make last for a long time.

Nic Campbell:

Wow. So, you know, Jim, from everything that you just described, I think at the core I’m hearing, you know, be thoughtful, understand the environment in which you’re, you’re operating so that you know who’s out there to inform the kind of infrastructure you can build to start to be able to be responsive to the needs of the communities that you’re working with. Right? So you’re talking about looking for efficiencies and then looking also with an eye towards scaling and in the midst of all of this that, you know, central to it, is innovation, right? Like thinking creatively about how you can put together solutions. So I’m hearing all of these things and I want to ask a pretty technical question around if I’m a funder and I start to think, okay, I have all of these things in my mind. What does the grant look like? Can I do that through general support? Can I do that through capacity building? I’d love to hear how you’re thinking of then getting the funding to groups ands individuals that do the work.

Jim Shelton:

Lots of people have lots of perspectives on this. I’ll give you mine. Mine is, in particular, when you’re trying to do work that is innovative, I think that providing funds that are more flexible, donor operating support grants, if possible, where the folks who are closest to trying to solve the problem have the flexibility to move at the pace that they’re learning is one of the best things you can do if you really want to invest in innovation. And that’s particularly true when you’re trying to work on problems where there is no roadmap already, right? Because there’s the more framework you put around it, the more constraints you put on the organization and the leaders trying to do the work. The second thing is that frankly, there’s a level of trust that you ought to have in the folks that you’re betting on, that providing that kind of flexibility gives you a really good opportunity to see if you made a smart decision.

Jim Shelton:

If you give that flexibility and it’s not rewarded with the responsible investment and impact, then you don’t need to make that investment anymore. But to be honest, you actually can’t hold your grantee accountable if you prescribed what they’re going to do, and they feel like they are negotiating their strategy with you, as opposed to actually having the autonomy to actually go into the rest of it, I think is best. So I know people have different points of view on that, especially when they work with innovation. I’ve just always found that being over prescribed is a recipe for a suboptimal solution. The last thing I’ll say, because I want to blend these two things together, is you want to find mechanisms for finding the folks who you don’t already know about. And what I find in philanthropy is that our referral networks are usually really small and that being more open, even when you’re in a hurry about the process, by which you identify folks tapping other people’s networks, opening up prizes, short windows, things like that. So that leaders and organizations and solutions that you might not be familiar with at the table is really important.

Jim Shelton:

If you want to do things that give you a different view into what’s possible. And that’s something that they’re in the crisis period, it’s kind of hard to do, but as time goes on, I think we are going to be looking for more and more creative ways to become aware of other parts of the solution space. And frankly, that is going to create more opportunities for investing in leaders of color and others who normally might not be in the channels. Those referral networks turn out to be kind of excluding a lot of leaders who were approximate to the work.

Nic Campbell:

We’re talking about these tenants that underline all of this funding, you’ve mentioned being flexible, having trust, and then just being inclusive at the end of the day, right, in order to create the best solution. And I think they all resonate with me. And I wanted to ask you about the sector generally, right? And maybe some of your, what you’re going to say, builds on the flexibility, trust, and inclusiveness that we’re talking about. What does the sector do you wish we were doing less of and what do you think we should be doing more?

Jim Shelton:

Yeah. So these two things go hand in hand for me, I wish we were doing more collaborative work in a way that reduces the fragmentation and incoherence of which both the field at large, meaning the social sector, operates. But in particular, the way that the organizations that we fund have to respond to all the different funders in their demands. And so to the extent that we can come together to use common reporting to reduce common metrics, to get behind the plan of the grantee, as opposed to each of us having our own special project that we want them to do to get our money. the more impactful and strategic and innovative every organization we invest in is going to be. That’s number one on my list. And number two is I wish that we lived into our rhetoric of investing in the things that work and really starting to ask our questions.

Jim Shelton:

One, to have a robust definition of what success looks like. So we’re not looking at very narrow metrics to define these things, but also that we’re really being clear about what does success look like at every stage of development. And that might not mean that you produce the outcome you were looking for, but you have to produce the learning that you were looking for and then a path to the next level of output or outcome. And I think that people talk a big game about doing that, but the reality is it gets really easy to keep giving money to the same people, whether they’re producing or not, or get people to the folks that everybody’s excited about, whether or not they’re producing outcomes or not. And if we just all were much more disciplined about saying, what are we hoping that this produces for the world and for the people we’re trying to serve, and then being really hard nosed about saying this either it looks like it’s going to do it or it doesn’t, or it is doing it, or it’s not, I think the deal will move much more quickly.

Nic Campbell:

Yeah. And I think it’s about developing that discipline to ask that question, right. Does this work, will this solution be viable? And really holding ourselves accountable to doing that. Because I think it has implications as we think about evaluation, right? Like that then provides the framework and all the fundamentals for how we then go about evaluating.

Jim Shelton:

Yes. And it also requires that we all have a more shared perspective about what does evidence or rigor look like at every stage of development. So my evaluation framework for the at-scale organization with tons of resources and a model that’s been demonstrated over and over again, that they use in lots of places, it should be very different than the way I think about what rigor looks like for a relatively new organization, with a relatively different model that others are taking that shows tremendous promise. We should know what rigor looks like at that stage of development, but know that it’s not going to look like the evidence that these more mature organizations are producing. And we can get clearer about how we think about that collectively. And then frankly, it’d be crucially invest in organizations being able to produce that kind of rigor, which means adequate investing, flexible investing, so technical assistance and support that will allow us to build a field that is many other sectors, especially [inaudible], like they have natural mechanisms by which the things that are better products, quote, unquote, ultimately win. Doesn’t always work that way, but there’s definitely a feedback loop that says resources flow to things that people are saying are better than the others in our sector, because we don’t track outcomes against the things that are happening. Resources can flow for a whole lot of different reasons. And if we don’t begin to fix that basic mechanism in our ability to get the things that work to the most people and give them a scale is also going to suffer.

Nic Campbell:

You’re talking about things like less fragmentation, so encouraging more collaborative work, really having that kind of rigor to approach the kind of impact we want to have. And these were, you know, in many cases, seismic shifts, right? So it makes me start to think about the infrastructure of organizations and what needs to be in place to make sure that you have an environment where you can start to make these shifts and start to get more collaborative and develop that rigor at Blue Meridian. I’d love to hear how you all are thinking about infrastructure capacity of organizations and, you know, the sector generally, to be able to do their best work. What are you focusing on when it comes to, for example, boards, governance, the way they’re set up, the vehicles that they’re using, and even how they’re organized internally?

Jim Shelton:

Yeah. So I think for us, we’re on a learning journey on this ourselves, in some ways I think our founding principles was about investing in organizations to give them the assistance and competence and infrastructure to actually scale, right; give them enough capital and then allow them to invest in the things that are going to allow to provide that, as you described, core infrastructure, so that they’re not just growing, they’re growing with quality and in a way that will be able to be sustained over time. Earlier stage organizations have an even more challenging thing where they need to figure out what the infrastructure needs to look like to scale and increase their impact on the ground. And so we have to be willing to invest in them, both in what I’ll call more bespoke ways, so, Hey, we’re not ready to give you a big, giant, scaling grant, but it seems like you really need to build out your capability around measuring and evaluation, or you really are trying to figure out new ways of applying technology to your work.

Jim Shelton:

And so where can we do some selective investment to help you get to that next stage? And then once you’re there, we can come back and say, Hey, you look like you might be ready for a real scaling opportunity. So I think we have to be let the grantees do their best work, provide our perspective about where we might be able to assist them on things where it looks like they’ve gotten to the kind of capability that they will need to go to scale and be willing to fill those gaps and then to tie opportunities for more scaling, to having those gaps filled.

Nic Campbell:

That approach really requires, you know, a thoughtfulness; being analytical, but also empathetic, right? And trusting your grantees, the organizations that you’re working with. You know, Jim, your responses have been so incredibly thoughtful and relevant and insightful. 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 to close this out. What do you think we should read next? Or what artists do you think we should be paying attention to?

Jim Shelton:

So I would say that anyone who has not read ‘Biased’ by Jennifer Eberhardt needs to read it. I read a bunch of books on race, but the intersection that she brings between history and neuroscience does two things. One is, it just makes plain the issues that we’re all feeling. And it’s really interesting because she started her work in criminal justice. So a lot of the examples are really relevant that way. The other thing it does is it makes it clear how hard this work ultimately is going to be for us to shift the way we actually behave as individuals. And as a country, it gives you a sense of possibility because there are things to be done, even though they’re hard, we don’t know all the answers, but there are things to be done. And to start, we have to actually look at like how difficult it’s really going to be.

Nic Campbell:

Thanks so much for that recommendation, ‘Biased’. I will put the information about the book and its author in the show notes. So everyone will be able to have access to that. You have shared so much knowledge and have been so insightful so that leaders can practically use the information that you have shared in their own organizations to help them build bravely and think about how they can collaborate with others. So I just want to thank you so much again for joining us today, Jim.

Jim Shelton:

Nicole, thanks so much for what you’re doing. And for the work you put into supporting so many organizations, it makes a huge difference. Not everybody likes plumbing, but everybody knows when plumbing breaks down. And so, just really appreciate you leaning in on it.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Nicole, thank you for all the work here, and it’s a pleasure and a privilege. Thank you.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell:

Investment and Innovation for Impact with Lawrence Mendenhall

June 3, 2021 Nicole Campbell Podcast

This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re talking with Lawrence Mendenhall. Lawrence is the Chief Operating Officer of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the 32,000-member association for America’s eye surgeons, where he leads the Academy’s communications, memberships, marketing, finance, technology, facilities, security, and corporate services functions.

Lawrence has held operational and legal leadership roles for philanthropies ranging from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to Humanity United, a startup human rights foundation created by eBay’s founder. Earlier in his career, he spearheaded The Pew Trusts’ change from domestic grantmaking foundation to international operating nonprofit as well as its successful effort to save Philadelphia’s Barnes Foundation.

—

Listen to the podcast here:

Resources:

About Lawrence Mendenhall

Lawrence Mendenhall, MBA, JD, is COO of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the 32,000-member association for America’s eye surgeons, where he leads the Academy’s communications, memberships, marketing, finance, technology, facilities, security and corporate services functions. He also oversees the Academy’s affiliated foundation, with programs that range from EyeCare America, which has served over 2 million patients free of charge, to the newly founded Museum of the Eye.

He has held operational and legal leadership roles for philanthropies ranging from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to Humanity United, a startup human rights foundation created by eBay’s billionaire founder. Earlier in his career he spearheaded The Pew Trusts’ change from domestic grantmaking foundation to international operating nonprofit as well as its successful effort to save Philadelphia’s Barnes Foundation.

He attended the University of Colorado at Boulder, New York University School of Law, and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

—

Read the podcast transcription below:

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell:

Hi, everyone. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re talking with Lawrence Mendenhall. Lawrence is the Chief Operating Officer of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the 32,000-member association for America’s eye surgeons, where he leads the Academy’s communications, memberships, marketing, finance, technology, facilities, security, and corporate services functions. He also oversees the Academy’s affiliated foundation, with programs that range from EyeCare America, which has served over 2 million patients free of charge, to the newly founded Museum of the Eye.

Nic Campbell:

He attended the University of Colorado at Boulder, New York University School of Law, and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. And with that, here is Lawrence Mendenhall.

Nicole Campbell:

Hi, Lawrence. I’m so excited to have you joining us for our Fast Build Leader series.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Thank you, Nicole, for having me. I’m excited to talk with you.

Nicole Campbell:

I am looking forward to it. So to get us started, can you tell us about the American Academy of Ophthalmology, your role there and the Academy’s immediate priorities?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Sure. My organization AAO, the American Academy of Ophthalmology is the association for America’s 32,000 eye surgeons. And it also has a related foundation where I am COO and CFO for these orgs. Our group also includes a related management company that provides that operational infrastructure to other nonprofits, as well as a political action committee and a state legislative advocacy fund. Now the immediate priority for our group is ensuring that we’re serving our members, right? They include not just the USI surgeons, but surgeons from around the globe who have been hard hit by the pandemic. What many people don’t know, Nic, is that the first victim of COVID-19 was a Chinese ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital. He was one of the first to raise warnings about the virus in China. He was condemned as a whistleblower, and then he later died. Now he’s since been exonerated, but he really just illustrates the risks for our members.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Some of whom have given their lives, working on the front lines to fight COVID-19. And now treating injuries in the wake of George Floyd’s killing by police. Eye injuries are one of the most common injuries from the rubber bullets and tear gas that are often police responses to the protests. And we’ve spoken up before around gun violence because they also result in a lot of eye injuries. And we’re also one of a handful of medical orgs that publicly condemned the recent killing. So ensuring that our member safety and livelihoods are protected are our top priorities so they can continue to serve the community of patients. And another high court priority, I would just say for me, is ensuring that our org, which is responsible for one of the largest in-person meetings in medicine ,is coping with the financial impact of the virus. I mean, how do we ensure the safety of our meeting and the viability of what we offer to our members and their patient is really what I’m spending a lot of my time on.

Nicole Campbell:

Wow, that’s a really wide remit, Lawrence. Thank you for that background. You mentioned that you were both CFO and COO and that is fascinating. So can you talk a little bit more about those roles and how they play out essentially within that network, you named a few entities that you are also responsible for.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Sure. So I was using the little shorthand, I’m the COO for the Academy and then the CFO for the Foundation, as well as the Executive Director of the foundation reports to me. Really what it is, I feel very blessed to work with such an incredible team and incredible CEO, David Park, who’s been our CEO for 10 years and has been involved with the Academy for decades. But essentially I am responsible for harmonizing our very diverse operations here. We go from membership and meetings to patient education, to member education, continuing medical certification, a real range, to public serving programs like Eye Care America, which has provided over 2 million exams for free to the public, to a museum of the eye that we’re trying to launch. So you can imagine trying to launch a new public museum in the middle of the pandemic. So it really is that harmonizing role. It was brought in because so often we see in not-for-profits, whether it’s funders or NGOs, just too many direct reports to the CEO, right? They need to be able to be out in the world and to advance the mission with the public and with the members, if you have members, but then someone needs to really be translating and making sure that that vision is moving forward internally. And it’s harmonized, especially when you’ve got a large team, we’re lucky to have a large team.

Nicole Campbell:

I just think it’s great that your organization and the work that you’re doing is really showing up for everyone during such a tense time for our country. So I appreciate that. And you are a nonprofit and I would love to hear just how you would talk to other nonprofits who fundraise as a significant part of their budget. In other words, what do you think should be top of mind for these organizations, particularly now during this time of uncertainty? We’ve got so much unrest, we’ve got the pandemic, what should they be concentrating on? What should they be doing?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Sure. You know, my top advice for others who are fundraising at this difficult moment is don’t give up. Your donors are still out there and many are looking for ways to help even more. Now I know that’s easy to say right? Going to our experience, the key has been to divide the donors into segments, which is of course a good practice generally, but it’s critical right now. If you have a strong market segmentation in place, you’re ahead of the game, but you probably need to go through the steps again, re-segment based on how COVID is impacting it. Who is going to go into your stewardship category? This isn’t the right time to be asking them they’re going through a lot. This isn’t the right time to approach them with big aks. And then who can you approach? So even though there are some who aren’t going to be able to help now.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

So for example, at my organization, our average donor member have been hard hit. I sort of alluded to before by COVID-19 they stopped seeing non-emergency patients and the impact has been severe. So they’re focused on protecting their patients and their staff and their community. So it’s not the time to go to them for money, but there are others for us, and I think for many other not-for-profits, there are significant segments, particularly corporate sponsors and other corporate partners in our space, for example, that are eager to help. They want to create that goodwill with members in the community, especially now. Their budgets weren’t necessarily impacted, or they’re not being impacted as quickly. So they’ve still got money for this year, right? And they’re eager to support long standing partners and highly visible challenges at a time like this. And so for us, it’s been large pharmaceutical and medical device companies that have stepped up to fund additional education for doctors and patients around say telemedicine, at a time when in-person visits are only for urgent cases. We do also have some high net-worth donors who’ve been able to contribute.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

You know, they’re not suffering from this. And I think there is a significant set out there. The second thing I would just mention, it’s similar, is that there’s a significant funding available specifically for COVID response and COVID responders, or for people who are impacted by COVID. Sometimes it’s an embarrassing amount of funding, including government funding, there’s money that’s just looking for a home, for a place to be effective. So for example, medical societies we’ve found that are focused on emergency care or emergency providers and emergency service for the indigent. Those societies are in short supply and they’re incredibly popular donors. Of course, they’ve, don’t always have the infrastructure yet to deploy that money effectively, but they’re very popular with donors. So what I would say is any of your programs that directly benefit impacted communities are uniquely positioned to succeed with the funders. And I would say, depending on your capacity and others in your space, even if you don’t have a program in place, if you can quickly ramp up and make a difference with integrity, the dollars may be there to support your efforts. And that’s what I’m seeing. Nicole.

Nicole Campbell:

That makes sense, because essentially you’re saying, well, be strategic about your outreach. Also look in different places, right? Not just keep tapping the same sources for funding, because there might be additional funding sources out there, particularly around COVID or around funds that are working with impacted communities. And so that really makes a lot of sense. And so if you were to look at the other side of the conversation and look at the funders who are providing these resources to nonprofit organizations, beyond the advice of give more money, what advice would you provide to funders to support nonprofits sustainability, both within the moment that we’re in and to get us past it, and when you are past it, what does that look like? And I know that you are experienced, you know, you’ve been with funders. So you have that really unique perspective of not only having a leadership role within a nonprofit organization currently, but also haven’t had leadership roles within philanthropy, as well as I would love to hear what your advice would be to funders.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Well, it’s a terrific question and sort of looking at it from both sides. Unfortunately I think the answer, for the donor mindset, the answer isn’t funders just need to provide more advice. You need to provide more thought partnership. I think that’s what a lot of funders think, but that’s not going to be enough standing alone. Like I said, it’s off in the view of these smart well-meaning funders and program officers who say, well, our thought leadership is more valuable than our funding. There’s a point in there, but for true sustainability, I think that funders need to be willing to be thought partners and to support the infrastructure and health of the org beyond the short term, not just a particular program that is of interest to that funder. Now I’m not saying that funders should embrace, you know, 50% overhead rates, but they should be willing to pay reasonable overhead.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Yes. But to go further to support those specific organization strengthening initiatives and work, whether it’s developing fundraising expertise, recruiting board leadership, and putting in place strong work practices, creating compliance infrastructure, building tech platforms, they need to be willing to support those things that benefit the whole organization and not just a slice of it. So that’s the first piece of advice. And of course, many funders say they’ve made a shift, but in reality, I think there’s still a long way to go. The second piece of advice I would say to funders is to make longer term investments, not one to two or even three to five years, but 10 year plus investment. I think the larger your investment is the more true this is. So what’s large? Well, that’s going to be determined by the funding that already exists in the space, but large short term investments, they can really distort the mission of the organization in the field. When they end, they may have co-opted the direction of the org and the space and leading other funders to that source to bow out. So then the org in that field can end up diminished, which harms the exact community that you intended to help.

Nicole Campbell:

You are definitely speaking my language because I’m hearing you say, you know, support infrastructure needs beyond the immediate needs that are cropping up. And I liked when you said support the whole organization, not just the flight, because it really resonates with me. I talk a lot about just making longer term investment in an organization, not in deliverables, right? So that makes complete sense to me. I’m going to ask you a question about this overhead support. Talk to me about why you think there are so many organizations, so many funders out there who are saying, well, we’ve determined that you can’t spend more than 25% or 10%, whatever their percentage. Why do you think that those percentages are introduced if they are, as you put in that language, like if they decide to make longer term investments in an organization for their sustainability, how do we reconcile the percentages of overhead?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Right. Sure. I think what’s happening and want to really give credit to funders. I think they want to be responsible. I think they want to share that they are delivering on their mission and that they’re supporting the mission of the organization. But what I think has happened is it’s become misguided. It’s become a rule of thumb. Say we’re not going to go beyond this percentage because somehow that signals that this isn’t a responsible investment. And I think what’s happened over the last 20 years. We had some very visible scandals at hundred million dollar organizations, billion dollar organizations, the Stanfords of the world. Now there is a question, how do I, as a funder, for example, in the social justice space, do I want to place a project at Stanford or another large university, which may have a 30% overhead rate? I think that question is very different than whether for this small 10 person not-for-profit, which may be in South Sudan, which may be a couple of people in Northern Nepal.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

I think the question would be it’s a very different issue. And unfortunately it becomes sort of one size fits all. This is our policy and we don’t fund beyond this amount. And so I think it really is a desire to be accountable, but I think there has to be a built-in flexibility there. And it’s hard though. It’s hard because a lot of the funders they’ve gotten larger, they’re bigger. They need to have sort of…I know this from the operational perspective, black and white rules are always easier to implement than sort of, it depends. And so I think that’s part of the challenge that also is another aspect for philanthropy. Philanthropies themselves, they say, well, we want to stay small. We don’t want to get too large. That’s their idea of humility, but if you need to grow to do your work well, I think that for philanthropies themselves is an investment that’s worthwhile. So this obsession with overhead comes from a good place, but I think it needs to be examined in specific cases.

Nicole Campbell:

Right. And just be tailored to the organization that the funder is investing in. We’ve talked about the advice that you would provide to nonprofits, the advice that you would provide to funders, with all of that in mind, what do you wish we did less of as a sector? And what do you think we should be doing more of?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Sure. And here I’m putting my kind of funder hat on. I know what I’d like to see less of is really honestly, less self-reflection and more other reflection. You know, I look across the philanthropic sectors, funders are often incredibly skilled at looking inward, at examining their own notice and practices, and there’s a place for that. This is a good thing, but listening to you and reflecting the grantees and NGOs that they’re supporting is the number one job for me. It’s similar to the conversation my team and others are having around privilege and around race for folks who are part of a dominant culture that’s the funder culture in this case, they need to be listeners and to not expect to be catered to. They need to open up space for others to be heard, take the time, to educate themselves to the extent possible, and then still be willing to defer to the expertise and these lived experiences of others. Now, in some ways, it’s the exact opposite of the strategic and venture philanthropy models that many funders have cycled through or are still in. But that’s what I wish we would do less of as a sector.

Nicole Campbell:

Well, how do you think this shows up from an infrastructure perspective? So you’re a funder and now they listen to you and they say, okay, well, we’ll do less self-Reflection, we’ll listen, we’ll let our grantees be the experts. How does that show up in terms of a funders grant making? And I’m speaking in terms of infrastructure, like the type of award, type of monitoring evaluation, like what could we be looking for to say that is a funder who is listening to their grantees?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

I think some terrific practices are to fund group of grantees with general operating support, working in an ecosystem where you are hoping to see systemic change, opening the spaces for them. So whether that’s hosting a monthly call, whether that’s actually giving them financial support, coordinate advocacy, public education efforts, it’s supporting that without tons of strains, perhaps providing staff support for those meetings, introducing the systems that will allow them to create sort of a shared portfolio. Or do you begin to think about it? Right? I think so often we jump to that, we’ve done the mapping, we know what needs to happen, and now let’s just plug it in. And I think funders have tried to get away from that, but it’s that, I think that hangover of that approach is it’s still very much out there.

Nicole Campbell:

And remove the strains. What do you think then we should be doing more of?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Well, of course, through the flip side of that is the listening. And it’s also what I would love to see. And I’ve not seen a lot of this. I know, Nic, you’re so deeply involved in these conversations, but there is some great writing in philanthropy. The state of the art and best practices continues to evolve. But I also think there is a, and this is from part of my work here, there’s a communication aspect to helping the rest of the world understand the various ways that effective philanthropy can show up. And sometimes it is just opening the space. It is writing that check. That doesn’t mean that we’re not effective philanthropists. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to eventually create the change that we all want to see. It’s just that we’re committed to a longer timeframe. We’re committed to doing it in this more collaborative way.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Take the focus off of wow, who pays for 30% overhead versus 15% overhead. And can you believe X large foundation funded this work, helping the public and helping our policymakers understand that this is not a command and control economy. We are putting the dollars out there to let this work bubble up, to let these good ideas and these movements advance. We are not controlling them. So there’s a role for communications and messaging to change from that strategic philanthropy model, where it’s my funding, I’m responsible for it. It’s like if I’m funding it, I’m trying to open a space.

Nicole Campbell:

And so getting out of your own bubble your own way and using communications to fully integrate within the world, right within the economy in which philanthropy is trying to make a difference. And that resonates. And so I know that the focus of many nonprofits is often on programmatic strategy and their own development needs and fundraising apps, which makes sense because fundraising is a large part of their budget and their app and what they’re doing to get money into their work and to support their operations. Is the Academy thinking about building infrastructure during this time? I know you talked about how you were being responsive to your members and showing up to support communities in need. Are you thinking about how you were building your own organizational infrastructure? And if so, how is that showing up and how are you thinking about this beyond the moment that we’re in?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Sure. You know, we are a hundred year old organization that really reinvented itself in the eighties, nineties. And so we do have a lot of infrastructure in place. And I would just make one point as I go into this, it’s often harder to change existing infrastructure, strong infrastructure, than it is as I’ve been, for example, in a philanthropic startup environment, where if you had a system for three years, it’s not really hard to get rid of it. But if you had a system, whether it’s technology, whether it’s a process, that’s grown up over decades, it’s more challenging. So for us in the short term, we’ve had to get comfortable in some cases with really quickly assemble infrastructure, for example, holding a dozen webinars a week, educate our members of the public on COVID-19. When we would normally host a fraction of that number for a fraction of the viewers. When we’re doing that, responding to this immediate need, how do we right-size our investment? They’re urgent needs, but they may not be permanent.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

So that’s one of the things so lowering our standards, being willing to say, Hey, you know what? Some of this is going to happen quickly and we’re going to test it and we’re going to decide then what we do next. But looking at the longer term, we are asking ourselves daily, how will the needs of the communities we’re serving be different after COVID-19? How do we build the infrastructure we’ll need to respond to those needs? Then the reality is that in this fiscal environment, though, we also have to ask, what are we going to stop doing so that we can meet the new reality? You know, in my humble view, every org, whether it has sufficient reserves or a deep pocketed funder who can help plug the current funding gap, I think every org should be asking the strategic question about the long-term. What’s changed permanently and what hasn’t changed. And why do they have to ask this?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

I think it’s because the reality is that we don’t know what the new normal will be after this period we’re in. And we want to be prepared to continue to serve our communities, the ones that rely on us, even if our funding model turns out to be very different. So for us, for example, as I said, we hold one of the largest meetings in medicine. Well, what is that going to look like? Right. Are folks going to be comfortable going to meetings in the future? Is the whole world going to permanently go more virtual? We don’t know, but we need to be asking those questions so we’re ready.

Nicole Campbell:

It’s such an interesting perspective, right? Because you are within an organization that has a tremendous amount of infrastructure. And your view is that even within that infrastructure, you want to continue to innovate so that you are responsive to the needs of the community that you are serving and you’re working with. And I really appreciate how you’re saying changing an infrastructure that already exists is a lot harder than, you know, just creating one. And I understand there are a lot of considerations around why you…convincing someone to create infrastructure in the first place. But I agree with you, I think changing that infrastructure that has been hardwired, not only into the processes and the policies, but into the people, because people are a large part of that infrastructure. And it’s like, how do you not only change the policies and change the processes, but then change the people and have them be innovative in that way.

Nicole Campbell:

So I really appreciate that observation, Lawrence. And you know, your responses, I appreciate them a great deal, particularly because they’re coming from a COO who has that programmatic vision, has the organizational vision, but is also able to think about the details within the infrastructure to hold up those visions. And I think that your advice has been so thoughtful and so practical and just 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 to close us out. What books do you think we should read next? Or what artists, the think we should be paying attention to?

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Well, I thought hard about this. I was thinking about what I’ve been reading lately. I’ve been rereading though, what’s really impacted me, is I’ve been rereading ‘I Will Bear Witness’ which was written by Victor Klemperer as a diary of his experience of one of a handful of Jews who was able to survive in Nazi Germany through the entire prewar and world war II period, right through Germany’s liberation. He was this accomplished professor, married to a Christian woman, the cousin of a famous conductor, some folks know Otto Klemperer, and he kept a daily diary of his experience beginning in 1933. Now there’s so many comparisons, you know, folks drop between the 1930s and our present era, including global trends toward populism, potentially fast fascism, but to see his daily count of how’s German society, you know, this fame cosmopolitan, at that time, society that would produce an erudite converted Jewish professional like him, to see how that imploded and almost brought the entire world down with it. It’s just incredibly powerful. What I find is that it’s a reminder that our engagement as individuals, as not for profit leaders, and as funders, that our engagement just isn’t negotiable. You know, it’s easier, and the risk is, it’s easier for the world around us to change us than for us to change it. And we really need to fight for what we value. That’s not hot off the presses, but it is one that I think is worth a read.

Nicole Campbell:

So ‘I Will Bear Witness’ by Victor Klemperer. Thank you for sharing that, Lawrence, fight for what you value. You have shared such knowledge and insights that I think leaders, as I mentioned, can practically use in their own organizations to help them build bravely. And I think that that’s, what’s really important that we’re not only sharing our thoughts and our insights and talking in cliches, but actually saying here’s what I think. And here’s what I think you can do next. Here’s what I think we can do next. So I want to thank you for sharing that level of insight, that level of practice, just how practical your suggestions and recommendations are. And I want to thank you for joining us today, Lawrence.

Lawrence Mendenhall:

Nicole, thank you for all the work here, and it’s a pleasure and a privilege. Thank you.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell:

Investing in Systems Change for Sustainable Impact with Geoffrey Canada

May 27, 2021 Nicole Campbell Podcast

This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re talking with Geoffrey Canada. Geoff is a leading advocate for children and an innovator in the field of education. He created the Harlem Children’s Zone, a birth-through-college network of programs that today serves more than 13,000 low-income students and families in a 97-block area of Central Harlem in New York City. The unprecedented success of the Harlem Children’s Zone has attracted the attention of the media and leaders around the world.

In this episode, Geoff shares tremendous insight, knowledge, and practical advice for everyone listening, helping us to build and lead bravely.

—

Listen to the podcast here:

About Geoffrey Canada

Geoffrey Canada is a leading advocate for children and innovator in the field of education.

Canada grew up in one of the most devastated communities in the United States, the South Bronx, raised by a single mother. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Bowdoin College, and eventually went on to earn a master’s degree at Harvard University. He vowed to help children who grew up in disadvantaged circumstances to succeed through education.

Canada created the Harlem Children’s Zone, a birth-through-college network of programs that today serves more than 13,000 low-income students and families in a 97-block area of Central Harlem in New York City.

The unprecedented success of the Harlem Children’s Zone has attracted the attention of the media and leaders around the world. In 2011, Canada was named one of the world’s most influential people by Time magazine and as one of the 50 greatest leaders by Fortune magazine in 2014. President Barack Obama created the Promise Neighborhoods Initiative to replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone model across the country,

Canada has been profiled extensively in the media, including The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, 60 Minutes, The Oprah Winfrey Show, and Forbes, among others. He was featured in the documentary about the dire state of American education Waiting for Superman, and has received more than 25 honorary degrees including ones from Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania.

He has also influenced a new generation of education reformers through his writings, having published essays in The New York Times, The New York Daily News, The Chronicle of Philanthropy as well as two critically acclaimed books on poverty and violence: Fist Stick Knife Gun and Reaching Up for Manhood.

After 30 years with the organization, Canada stepped down in 2014 as Chief Executive Officer of the Harlem Children’s Zone, but continues to serve as President.

—

Read the podcast transcription below:

-Upbeat Intro Music-

Nic Campbell:

Hi, everyone. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, we’re talking with Geoffrey Canada. Geoff is a leading advocate for children and an innovator in the field of education. He was raised by a single mother and grew up in the South Bronx (where I also grew up) in New York City. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Bowdoin College, and eventually went on to earn a master’s degree at Harvard University. He vowed to help children who grew up in disadvantaged circumstances succeed through education.

Nic Campbell:

Geoff created the Harlem Children’s Zone, a birth-through-college network of programs that today serves more than 13,000 low-income students and families in a 97-block area of Central Harlem in New York City. The unprecedented success of the Harlem Children’s Zone has attracted the attention of the media and leaders around the world.

Nic Campbell:

In 2011, Geoff was named one of the world’s most influential people by Time magazine and as one of the 50 greatest leaders by Fortune magazine in 2014. President Barack Obama created the Promise Neighborhoods Initiative to replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone model across the country. And with that, HERE is Geoffrey Canada.

Nic Campbell:

Hi, Geoff, I am really excited to have you join us for our Fast Build Leader Series. To get us started, can you tell us about Harlem Children’s Zone, your current role there, and what the Harlem Children’s Zone’s immediate priority is particularly given our current environment.

Geoff Canada:

So, first of all, thank you for having me as a guest. You know, I founded the Harlem Children’s Zone more than 20 years ago as an answer to what do we need to do to sort of end generational poverty in communities, historically black communities, that had this going on for 40, 50, 60 years. And we came up with a holistic, comprehensive set of strategies that begin at birth and stay with young people, the same group of young people, until we get them in college and then get them through college. But that is combined with an effort to rebuild the community; a community infrastructure where the adults are playing a much more powerful role in kids’ lives, the physical environment, because so much of what we think about ourselves is reflected in the places we live. So if your community is filled with trash and graffiti and seems to be chaotic, well, you think the adults have no power, that the likelihood that I’m not making it out of this place is pretty high, that success is the exception and not the rule. So we came up with this comprehensive strategy to try to do all of those things at the same time. And 20 years later, we have essentially accomplished those goals. We’ve got more than 940 kids in college, we graduated more than 800 kids in college, in schools that we run ourselves, we’ve eliminated the black-white achievement gap in math and ELA. So we feel like we’re an example of what needs to happen in communities of color all over this country.

Nic Campbell:

It’s just so impressive that you had this vision years ago and it has really come to fruition. When you think back to that time, when you said I’m going to found and start this organization and you look at where you are now, is this what you had in mind?

Geoff Canada:

Well, you know, it’s funny because a bunch of us knew what the answer was. The answer was to replicate what’s working in the rest of middle-class America, right? Decent schools, decent housing, decent healthcare, decent nutrition, exercise, you know, places that you can play and go as kids. That’s what’s necessary. What I was told is what I believe and what I think most people believe, is that we couldn’t afford to do that for poor kids of color. Right? We just couldn’t figure out how to do it for them. So this idea that we could do all of this, they said, choose one or two, but you can’t do it all, but there’s no evidence that if you do one or two, it will actually work. And so the question became, how do you raise the dollars to do it all? Because that’s what…we actually know that works.

Geoff Canada:

There’s no one who I know who thinks the answer to success is to be poor and trapped in poverty, right? I don’t think anybody said, that’s how you’re going to really be successful. Right? We know the answer is to be in communities that are healthy, that have good schools, where jobs are plentiful, and transportation to work is available, whether you own a car, you can get there. All of this stuff we actually know. And so therefore, this idea became just about money. And this country has invested huge amounts of money to build the middle class, right? After world war II, we did it with the GI bill. We had low interest loans to buy housing for all groups, except one, African-Americans were excluded, and we had a free college, except that in ;45 and ’46, you couldn’t go to white colleges in the South. So we excluded blacks again, from that. This country invested literally tens of billions of dollars to build a current middle-class. The wealth gap between blacks and whites right now, it’s basically the equity in their homes that was created by government support. And now we’re saying we can’t afford to do it for kids of color. And I reject that as a theory. We raised some money privately, but this should be a public function.

Nic Campbell:

And just the way you’re explaining it, it’s just basic needs, like meeting basic needs. When you’re talking about having employment opportunities and decent health care and decent education. And you know, we’re in a very similar moment now. When you look around, Geoff, what are you thinking might be a start to addressing what’s happening currently, the moment that we’re in? If it’s still let’s just go back to basics, let’s just see, look, what do these communities need? And just start to reduce that wealth gap and give basic services, basic needs. Or do you think it’s something much more radical that’s needed in this moment?

Geoff Canada:

So we have a moment now, we have spent trillions of dollars to try to save the American economy and the American, sort of, employment structure. The group that has not benefited from that money: businesses of color, right? Everybody said, “Oh yeah, everybody, the businesses all work with the PPP, except for, oh yeah, small business of the people of color, it didn’t work so well.” Right? Well there, we have this issue about jobs and preserving jobs, oh yeah, except one group, the jobs, they’re unemployed at record numbers, depression level numbers. Oh, it’s African-Americans. So even as this country has spent trillions, not billions of dollars, somehow people of color have gotten left out of that equation. Again, when you say do something radical, I don’t want to do something radical. I want to do the same thing that we’ve done for white America, for black America.

Geoff Canada:

I want to make investments that protects jobs, that protects businesses, that protects education. And I want to do it intentionally. So this gets equalized among all groups. So here again, people think, well, you’re preaching an exception for African-American. I am not preaching for an exception. I’m preaching for inclusion to what’s already going on and what we’re doing for white America, that somehow keeps skipping over black America. And I think, at this time of an election, that we have to demand that this country treats people of color equally. That we have to take the blinders off, that we’ve done an equal job of preserving jobs and equity in this country. And admit not only that, it didn’t happen, but that we need to do something about it. And we need to do something significant about that and equity right now.

Nic Campbell:

And so when you think about the nonprofit sector and nonprofits that are raising funds, with that in mind, what kind of advice would you provide to those nonprofits? What would you say to them that they should be doing right now? What should be top of mind for them?

Geoff Canada:

There’s two challenges. Number one, foundations and corporations have realized they’ve done like the rest of America. They’ve invested in white organizations. They built the infrastructure in white organizations. They’ve created an unfair advantage for white organizations, because the moment you say, “I want outcomes and data”, if I don’t have any data collectors, if I don’t have any evaluators that work for me, if I don’t have the resources to hire the folks to actually drive those outcomes, I can’t compete with the groups that have been invested in for decades to build their infrastructure. So folks can simply say, “Oh, they couldn’t deliver. That’s why I’m not investing in these organizations.” So now there’s an interest in what do we need to do to support these organizations of color? So my message to them is you need to do two things. One is you need to build a competitive infrastructure.

Geoff Canada:

And what is that? That’s development because you’ve gotta be able to raise private dollars and development people are expensive and they’re this hard to find talent. You’ve got to build data systems and evaluation. You have to build an internal evaluation capacity by hiring folks with PhDs in evaluation to help you think about how to design more effective programs and to be able to show the impact that your organizations are having. So at this moment white folks are saying, “We want to help you.” Don’t take money just to do more great programs, take money to build your infrastructures, take money that allow you to hire the talent so that you can compete more effectively when it comes to demonstrating impact right now. And you know, 25 years ago, if someone had said, “Geoff, we want to give you more money.” I’d say, “Great. I can save more kids. Give me the money.”

Geoff Canada:

I’d spend it right on kids. I wouldn’t have thought I need to build an infrastructure because this moment is going to pass. And two years from now, no one’s going to be coming to me and saying, “I want to give you more money.” And how am I going to ensure that these investments I’m making right now are protected. You’re going to do that by building significant infrastructures that allow you to compete on data, on evaluation, and on development, which means you have to have a strong communications department, as well as an evaluation department so that you can talk about results and framing these issues. So that would be my advice to folks. There’s a moment right now. Don’t just let people push you in the programmatic response. Yes. We need to feed more folks. We need to help folks with rent. We need to make sure that children have access to the technology. We have to do all of that, but we also have to build stronger organizations.

Nic Campbell:

Well, you know, Geoff, you’re speaking my love language, right? So about building the organizational infrastructure of a nonprofit to make sure that you can have sustainable programmatic outcomes. And I think that you’re exactly right, having the time and the foresight to invest in people and build your own capacity is how you’re able to then say, here’s how we’re going to go out and create this great program or deliver this amazing service. So if we look at the other side of that, now you did mention, you know, a lot of funders, new funders are stepping in and saying, “Well, how can we help? What can we do?” What are you saying to funders? We have the advice to nonprofits. Like, let’s start to focus in on your organizational infrastructure, get that stronger. What are you saying to funders? What advice are you giving to them?

Geoff Canada:

There are two things I’m saying to funders. Number one, we can’t expect organizations to be able to deliver the outcomes and the objectives that they agreed on six months ago, COVID has changed all of that. We’re all dealing with an online environment, a non-touch environment, and very difficult to drive outcomes in this brand new world. So they need to suspend those parts of the grants that said, we expect you to serve 300 kids by providing two hours of X, Y, and Z. Or we need to say, “Okay, okay. We realize that this is a different time. You need to come back to me, organization, you have to come back to me, funder, with a strategy of how you protect families during these sort of COVID times.” And then with a plan of how you’re going to rebuild the community infrastructures necessary for you to begin your work again.

Geoff Canada:

So that’s the two parts of the coin. You want to suspend right now, folks still need the money. We still have staff. We still have rent. We still have to keep the lights on. So we need the money, but we can’t be held to a set of outcomes that becomes impossible for us to deliver. So take that stress off of organizations. Tell them instead, talk to me about how you’re going to use this money right now to deal with the emergency you’re dealing with. And then once this emergency passes, let’s plan on how we’re going to do recovery. So those are the two things that I think I would say. Continue the support; actually, folks need extra support, because these communities are really in dire need, but also encourage organizations to think about how to plan now for recovery, so that when this subsides and it will – it may take you 12 months, it may take 18 months – that these organizations are able to go back on the same trajectory they were on without literally starting from scratch of where they were three years ago.

Nic Campbell:

And what’s coming through in your response, Geoff, is flexibility, right? Encouraging funders to be much more flexible than they might have wanted to be a year ago, even a few months ago. And so for me, when I think of flexibility and funding, I think of general support. And I’d love to hear your thoughts on providing general support grants or providing project support grants during those time. And is there a significant difference in providing general support or project support with some flexibility.

Geoff Canada:

You know, I think it’s hard to do project support right now, unless that support is around a set of COVID relief strategies, right? That’s designed to deal with the epidemic we’re dealing with right now. Just think about how quickly this has all happened. Right? Five weeks ago, Arizona seemed fine. No one would think Arizona fine, I don’t care what your plans were in Arizona and Phoenix five weeks ago. You’re not trying to do those plans right now. You’re trying to think about how you can keep families safe, provide emergency relief for folks. We don’t know what’s going to happen three months from now. This is one of those times where the best laid plans can be just destroyed by a second wave, by a current wave, by the facts that schools do open, that they don’t open. So I think right now I’m much more in favor of general support.

Geoff Canada:

Even when that general support is tied to COVID relief, because COVID relief that you think is of what it is today could be something totally different three weeks from now. So my sense is…and the other thing I would the foundations is, this is a time to give organizations in particularly odd cities, more support. So if you went in for $400,000 to this organization, let them use that money for general support, but think about additional support to actually help them during this time of crisis, a mess, we are extremely unlucky. This will be the biggest crisis this country faces in our lifetime, right? It’s not like we think, oh yeah, three years from now, we’re going to face this again. In the biggest crisis of your lifetime, are you prepared to spend more money to help folks who are literally desperate? And that’s the challenge I will send out to foundations. If you can’t believe yourself, you’re stuck on some 4%, 5% spend out and therefore you don’t have the money. This is the time to say to your trustees, no, that’s not going to be sufficient. We need to spend more than that this year. It may be next year because this country is in the worst crisis it’s faced literally since world war II and we need to respond to this crisis.

Nic Campbell:

I really liked that challenge, just to increase funding and be flexible with grantees and with the nonprofits, we’ve talked about building organizational infrastructure to really have sustained impact. So now that we have that advice to both nonprofits and funders, with all of that in mind, what do you wish we did less of as a sector? And what do you think we should be doing more of?

Geoff Canada:

I think the thing that we’ve done less, or there’s something that’s not going to surprise anybody right now, organizations of color have been systematically discriminated against by a funding entities. And we might as well say what it is, it’s been systematic. And when I’ve talked to funders, I have said to them that there are all kinds of excuses, folks have come up with for why they’re going to invest in the white organization versus the next organization or the Native American organization or African-American organization. And that has gone on for decades, my whole career. So when you look around and you say, so which of the top African-American organizations in education, you keep thinking, which of the top African-Americans organizations in environment, keep thinking, which are the top African-American organizations…you can name a couple in social justice. You can, but there’s no other place that you really find the level of, I think, significant organizations at the threshold that we should have as a nation.

Geoff Canada:

Because so much of the work that’s being done in these communities of color. How is it that folks who are working in those communities aren’t getting any funding? And so that I think we have to do less. We just got to do less of coming up with excuses for why we don’t support these organizations run by men and women of color who are on the front lines, doing the toughest work. So that’s what you should do, less of that. Let me tell you what we should do more of. We should do more of, the kind of, what I would call, dual funding. And this is the interesting part. So most of us will say, Geoff, if you want to build infrastructure within organizations, I’m going to give 400,000 for that organization to do their program, I’m going to say, you have to spend 200,000 on infrastructure.

Geoff Canada:

That’s not the way we should deal with this. We just say, no, let’s give them the 400,000 and put an additional 200,000 on that for them to build their infrastructure. Don’t make an organization choose between serving desperately poor folks or building up infrastructure that’s not right now going to help save more lives. So I think this would be what we need to do more, not reduce, not split the grant in half. Okay. I hear you, Geoff, let’s split…no, give the same amount that they need, but then give an additional support for organizations so they can build this infrastructure. That I think we need to do more. And we need to do it intentionally if we’re going to make up for what we haven’t done in the last 30 years.

Nic Campbell:

I really liked that, Geoff. So just having this idea of infrastructure funding plus the needs, right? Because infrastructure funding is so critical to the organization actually doing what it says it wants to do. So just being very deliberate about that really resonates and doing much less of, you know, providing excuses as to why you can’t fund organizations that are led by people of color. But that makes me think Geoff, like when you think about Harlem Children’s Zone, how did you do it? You did it in a time, you know, some might argue it was even worse than now or just another repeat of now. And you were able to build something sustainable, something that is being modeled around the nation. What did you do that you think that others can learn from?

Geoff Canada:

So a couple of pieces to this. The first is that we became focused on data. At the time that we did this, we thought we were doing a great job. And when we began to really get serious about data, we felt like we weren’t doing a great job. And I was stunned. I spent 10 years championing how wonderful we were. And we began to look at the data we should share about. And we found out kids who were fine when they were 12, weren’t fine when they were 17. So that’s the first thing, data became critical. Second is we built a board. If there’s an area that I think these communities or organizations of color struggle, they not have kinds of boards that will allow them to have access to folk who can help both programmatically and financially with their goals. I don’t feel like…look, I grew up a poor black kid in the South Bronx.

Geoff Canada:

I don’t believe I’d have one. So there was no way for me to go and ask a friend, any friend I asked on the board, I’d have to have the loan them $50. They weren’t going to give me any money. So what we find in so many organizations is that they are looking locally for board members, which is great. Seems like it, but it excludes the ability to go into areas that you don’t have any contacts. So my board was built by folks who had contacts into wealth and into expertise. And you know, there was a trade off because a lot of folks thought, yeah, Geoff, but that’s a lot of white men and you got to worry about diversity. I want a black organization, white men have money. I can do the math. I’m sorry. People don’t like it, whatever, but I know what I needed.

Geoff Canada:

I could find all the help I needed. What I needed was literally tens of millions of dollars. And that’s what we focused on. And I never felt the pressure, right? My board was saying, you can’t say black kids, or you can’t do it this way, or you can’t do it that way. I’m not saying people need to replicate what I do. I’m saying that all in all, the ability, I think, to raise significant dollars so that you have the flexibility to do what’s right means that you have to think differently about how your board gains access into wealth in your community. So if it’s in Kansas city, guess where the money is in Kansas city, if it’s in Minneapolis, guess where the money is in Minneapolis. I don’t care where you go in this country. If you want to tap into private dollars, you’re going to have to use your board to do that.

Geoff Canada:

And I think that’s intentional and we built a board to help us do that. The last thing I’m going to say, if people have always thought oh, Geoff,, no, you’re wonderful. You did this. I built a team of folk that I would tell folks, I would match my team against any fortune 500 team in this country. These were smart, talented men and women. They will very diverse. White, black, Latinx. We all were focused on this work. And when I looked at my team, there were about 20, 25 folk who were serious senior members of this team that did this work. People think you can do this with one or two people. Not possible, just not possible. So if you, yourself, as the leader find it difficult to give up responsibility. I mean, there’s no way I can manage 20, 25 people. I’ve got to hire really smart people and let them do their job.

Geoff Canada:

Right? And if you struggle with that because you micromanage or you find it difficult to you, don’t like somebody, you don’t necessarily want them being part of your team. You can’t do this kind of complicated that we’re doing right now. I built a team, one of the things I was really good at and we help use the data to hold everybody accountable. And everybody understood. You kept your job if you delivered for kids, you lost your job if you didn’t. I didn’t care…it didn’t matter whether Geoff Canada liked you or not. If those numbers weren’t going in the right direction, you couldn’t stay part of this team. And I think that’s, what’s critical in doing this.

Geoff Canada:

I’ve got to go. I’ve just got a call, so I literally have to go right now. I’m sorry. Hopefully you got enough.

Nic Campbell:

No worries!

Geoff Canada:

Thank you for having me.

Nic Campbell:

Thank you.

Nic Campbell:

Incredible. Geoff shared tremendous insight, knowledge, and practical advice for everyone listening. And that’s how we learn how to build and lead bravely. So, thank you again for your time, Geoff.

-Upbeat Outro Music-

Nic Campbell:

philanthropy

The Call for Nonprofit Leadership with Shawn Dove (Part I & II)

Listen to the podcast here:

Resources:

About Shawn Dove

Read the podcast transcription below:

The Formula for Action with Veta Richardson

Listen to the podcast here:

Resources:

About Veta T. Richardson

Read the podcast transcription below:

Leveraging Systems for Sustainability and Opportunity with Jim Shelton

Listen to the podcast here:

Resources:

About Jim Shelton

Read the podcast transcription below:

Investment and Innovation for Impact with Lawrence Mendenhall

Listen to the podcast here:

Resources:

About Lawrence Mendenhall

Read the podcast transcription below:

Receive Notifications

Categories

SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER AND IMPORTANT UPDATES!

Build Up Advisory Group®

Locations

Recent Tweets

Investing in Systems Change for Sustainable Impact with Geoffrey Canada