Nonprofit Builder Blog

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning practitioners working with litigation and advocacy organisations have long wrestled with a structural mismatch : the frameworks commonly used were built for a different kind of work. Logframes assume countable outputs and plausible attribution. Results matrices assume that change happens within project cycles. Neither assumption holds in strategic litigation, where a brief filed today may reshape environmental jurisprudence five years from now, through mechanisms that run simultaneously through courts, regulatory bodies, scientific institutions, and public opinion. AIDA , the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, approached Stone Soup Consulting to design its MEL system for the 2024–2027 Strategic Plan, this mismatch was the starting point. What followed was an eight-month process of diagnosis, co-design, and methodology transfer that produced Legal Outcome Mapping (LOM) : a framework built specifically for complex, multi-actor legal strategies. What the diagnosis revealed Before designing a MEL system, our team spent several months learning how AIDA actually worked . We reviewed strategic documents, conducted leadership interviews, facilitated workshops, and ran a survey. The picture that emerged was one of a learning organisation. AIDA's teams generated significant information, tracking cases, documenting interactions with stakeholders, and registering outcomes. The challenge remained to find a common system that works across strategies and program areas and that is also easy to maintain. At the same time, the team felt a genuine desire to develop a more rigorous monitoring, evaluation and learning system, alongside a real concern that more structure would mean more administrative burden. It was evident that AIDA had a wealth of knowledge, and that it was time to connect, organise, and strengthen capacities that already existed; not to install a system from the outside. The methodological challenge AIDA's mission is to strengthen people’s ability to defend their right to a healthy environment by using the law, science, and communications to protect ecosystems and communities across Latin America. To achieve this, their work expands over four main program areas: climate, ocean, human rights, and territories. Six main strategies make all this work happen, including legal cases, scientific evidence, community-based work, communications, policy advocacy, and protection. AIDA’s programmatic areas share an organisational home but operate through fundamentally different -and complex- theories of change and with multidisciplinary teams , including lawyers, economists, scientists, and communicators. Moreover, AIDA's teams operate in a fast-moving sector requiring attentiveness and timely interventions. The diversity was too great. The breakthrough came from a different question: What do all of AIDA's strategies share? What is the common denominator across themes, strategies, and geographies? How can we build a solid system that does not burden busy teams? The answer was stakeholder change. Whether AIDA files a legal brief, publishes a scientific report, or accompanies an Indigenous community through a regulatory proceeding, the operative mechanism is always the same: a specific actor, such as a judge, a regulator, a legislator, a development bank, changes their position, behaviour, relationship, or capacity in ways that advance the protection of the human right to a healthy environment. This is how AIDA produces change, across every programme, every geography, every strategy. This insight, drawn from Outcome Mapping's contribution-over-attribution logic and Outcome Harvesting's actor-centred approach to complex systems change, unlocked a common unit of analysis. The same core questions applied everywhere: who changed, what changed, and how did AIDA contribute to that shift? The Legal Outcome Mapping framework Over eight months, AIDA and Stone Soup worked together closely, through knowledge transfer sessions , co-creation sessions, and asynchronous validation exercises. Together we designed Legal Outcome Mapping (LOM) — a framework that integrates Outcome Mapping, Outcome Harvesting, and complex multi-actor advocacy evaluation practice into a system grounded in the logic of legal strategy. At its core is Case Theory : a practice already familiar to their legal teams, repurposed as the unit from which all monitoring flows. From there, the system tracks how actors change across the case ecosystem, consolidates that information at the programme level, and transforms it into institutional evidence for leadership, fundraising, and communications. Governance was co-designed with the same logic: clear roles at each level, from the case manager who registers changes as they occur, to the programme focal point who consolidates them in an accessible format, to the MEL lead who produces evidence, so that accountability is distributed without creating new layers of management. The system also creates an explicit link between day-to-day case operation and the strategic plan, allowing the organisation to read how individual cases connect to institutional objectives , and where gaps exist between strategy and practice. The framework was validated by applying it to a successful litigation case study, and tools were adjusted to reflect the available information and the capacity to collect information within the cases. Six design principles The framework was built around six principles, defined with AIDA's team: Structure without bureaucracy. Operational clarity over rigid formalisation. Fixed outcomes, negotiable tools. A common indicator floor that enables institutional comparison, combined with real flexibility at the programme level. This resolves the apparent contradiction between comparability and adaptation. Built from the inside. The Design and Implementation Committee and the Steering Committee co-designed the system. They did not receive it. Lightness as a condition of survival. If the system does not fit into real workflow, it will not survive Learning, not just reporting. The complete cycle is registration, analysis, decision, and learning. Minimal administrative burden for operational teams. What this suggests for complex systems MEL The unit of analysis is the key design decision. In complex advocacy, what you choose to measure determines what you can see. Stakeholder change is more honest and more tractable than outputs or activities for organisations working through indirect mechanisms over long time horizons. Diagnosis before design. AIDA had already generated substantial information. Building on existing practices rather than overlaying a new system was both more efficient and more likely to survive. Appropriation requires genuine agency. The distinction between consultation and co-creation is not rhetorical. It is the difference between a system that lasts and one that doesn't. Flexibility and rigour are not in tension. The fixed-outcome / flexible-tool architecture is the practical resolution. Standardise what needs to be compared; adapt everything else. About AIDA: AIDA - Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense i s a pioneer regional organisation of environmental legal experts from and based in Latin America working for environmental protection and climate justice. For over 28 years, AIDA has used the law and science to protect some of the world’s most vulnerable and endangered habitats and communities in the region suffering from environmental harm. With Justice, Governance, and Partnership as its pillars, AIDA prioritizes high-need, high-impact cases that can set replicable precedents, therefore fundamentally changing laws to fortify environmental protection and address the climate crisis. About the authors: Emilia Carrara , AIDA’s Director of Strategy With a background in environmental science, Emilia has worked with AIDA for over nine years, supporting the strengthening of institutional strategy, development processes, and internal capacity-building. Inji ElAbd , Principal Consultant at Stone Soup and Project Coordinator With a background in economics, international cooperation and art therapy, Inji is an evaluator specializing in complex portfolios, intersectional evaluation and participatory and arts-based methods. T he Project team at Stone Soup included Andrés Trujillo Lentini , Federico Diaz Sahr , Samantha Colli with Claudia Pedra , Stone Soup Managing Partner, as Project Supervisor. Stone Soup Consulting · stone-soup.net · stone-soup@stone-soup.net

“Funders do not invest in proposals alone. They invest in organisations they believe can turn resources into credible impact.” Over the years, I have seen good teams put enormous effort into proposals that looked strong on paper and still did not win. The theory of change was sensible, the budget was carefully prepared and the technical team knew the sector. Naturally, the post-mortem focused on the document: Was the design strong enough? Was the price too high? Did we explain the impact clearly enough? Those questions matter. But after more than two decades working in international development, I have come to ask a different one first: was the organisation itself ready to compete for the opportunity? That distinction matters because resource mobilisation is not simply a proposal-writing exercise. A proposal is the visible product, but funders are also making a judgement about the organisation behind it: whether it has the strategy, systems, relationships and credibility to turn funding into measurable, sustainable impact. The funding landscape is changing This question has become more urgent as the funding landscape has become less predictable. Traditional aid budgets are under pressure, donor priorities are changing, and the disruption to USAID-funded programmes and wider shifts in U.S. foreign assistance have shown how quickly long-established funding channels can change. For NGO leaders, the implication is uncomfortable but important: we cannot build a funding strategy around the assumption that yesterday's donors will still be there tomorrow. Organisations need a more resilient mix of relationships across bilateral and multilateral donors, governments, foundations, the private sector and other financing partners. At the same time, the problems we are trying to solve are becoming more complex. Climate risk, health, livelihoods, inequality, humanitarian shocks and institutional capacity rarely sit neatly within the capabilities of one organisation. In practice, this means NGOs increasingly have to compete and collaborate at the same time. An organisation may be a competitor in one opportunity and a consortium partner in the next. I see this less as a contradiction and more as a new organisational capability: knowing when to lead, when to complement and when collaboration will produce a stronger result than going alone. Know what makes you worth choosing One of the most useful questions I have learned to ask is: what is our unique value proposition for this opportunity? The answer should sit at the intersection of three things - what we are genuinely good at, what the donor is trying to achieve, and who else could credibly do the work. That competitive field is broader than many NGOs assume. It can include other NGOs, managing contractors, consulting firms, social enterprises and commercial companies. So the question is not simply, 'Can we deliver this programme?' It is, 'Why should the donor choose us - or choose us as part of a consortium - over credible alternatives?' This is where organisational self-awareness becomes important. A strong organisation knows what it can lead, where it needs partners, and which capabilities it should not pretend to have. In my experience, that clarity produces better partnerships and more credible proposals. Delivery matters more than promises I also believe NGOs need to be much clearer about the difference between delivering activities and delivering impact. Funders increasingly want evidence that an organisation can move beyond outputs to measurable change. That means implementation discipline, adaptive management, local partnerships and the ability to work through government and community systems. Value for money is part of the same conversation. It should not be reduced to being the cheapest bidder. The real question is whether the organisation can explain the value created for the resources required. What impact can reasonably be achieved per dollar? What can be leveraged through partnerships? What will remain after the funding ends? Credibility with key stakeholders matters just as much. Host-country government, regulators, local authorities, communities and sector partners often determine whether a programme can operate at scale. An NGO that is trusted by these stakeholders gives a donor greater confidence that implementation can be accepted, coordinated and sustained. Build the organisation before the opportunity This is why I no longer think the best resource-mobilisation question is only, 'How can we write a stronger proposal?' A better question is, 'How can we become an organisation that funders and partners are confident investing in?' That shifts resource mobilisation from a deadline-driven activity to an organisational capability. It requires strategic clarity, proven delivery, credible evidence, trusted relationships, disciplined use of resources and the judgement to know when to compete, when to collaborate and when to do both. Before committing heavily to the next opportunity, I would ask five questions: Is this strategically important for us? Can we demonstrate relevant results? Do we have the people, systems and leadership capacity to deliver measurable impact? Are our partnerships strong enough? And can we clearly explain why our organisation - or our consortium - offers a stronger pathway to impact than credible alternatives? If several of those answers are unclear, the problem may not be the proposal. The problem may be organisational readiness. Good proposal writing still matters. But the organisations that consistently mobilise resources tend to build their credibility long before the opportunity appears. The proposal is simply the final expression of the organisation behind it.

Our team is building hands-on visual design capacity through a new training led by Daniel Rugwiza of Kubara , covering design fundamentals with principles applied to NPB's visual identity. Daniel established NPB's brand kit in Canva and taught techniques for converting any design template into NPB's identity, alongside graphic design and video editing workflows focusing the conveying a clear message while maintaining brand consistency What the Training Covers 1. Fundamentals of Graphic Design Principles Applied to NPB's Visual Identity Grounding the team in core design principles — layout, color, typography, hierarchy — and how they translate specifically into NPB's brand. 2. Advanced Techniques for Creating Social Media Graphics Using NPB-Branded Templates Practical, applied skills for producing polished, on-brand social content efficiently using our existing template library. 3. Video Editing Workflows Within Canva A focused walkthrough of trimming, transitions, and text overlays, equipping the team to produce dynamic video content without needing a dedicated design specialist for every piece. 4. Best Practices for Maintaining Brand Consistency in All Visual Assets Tying it together with practical guidance for keeping our visual identity unified across every asset the team creates, from social posts to training materials. Looking Ahead This training reflects something core to how NPB approaches capacity building — not just for the organizations we support, but for our own team as well. Investing in these skills means our team can tell NPB's story — and the stories of the partners and communities we work with — more clearly, consistently, and persuasively. We're grateful to have Daniel's expertise guiding this work, and we're looking forward to seeing how it shapes the way NPB shows up visually in the months ahead.

Recently in Nairobi, at Segal Connect 2026 , dubbed The Next Beat , the Segal Family Foundation celebrated 20 years of impact and trust-based philanthropy. The drums began before the stories did. Rhythm, colour and movement filled the room. It was more than an anniversary celebration. It felt like a living archive of what Africans have imagined, built and sustained when given the trust and resources to lead from where they stand. Across the showcase, from anglophone to francophone Africa, the evidence was compelling: innovations born in conditions of scarcity, solutions shaped by lived experience, leaders exercising critical thought, and organisations stretching every resource to meet needs that are often far greater than their budgets. There was creativity, but also discipline; ambition, but also prudence. Most importantly, there was evidence of African agency —not people waiting for solutions, but people creating them. And Rona Foundation , a widow human rights organisation I founded and lead, was privileged to be part of that story. Now that the dust has settled, and as we, alongside fellow partners and allies, reflect on who we have become and what we have collectively built, I find myself thinking about something less visible: the investment beneath the visible impact. Because, one of Segal's most thoughtful contributions has been its decision to bring Nonprofit Builder (NPB) into its ecosystem of support. It reflects an important understanding of philanthropy: funding the work is only one part of strengthening social change. The institutions carrying that work also need opportunities to learn, reflect, question themselves and grow. It was, in my view, an ingenious decision. For Rona, this has not been a one-off intervention. Through Nonprofit Builder , we have had access to continued organisational learning and capacity strengthening, including modules that have enabled us to examine our leadership, strategy, fundraising, systems and safeguarding. That continuity matters. So does the opportunity for all staff across the partner organisation to access different modules twice a week throughout the year. This means learning is not held by one person; it can move through the organisation, shaping how we think, work and grow together. Take the safeguarding module by Shermin Moledina, which we undertake annually. It has encouraged us to look beyond safeguarding as a compliance exercise: another policy, another form, another requirement. Returning to this learning each year invites us to examine power, dignity, accountability and the responsibility we carry towards the people whose lives we touch. Equally, the fundraising module has greatly helped me look beyond fundraising as the search for money and towards fundraising as a question of organisational clarity. What are we building? Why does it matter? What makes our contribution distinctive? Who might share that vision? Through Nonprofit Builder , I was matched with Bill Bruty of Fundraising Training Ltd as a mentor, and his mentorship deepened that learning. Those questions have stayed with me. Together, these learning experiences have reinforced a lesson I have come to value deeply: capacity building is not about making organisations more acceptable to funders. It is about helping them become more capable of carrying their own vision. And that is a very different proposition. It means creating spaces where founders, leads and staff can think beyond the next grant. It means making room for difficult questions, peer learning, expert advice and honest reflection. It means recognising that sometimes the most important organisational change happens quietly—a founder changes a decision, a team strengthens a practice, an organisation becomes more confident about what it will and will not do. These changes rarely have clear indicators, and are unlikely to appear in a grant dashboard. Yet they often determine whether an organisation survives, adapts and continues to create sustainable and transformative change. Looking back to that colourful room in Nairobi, I now realise that the impact celebrated had two layers. There was the visible layer: the innovations, programmes, communities reached and systems changed. And beneath it was another layer —the investment in the people and institutions that made some of that impact possible. For me, that is the deeper lesson of bringing a capacity-building institution like Nonprofit Builder into a funding portfolio: enabling the investment’s impact to go beyond what partners have delivered; it is in strengthening their ability to keep learning, questioning and adapting to what comes next—especially amid changing philanthropy dynamics. Ultimately, a grant can fund a project for a season, but the capacity to question, learn, adapt and endure is what helps secure a sustainable future. That quiet institutional strengt h is the impact behind the impact —and perhaps the most important foundation for the Next Beat of African-led social change. And that is the capacity Nonprofit Builder is helping Segal’s partners build. Roseline Orwa , a widow champion, and the Founder and Executive Director of the Rona Foundation, a Kenyan widow human rights organization. She tweets @roselineorwa

A tale from "The Next Beat" Segal event, Nairobi, Kenya. Sometimes safeguarding isn’t a big policy document. Sometimes it’s the small beats. At "The Next Beat" hosted by Segal Family Foundation in Nairobi, I watched those small beats turn into real care. 1. Space to breathe From a quiet corner to relax, all the way to a full sensory room for mental breaks. In a world where neuro-diversity is still a struggle for many, here inclusion wasn’t a talking point. Hyperfocus minutes, zoning out, needing a pause, all of it was planned for and protected. 2. Thoughtfulness in the details Where we spent the nights. The food on the table that honored diverse dietary needs. Even a "meat lover" got a special shoutout and it had us all laughing. Wao. That’s what it feels like when someone actually sees you. 3. From paper to practice Frameworks left the page. During field visits it wasn’t the usual visitor excitement and pomp. It was a clear risk management and mitigation plan, executed calmly and respectfully. 4. Consent and dignity, everywhere Consent was requested for almost everything. And those huge name tags? You could spell your name just by touching them. Accessibility baked right in. Thank you, Segal Family Foundation , for reminding us that safeguarding lives in the tiny nitty grities that are mostly ignored. It’s in the corner to sit. The room to reset. The meal that fits. The question asked before anything happens.Inclusion is built beat by beat. And Nairobi showed us what that sounds like.

Emotional Intelligence in Leadership "Emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive, understand, and influence our own and others' emotions, across a range of contexts, to guide our current thinking and actions, to help us achieve our goals." – Dr. Cliff Lansley Leadership is not about shouting orders or drafting brilliant strategies alone. It's also about understanding people. Great leaders know the temperature of the room, read both verbal and non-verbal cues, and guide their teams toward a shared goal without losing sight of individual motivations. That's precisely where emotional intelligence (EI) comes in. Why Emotional Intelligence Matters for Leaders While IQ might get you through the door, your EQ helps you climb the ladder. Emotional intelligence plays a pivotal role in both personal and professional settings. For leaders, high EI results in better team dynamics, increased morale, and higher productivity. It enables leaders to inspire trust, resolve conflicts more effectively, and guide their teams through challenges with empathy and understanding. Dr. Cliff Lansley argues that EI is fundamentally about abilities, not personality traits. He identifies 12 core competencies, organized under self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social interaction, as the measurable backbone of EI. When honed, these competencies form the bedrock of effective leadership. Leaders who build them tend to: Self-regulate – keeping their own emotional reactions in check and avoiding knee-jerk decisions. Show empathy – sensing the emotional climate in a room and using that insight constructively. Communicate clearly – proactively addressing issues so rumor or speculation doesn't define the narrative. Motivate – tapping into each team member's inner drive and aligning personal ambitions with the organization's goals. Any leader who neglects these competencies risks plunging themselves and their team into chaos. Putting Emotional Intelligence Into Practice Understanding the competencies is one thing; applying them is another. A few practical starting points: Understand your team. Align individual goals with the organization's mission. Hiring people who resonate with your values reduces friction and fosters cohesion. Foster psychological safety. Organizational behavior researcher Amy Edmondson's research on teaming shows that people perform best when they feel safe to speak up. Building a culture of open communication and respect is not a nice-to-have, it's a performance driver. Stay adaptable. Great leaders read the room, anticipate emotional triggers, and pivot when necessary. Flexibility and resilience are key. How to Build Your Emotional Intelligence Unlike IQ, which is relatively fixed, anyone can cultivate their emotional intelligence. A few ways to strengthen it: Mindfulness practice – paying attention to your emotions without judgment builds self-awareness. Seeking feedback – especially in professional settings, feedback offers valuable insight into how your emotions land on those around you. Empathy training – actively working to understand others' emotions and perspectives strengthens social awareness and relationship management. Stress management – managing stress is vital to controlling emotional responses and staying level-headed under pressure. Why This Matters in the Nonprofit and Capacity Building Space For the grantees, consultants, and organizations we work with at Nonprofit Builder, emotional intelligence is not an abstract leadership ideal, it shows up daily. It's in how a program lead navigates a difficult funder conversation, how a consultant reads a grantee's unspoken concerns during a proposal discussion, and how teams under resource pressure stay aligned rather than fractured. Strengthening EI is, in many ways, strengthening organizational resilience. Whether you're leading a global company or a small nonprofit, the message is clear: emotional intelligence isn't optional, it's essential. It's the glue that binds teams, the force that drives performance, and the shield that protects against internal discord and external pressure. As the saying goes, people may forget a bad decision or a losing streak, but they rarely forget how a leader made them feel. That's emotional intelligence in a nutshell. Looking to strengthen leadership and team capacity within your organization? [Explore how Nonprofit Builder connects grantees with vetted consultants] who can support this work.

Some days remind you why community matters more than any strategy deck ever could. Friday, 24 July was one of those days. Consultants from across Kenya and the wider East African region made their way to Nairobi for our first Consultant Connect Day of the year; a chance to step out of inboxes and Zoom calls and actually be in a room together. We've hosted gatherings like this before, but it had been a while, and honestly, none of us expected it to land quite the way it did. Morning Tea and Old Friends The day started the way the best ones do: with tea, hugs, and the easy chatter of people who normally only know each other through email threads finally catching up in person. Natasha kicked things off properly, sharing what Nonprofit Builder has been up to and where we are headed. This was followed by introductions that turned out to be far more moving than a simple icebreaker has any right to be. Hearing people describe, in their own words, who they are and the work they pour themselves into, set the tone for everything that followed. Straight Talk on AI, and the Business of Being a Consultant From there, the day got practical fast. A candid session on artificial intelligence (AI) in consultancy unpacked where it is genuinely changing the game for independent consultants and where it still falls short. An emphasis on using it responsibly in grantee-facing work was made. It wasn't hype, and it wasn't fear. Just an honest look at a tool reshaping the field in real time. Next came a hands-on session on selling your expertise, helping consultants sharpen how they present their services in ways that actually resonate with the organisations they hope to support. Less theory, more "here's how you say this better." After lunch, the energy shifted into logistics — but the good kind. A walkthrough of NPB's new consultant-facing platform answered the practical questions everyone actually has: what's changed, how to navigate it, and what it means for how day-to-day engagements get managed. The floor was full of questions, which is always a good sign. The Part Nobody Saw Coming Then came the session that quietly became the heart of the day: an honest, unhurried conversation about consultant wellbeing; the real highs and lows of freelance life, the financial uncertainty, the feast-and-famine cycles nobody talks about openly enough, and what actually helps. Woven through with spoken word performance and live guitar, the room settled into something rare: stillness, reflection, and a lot of nodding heads. More than one person told us afterwards that it felt like therapy. We are inclined to agree. The day closed on a forward-looking note: exploring where the capacity-building sector is headed, how consultants and NPB can grow demand for organisational development work together, takeaways from each person in the trust circle, and a wrap-up group photo. What Came Out of It Two things emerged that will outlast the day itself: A new WhatsApp community , so consultants can stay connected, trade opportunities, and support each other long after the room emptied out. A standing commitment to meet quarterly , in person, simply to check in and keep that sense of community alive. Consulting can be an isolating way to work. This was everyone's way of saying: not anymore, not if we can help it. In the days since, we've seen the ripple effect already: several consultants who attended have signed up to host webinars and write for our blog. That kind of follow-through tells us people didn't just leave feeling good, they left motivated. An Unplanned Echo, 8,000 Kilometres Away Here is the part that still gives us chills: by complete coincidence, our colleagues in Asia were holding an almost identical gathering with consultants in the Philippines on the very same day. We connected the two rooms virtually for a moment, and there was something genuinely moving about it: two groups on different continents, having strikingly similar conversations about connection, about the loneliness of this work, and about wanting community, at exactly the same time. Sometimes the universe makes the case for togetherness better than we ever could. It was, in every sense, a great day: relaxed, honest, occasionally emotional, and full of the kind of connection that's easy to lose in a sector that moves as fast as ours. Thank you to all consultants who committed to be present and to partake in this incredible experience.

The Nonprofit's Guide to Securing Platforms You Don't Control When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he wanted to rename the company “X.” But someone else already had that handle and had been using it for years. This was not a problem for Elon. He owned the company, and he owned all the accounts. So he just took it. It's a strange, small story, but it points to something bigger: most of what we consider "ours" online, we don't actually own. We rent it. And the terms of that lease, including who gets access and how it's protected, can change without our consent. In the nonprofit sector, you live this reality every day, often without time to think about its implications. Your donor CRM, your email, your Facebook page, your Google Drive full of case files: almost none of it lives on infrastructure you control. That's not necessarily a problem. Free and low-cost platforms are often the only way small nonprofits can operate at all. But your security posture needs to plan for the fact that a vendor, not your organization, controls the platforms your mission depends on. You can't control everything, but protecting your mission starts with what you can control . Here’s how. Know what people use Ask most nonprofit leaders how many digital tools their organization uses, and you'll get a rough guess. Ask which specific platforms every staff member and volunteer actually has an account on, and the guess gets a lot rougher. That gap is a security risk in itself. Small nonprofits rarely have a formal IT approval process. Someone needs to share files, so they set up a personal Dropbox. Someone needs a quick way to survey volunteers, so they sign up for a free tool with their work email. None of it is malicious, and often it solves a real problem in the moment. But every one of those accounts is a place where your organization's data now lives, outside of anything you're tracking or securing. Start with a simple inventory: what platforms does your staff actually use to do their jobs, including the platforms nobody officially approved? A short survey or a five-minute conversation with each team member is usually enough to surface tools you didn't know existed. You're not trying to catch anyone doing something wrong; you're trying to find out where your mission's data actually lives, so you can decide what belongs there and what doesn't. Read the Terms of Service If a breach is really about unwanted access to your data, then the fine print you (or individual team members) agreed to without reading is already part of that equation. Every platform you use has a Terms of Service and a Privacy Policy, and buried in that fine print are the actual rules of the relationship: what the platform can do with your data, whether they can sell or share it with third parties, and what happens to your information if you stop paying or the company changes hands. For a nonprofit holding sensitive constituent data, case files, or donor information, those answers matter as much as any firewall. This risk goes up sharply with free tools. There's an old saying in tech: if you're not paying for the product, you are the product. Free platforms often make up the difference by monetizing user data, and "monetizing" can mean selling it, using it to train other products, or sharing it with advertisers and partners in ways you never explicitly agreed to. That doesn't mean you should stop using free tools; for many nonprofits, they're the only option. But it does mean you should know, going in, what the trade-off actually is. The problem, of course, is that Terms of Service documents are written to be skimmed past, not understood. They're long, dense, and full of legal language that obscures more than it reveals. This is a place where AI tools can genuinely help: you can paste a platform's Terms of Service or Privacy Policy into a tool and ask it to summarize, in plain language, what happens to your data, whether it can be sold, and what your rights are if you want it deleted. It won't replace legal advice, but it can turn an hour of dense reading into a five-minute gut check, which is often the difference between checking at all and not checking. Know exactly who holds the keys Unlike large companies with dedicated IT departments, nonprofits often rely on a revolving cast of staff, interns, and volunteers. As a result, access and login controls are spread across a number of staff members. Every person who's ever had a login to your donor database or social accounts is a potential access point. Keep a living list of who has access to what and when their access needs were last reviewed. If you can't produce that list in five minutes, that's your first project. Then, build an offboarding checklist that is utilized every time. When someone leaves, their access should leave with them. Revoke email, remove from Slack, pull CRM permissions, rotate any shared passwords they knew. This single habit closes one of the most common security gaps in small organizations. This is another reason to have a complete list of the software team members use. If someone is storing work files under an account they set up, then you can lose access to it when they leave. Don’t trust default settings The free and discounted tools nonprofits rely on often have weaker default security and slower support than their enterprise versions. That's often a necessary trade-off for being able to do your work, but it means basic protections, like MFA, access review, and login alerts, are your responsibility, not the platform's. Check what security features your tools offer and whether they're actually turned on. Defaults are rarely the safest setting. Where applicable, consider upgrading your more sensitive systems to a paid plan if it gives you a higher level of security. Take ownership back with backups You can't own the platform, but you can own a copy of what's on it. Regular, tested backups of donor records, financials, and program data mean that if you get locked out of a platform, or even if it simply goes down, your mission's history doesn't go down with it. This is also an essential protection from ransomware attacks and malicious deletions from hacked accounts. Be sure to test your backups on a regular schedule. “ A backup never tested is a hope, not a plan. " Ensure that any manual procedures are being followed and that any automated systems are not experiencing sync errors. You don’t want to find out after a ransomware attack that the backups you thought you had do not actually exist. Have a response plan Backup procedures, offboarding checklists, and regular settings reviews illustrate how digital security is as much about policies as it is about technology. You need to act as if eventually something will go sideways: a hacked account, a platform error, or a departed staffer who was the only one with the password. An incident response plan can help keep you accountable to take proactive steps to prevent a security issue and take quick and decisive action if something does happen. Decide now, not during the emergency, who has authority to work with the platform's support team, where your backup contact information lives, and how you'll communicate with your community if a channel goes dark temporarily. If you don’t have an incident response plan, our team can help you develop one. None of this means you should stop using cloud technologies and go back to paper forms and filing cabinets. Apart from the fact that that’s practically impossible today, these tools do help you work better. They help keep you connected with your team and your constituents. They improve service delivery, increase fundraising, and add efficiencies that save you money. But building on rented land comes with risks you need to consider. It means knowing what you can’t control, controlling what you can, and taking proactive steps to ensure your mission's memory doesn't live in only one place. Sources ● IBM, Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 ● FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), 2025 Internet Crime Report ● RipRap Security, Nonprofit Data Breaches & Their Impact ● VikingCloud, Cybersecurity Statistics 2026 ● Cal Nonprofits Insurance Services, Cyber Liability Risks Every Nonprofit Faces in 2026 ● Nten Cybersecurity for Nonprofit guide Amber Crayton Associate Cybersecurity Consultant Undaunted Consulting she/her Amber is a self-motivated and detail-oriented cybersecurity professional bringing over four years of hands-on experience in cybersecurity and over seven years in customer service. With strong problem-solving skills, she focuses on troubleshooting technical and security issues. She has a strong foundation in risk assessment, digital privacy, and network security. With a background in both public and private sectors, Amber has worked across diverse IT environments performing system audits, evaluating security protocols, and supporting data protection initiatives. Her expertise includes conducting vulnerability assessments to identify and mitigate risks, supporting secure system configurations, and managing sensitive information through strong compliance practices. Amber is also skilled in implementing secure file handling protocols, auditing embedded systems, and assisting with phishing simulations and user awareness training to improve organizational resilience. She is passionate about translating technical concepts for non-technical stakeholders, improving end-user security behaviors, and enhancing privacy in AI-integrated environments. With a Bachelor’s Degree in Applied Technology: Cybersecurity, Amber holds the CompTIA Security+ (SY0-701) certification and a level one CISSP certificate, as well as a Cybersecurity Infrastructure Technician certificate. Her proactive mindset, attention to detail, and ability to foster collaboration make her an asset to the Undaunted team and its clients. Amber is committed to continuous learning and brings ethical judgment, strategic thinking, and a detail-oriented mindset to every engagement. To learn more about Amber and Undaunted Consulting, reach out to hello@undaunted.llc or visit www.undaunted.llc .

For the past decade, Outcome Harvesting has been a favoured choice of methodology for many organisations seeking to strengthen the governance of their work and use lessons learnt in their strategic planning. This is hardly surprising. Outcome Harvesting is a method for monitoring and evaluation that is conceptually straightforward at a first glance. Yet formulating, analysing and learning from outcomes – and using it for governance and strategic planning – requires considerable discipline. This article discusses some of the main challenges associated with Outcome Harvesting and what organisations applying the approach may do to overcome them to improve program governance and evidence-based strategic planning. Malene Sønderskov, Evaluation Expert Outcome Harvesting has gained significant popularity as an approach to monitor and govern programmatic work since Ricardo Wilson Grau and Heather Britt first introduced and described it in a guide called ‘Outcome Harvesting’, published by the Ford Foundation in May 2012. Wilson Grau later explained the approach at length in a book from 2018 called ‘Outcome Harvesting, principles, steps and evaluation application’. Its popularity is hardly surprising. With time, more development interventions have moved from responding to immediate needs to addressing the multiple factors and actors that cause poverty and human suffering; often in causal pathways of change that are unpredictable and far from the causality that can be predicted in a vaccine program that aims to reduce morbidity or a school program that promotes learning. Outcome Harvesting has become popular because it fits the realities of complex programmes better than many traditional monitoring approaches. Its main attraction is that it starts with what has changed, rather than only checking progress against predetermined indicators - which might turn out to be of little relevance in a programme where constant change is the only predictable factor. Consequently, Outcome Harvesting is especially useful in advocacy, governance, women’s rights, peacebuilding and systems-change programmes, where outcomes are indeed unpredictable and usually the result of several actors and factors, of which the intervention itself is only one. Yet Outcome Harvesting may also be attractive for other reasons. Unlike more traditional – and quantitative – approaches, Outcome Harvesting can be applied without baseline data and with limited or no concern for control groups, sampling strategies and calculation of the data set’s statistical significance. A tempting choice, if time and resources for data collection are scarce and no one has time to design or introduce a monitoring and data collection design already at the onset of the intervention. Yet lessons learnt from organisations applying Outcome Harvesting suggests that – as with many other things in life – the devil is to be found in the details, and that Outcome Harvesting might not be as straight forward and simple as we think. This article presents some of the challenges that we have encountered facilitating Outcome Harvesting processes with organisations all over the world. The article concludes with some recommendations or points to observe to get the full benefit of an Outcome Harvesting exercise. Language matters Ricardo Wilson Grau’s writings about Outcome Harvesting clearly define an outcome as a change in the behaviour, relationships, actions, activities, policies, or practices of an individual, group, community, organisation, or institution. Based on this definition, it should therefore not be straightforward to identify and formulate outcomes. In practice, formulating outcomes can be harder than one imagines, and participants in Outcome Harvesting exercises often express uncertainty about whether their statements genuinely describe change. One reason may lie in the language commonly used in development work. When planning interventions and describing our work, we often rely on passive constructions, abstract concepts, and broad terms such as empowerment, resilience, and capacity building. Although these terms may sound important—and may align well with donor priorities—they often reveal very little about who has changed, what these actors do differently, and why that change matters. To formulate and harvest outcomes, we therefore need to switch to another kind of language — or even unlearn some of the language we have been socialised to use when we talk about development work. Fortunately, the language we need to harvest outcomes resembles the language we were taught in school grammar lessons. A proper sentence, we learned, includes a subject, a verb and an object. With these three elements, we can construct a sentence that tells us who changed and what changed. This matters. If we cannot clearly say who changed what, it becomes very difficult to analyse whether change happened — and why. A useful guiding rule is therefore to limit each outcome statement to one sentence. Clear and concise language is not a simplification of complexity. It is a precondition for understanding it. Our expectations blur the vision Our expectations and perceptions about what change looks like and how fast it takes place may be another reason why formulating outcomes can be difficult. A quick look at the objectives of many development interventions reveals that ambitions are often huge. Gender equality, reconciliation between conflicting groups, food security for communities affected by hunger. The list of hopeful and ambitious aims to be achieved within a relatively short period of time is often long. When we engage in Outcome Harvesting, it is therefore hardly surprising if we tend to look for major, visible results and forget that change very often takes time and includes periods of stalemate or even regression. Yet European history proves the point: Equality between men and women, equal rights for sexual minorities, abolition of death penalty, and proper care for people with mental diseases has not materialised overnight in any country, and despite important achievements, inequality persists. Even in the most ‘advanced’ countries. Rather than expecting and looking for quick and visible changes, it is important to remember that change is often incremental and becomes apparent through everyday decisions, interactions between people, changes of practices and behaviours. Formulating a clear outcome therefore requires us to look closely at what people or institutions are doing differently, rather than describing general aspirations, activities or desirable conditions that it may take years – or even decades – to achieve. If Outcome Harvesting is the answer – what was then the question? Outcome Harvesting collects (“harvests”) evidence of what has changed (“outcomes”) and, working backwards, determines whether and how an intervention has contributed to these changes. When organisations harvest outcomes, the result is often a long list of ‘change stories’–frequently collected and organised in an outcome database that staff and other interested stakeholders can consult, if they wish to access information about the performance of their program. Unfortunately, this treasure of information (outcomes) gathered is often left partly or fully unexplored, however. One reason is that organisations may struggle to find the time and resources needed to make sense of all the outcomes they have collected. This includes exploring whether the outcomes reveal a pattern, whether some outcomes lead to others further along a change pathway, and whether the outcomes produced align with the outcomes originally expected. Another reason may be that insufficient attention is paid to the purpose of the Outcome Harvesting exercise. While Outcome Harvesting may be “the answer” to many organisations’ need for monitoring data, organisations sometimes forget to ask themselves what the question was: What is it that they, as organisations, programme practitioners or MEL staff, want to know about their programme — beyond whether or not it produced outcomes? Outcome Harvesting offers a unique opportunity for learning and strategic adjustment, but only if we invest the time and resources needed to analyse the full sample of outcomes harvested. This requires us to begin the entire Outcome Harvesting exercise by formulating clear questions that can guide the process. Key questions to consider when analysing outcomes include – but may not be limited to: What outcomes did we produce? Do the outcomes we have produced fall into certain categories (e.g. policy changes, institutional changes, behaviour changes or changes in relations). Are we producing more outcomes in some categories than in others? If so, what may be the reason? To what extent are the outcomes harvested aligned with outcomes that we expected to produce/contribute to when we formulated our program? To what extent and how are outcomes connected in causal pathways? What other factors and actors have contributed to the outcomes we are harvesting – and to the links between them? And last, but not least: What do these insights tell us about how and under which circumstances change happens? And what are the implications for our program that we can draw from this? If we forget to ask questions that can guide analytical reflection, then we risk not capitalising on the richness of the outcomes that we have harvested. The key recommendations for Outcome Harvesting as a means to strengthen program governance So where does that leave organisations who adopt Outcome Harvesting as a means to understand the contributions they make in contexts of complexity and who wants to invest in their ability to make sense of their results to better govern programs and ensure that new strategies are informed by evidence and lessons learnt? Below are ten recommendations that might assist in making much more out of the Outcome Harvesting process. Planning the harvest and formulating outcomes Begin with learning questions. Before collecting outcomes, decide what your organisation wants to understand. Outcome Harvesting should not merely produce a database of change stories; it should generate evidence that answers strategic questions about your program. Formulate each outcome as one clear, concrete sentence. Use a subject, verb, and object to state who changed, what they now do differently and, where relevant, why the change matters. Clear and concise outcome statements are easier to verify, compare and analyse. Look for incremental change. Do not focus only on major policy reforms or highly visible results. Changes in everyday behaviour, relationships, decisions and practices may be important steps in a longer pathway of change. Separate outcomes from activities and aspirations. Training people, holding meetings or producing a guide are activities. Gender equality, reconciliation and food security are broad ambitions. The outcome is the change in what a specific actor does as a result. Harvest only what the organisation has capacity to analyse. A smaller, well-analysed set of outcomes is more useful than a large collection that remains unexplored. Analysing outcomes Analyse patterns across outcomes. Examine if outcomes cluster around particular actors, levels or types of change, and whether some kinds of outcomes appear more frequently than others. Compare harvested outcomes with the programme’s theory of change. Assess if the changes align with what the programme expected, whether unexpected pathways have emerged, and whether the original assumptions about how change happens remain credible. Explore connections between outcomes. Individual outcomes should not always be treated as isolated stories. Investigate whether one change enabled or reinforced another. Examine contribution, not only occurrence. Consider how the intervention contributed, but also identify the other actors, contextual factors, and events that helped or hindered change. Use findings to adjust strategy and planning. Translate lessons about how change happens into revisions of activities, partnerships, priorities and theories of change.

By SBSeen After a few years of being told “AI is the future”, “you need to adopt AI”, “AI first or be left behind”, the good news is that most organisations have gotten the message. 92% of non-profits are using AI in some form 1 . But studies are now showing only 7% of those same organisations are reporting that AI has made any real difference in what they can accomplish. The conclusion is obvious: everyone adopted the tools, but they didn’t change how they do their work. That gap between using AI and benefiting from it is where most non-profits are quietly losing ground, and it's worth understanding why, and how to catch up. What non-profits are actually doing wrong It's not that non-profits pick the wrong tools, or don’t have the resources, or that AI doesn't work for mission-driven organisations. The problem is simpler than all that; most AI use is happening one person at a time, driven by reaction to a problem and on an ad hoc basis. The data shows this in two separate ways. First, when you look at how deeply AI is integrated into the organisation, 65% describe their use as reactive and individual, meaning that someone drafts an email or summarises a report on their own initiative, but with no shared process behind it. 18% describe their use on a more operational level, meaning there are shared workflows across teams. Only 7% describe strategic use, meaning the AI is genuinely built into goals, budgets, and priorities. 1 Second, on a separate question about whether AI use is written down anywhere at all, 81% of organisations said they use AI individually and on an ad hoc basis; only 4% have documented, repeatable workflows. 1 This second finding, the gap between near-universal ad hoc use and almost no documentation, can be considered one of the most significant operational gaps in the sector. What this looks like day to day is that one staff member figures out a good way to draft personalised donor updates with AI. She never tells the rest of the team. Next month a colleague spends an afternoon solving the same problem. If either of them leaves the organisation, their approach leaves with them, and the next person will have to start all over. Nobody is building on what someone else already knows works. That's the mistake: AI isn’t a personal shortcut; if employees are trained and use cases standardised, it becomes an organisational capability. There's another related problem that’s important to point out: when there's no shared, sanctioned way to use AI, staff don't necessarily stop using it; they just use it quietly, on their own terms. This pattern is sometimes called "shadow AI," and it means staff and volunteers upload internal documents, or share sensitive information with tools without the organisation knowing. 2 It's not malicious. It's what happens by default when there's no clarity on use, and it can be a huge vulnerability. The risks this creates Your organisation stays stuck on the efficiency plateau. Organisations that don’t integrate AI usage systemically get faster at the same work: quicker emails, faster first passes at research. That is genuinely useful and frees up employees' time, but it's not the same as gaining actual efficiencies or getting better outcomes. Only 7% of organisations report the kinds of changes that actually impact and improve capacity, like reaching more donors personally or freeing staff time for relationship-building instead of routine tasks. 1 Without an adoption framework that is tailored to your organisation's needs and structure, you’ll likely stay on this efficiency plateau. You're exposed to data privacy risks, and you probably don't know it. Large language models (especially free-tier models) are designed to collect and retain the data users feed into them, sometimes indefinitely, sometimes shared across systems and platforms, to improve the tools themselves. 2 Rightfully, non-profits carry confidentiality obligations to donors and grantors as a condition of funding, not to mention confidentiality rules surrounding several different areas, such as health, child safety, and education. 2 Once a staff member pastes donor information, a beneficiary's case notes, event details, or grant-restricted data into a public AI tool, your organisation has effectively lost control over where that data goes. None of this is contained, because there's no system-wide policy to contain it: 48% of non-profits have no AI policy at all, 1 meaning there's no shared answer to the question: when and how is it appropriate to use AI? Not surprisingly, once organisations move past early experimentation, privacy and security become their top concern, cited by 32% of regular users. ) That's not a coincidence. It's what happens when adoption outpaces any organisational policy. You lose knowledge every time someone leaves. When good AI use lives in each person’s head instead of across shared documents and standardised systems, institutional memory is quickly lost. Team members end up solving the same problems over and over, independently because no one knew a colleague had already solved it and how. New staff, and even existing team members, start from zero instead of building on what already works. For small teams especially, where one person leaving can mean losing 20% of your capacity overnight, this compounds the longer it goes undocumented — it isn't a risk you can get around to solving eventually. The unexpected data What is surprising from the data is that you'd expect larger, better-funded organisations to be pulling ahead in this new world, but they’re not. Smaller organisations, those with fewer than 50 staff, report a moderate impact from AI at slightly higher rates than large organisations: 41% versus 34%. They're achieving that while reporting higher rates of every major barrier measured: budget constraints (35% versus 21% for large organisations), privacy and security concerns (32% versus 24%), capability and training gaps (27% versus 18%), and strategy and prioritisation challenges (44% versus 25%). 1 On top of all of that, 60% of non-profits overall say that they lack the in-house expertise to even evaluate which AI tools are worth adopting in the first place. 3 It’s worth repeating: even though this is one of the hardest times for non-profits in general, and small organisations in particular, it’s the small organisations that are seeing more gains from AI adoption. The report's own conclusion is that organisational complexity, and not lack of resources, appears to be the real barrier to impact. 1 Bigger budgets don’t lead to larger gains. Better-resourced organisations often struggle because they have more departments, more approval layers, and more coordination to manage. A five-person team doesn't have that problem. Smaller teams tend to be more nimble and communicate directly with each other about what’s working and how. If you’re a small or medium non-profit this is good news. It means you’re better placed to capitalise on available tools, and can turn individual experiences into team-wide capabilities without having to allocate more budget. What you can do The report lays out six concrete steps you can take to turn AI use into AI adoption and bring real advantages to your organisation. None require technical expertise. None require much time. 1 Name a small group to own this . It can be just two or three people alongside their existing roles. Someone close to the day-to-day work, someone from operations or data, and a decision-maker. Their job isn't to become AI experts. It's to keep AI use across the organisation aligned with your mission and your donors' trust. Decide who's accountable . Make it someone's actual responsibility to evaluate current uses, examine new tools, decide what becomes standard practice and what is not appropriate usage, and revisit that decision periodically. This will avoid having AI use live in each persons head. Write a one-page use policy. Gather key decision makers and answer key questions about what's encouraged (ex: drafting, research, brainstorming), what needs human review before it is shared (ex: anything donor-facing or public), what's off-limits (confidential data, sensitive donor or beneficiary information), and which platforms/technology is and is not allowed. A document that should be shared with everyone in plain language. Write down what's already working. Capture the key approaches your team is already using that are showing positive results. Put it somewhere everyone can see and encourage others to add to it. Match tools to the actual problem . This is a big one I encounter when talking to organisations that want to go AI first. Never just buy the latest tool that everyone is talking about. Determine the real friction points in your organisation, and then look for tools that address those issues specifically. If your organisation needs a more efficient way to track financial gifts, don’t invest in a tool that is designed to optimise customer service communications. Track one thing for thirty days. Pick a single task, like drafting donor thank-you emails, and time it before and after AI. You don't need sophisticated analytics. You just need one number that tells you whether this is actually saving you and your team time. Most of these things can be done quickly and give you the information you need to make decisions about how to move forward in a way that works for you, your organisation and your mission. What you can do this week If you take one thing from this, let it be that the organisations that are seeing real results from AI are not the ones with the biggest budgets. They're the ones who stopped treating AI as something individual staff figure out on their own, and started adopting it as an organisational tool that could be deployed evenly and consistently across the organisation. If you’re eager to take advantage of AI but aren’t sure how it could work for your team, what you can do this week is: Pick two or three people, even informally for now, to be responsible for how your organisation approaches AI. Ask your team what AI approaches already work for them, write then down, share them. Block time to write a one-page policy answering: what's encouraged, what needs review, and what's prohibited, including a clear line on tools, and confidential and donor data. Choose one task to track to see if time is saved over the next month. You already have what you need to make AI serve your mission. You can easily start today. Key References The 2026 Nonprofit AI Adoption Report, Virtuous and Fundraising.AI , a benchmark study of 346 non-profit organisations surveyed in December 2025, published February 2026. Full report: virtuous.org/resource/the-2026-nonprofit-ai-adoption-report-download SecureAZ, "Responsible AI: Security and Privacy Tips for Nonprofits," published via the ASU Lodestar Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Innovation, April 2026. lodestar.asu.edu/blog/2026/04/responsible-ai-security-and-privacy-tips-nonprofits UST, "The Impact of AI on Nonprofits in 2026," April 2026. chooseust.org/blog/the-impact-of-ai-on-nonprofits-in-2026. UST attributes its data to the Virtuous/ Fundraising.AI report above and to Nonprofit Tech for Good's 2025 AI Equity Report; this specific figure likely originates from the latter.

Why People Matter as Much as Process in a Merger Every merger comes with a strategy deck, a budget, and an integration plan; all built around people, but too often not built for them. Our work supporting Girl Rising through its merger with She’s the First, alongside our own experience merging Global Good Consulting and the Amani Institute, led us to a simple yet critical insight: A merger doesn’t only succeed because systems integrate. It succeeds because people do. The Part We Don’t Talk About Enough On paper, mergers are rational. In practice, they are deeply human. Mergers surface questions that rarely make it into integration plans: Where do I fit into the new structure? Will my voice matter? What happens to the culture I helped build? Who are we becoming—and do I belong in that future? These questions don’t just sit in the background, they shape how professionals show up in the workplace - with energy and shared values, or with hesitation and resistance. That reality became particularly clear throughout the Girl Rising and She’s the First merger. Progress wasn't only about strategy or capability. It came down to how people experienced the transition, whether they felt seen, heard, and valued. Girl Rising's leadership recognized the importance of creating space for people to contribute, ask questions, and have their voices heard. Read more about their perspective here . Trust is the Framework that Holds it All Together What became clear, both in our client work and in our own merger, was that success rests on trust. The same way that we prioritize a strategic plan for the business, we need to develop and prioritize a plan to build trust so that the merger is effective. Trust is built intentionally over time through people-centered practices. For us, that looked like simple but not easy practices: Make room for real conversations Not just sharing updates, but creating space for honest dialogue where colleagues can voice concerns, name tensions, and feel heard. Be clear about what’s changing—and what’s not Clarity reduces anxiety. It also reinforces continuity. Prioritize alignment Clarity on roles is important, but it’s not enough. What matters more is shared purpose, expectations, values, and ways of working. Support people as individuals Change doesn’t only happen at the organizational level; it also happens at an individual level. Coaching, mentoring, and structured reflection help people process what is shifting, and work out where they fit in what comes next. It also signals that the organization is investing in them, as valued members of its future. And it tells them something concrete: the organization is still betting on their future, not just managing their transition. Walk the Talk in Our Own Merger When we came together as Global Good x Amani, we had the tools (strategy, systems thinking, and organizational design). Yet what mattered most was how we showed up for each other. We learned that: Alignment is not a one-time event, it’s an ongoing practice Culture cannot be merged through documents, it must be co-created Silence is rarely neutral, it often signals a topic that needs attention Slowing down to bring people along ultimately allows the merged entity to go further with a united front Some of the most critical moments in our merger looked like conversations, reflection spaces, and navigating tension with care. What This Means for Organizations Navigating Change Whether it’s a merger, a restructuring, or a period of growth, the pattern is the same: Organizations that focus heavily on systems at the expense of people may move quickly, but struggle to sustain momentum long term. Organizations that invest in their people are able to build the trust that is needed to navigate change together.. Because: When colleagues feel included, they contribute. When colleagues feel heard, they engage. When colleagues feel valued, they commit. A Question Worth Asking Most organizations ask, " How do we integrate effectively?" Equally if not more important questions to ask are: How are our people experiencing this transition? and, What are we doing to enable our people to thrive during and after the merger? Because in the end, the success of any merger isn't defined by how well systems align. It's defined by whether colleagues choose to move forward together; and that choice is made one honest conversation at a time.

Putting together the team for a new organization is a creative process. There is magic as much as craft, instinct as well as care, and a sense of wonder as the team gels. I have done this several times in my life, and I have some experiences and lessons to share. There is no formula, but I do have one clear message: This about human connection and AI is not the answer. “I am coming to work for you” Lerato (not her real name) kept phoning me in the early days (around 1990) of the Centre for Health Policy that I co-founded and co-directed at Wits Medical School in Johannesburg. She was a nurse in the public service and she wanted to work with us. We just didn’t have a job for a nurse. “One day you will”, she always said. Eventually we created a junior researcher position and hired her. She was brilliant, stayed some years, and then moved on. Despite some extreme hardships she now has a PhD and two honorary doctorates, and is recognized across the African continent as a leading (and highly spiritual) figure in aspects of traditional health. Five years later I was recruiting the first employees for a nonprofit company that financed build contractors. – a collaboration between the new democratic government and one of the largest foundations in the world. Into my life walked Noxolo (not her real name), larger than life, unparalleled networker with expertise and experience that I certainly didn’t have. For the next five years, as deputy CEO she set the standard for ambition, imagination AND accountability. She moved on to an extremely successful business career, while continuing to support small business development. She could have worked anywhere. Once, when I asked her why she came to us, she just said: “I wanted to work with you”. I never got any other explanation. I used to think I had great leadership development capacities. I can name ten or more people who worked in organizations I founded, and then moved on to the very highest levels of government, academia and the private sector. I must have had something to do with that, right? I recognize now that they contributed more to the success of the organizations I led than anything I may have contributed to their success. Let me describe what I have learnt about putting together the special team you need to do special things. The right people will find you This is an unexplained mystery. Of course you will advertise and interview and have protections against nepotism. In my experience, if you are doing something worthwhile, many of the best colleagues, like the two above, just walk through the door (or kick it down) or get referred to you by the network that wants you to succeed. They will work with you for a while then go on to do other wonderful things. The real skill lies in recognizing them when they arrive. I can’t tell you how to do it, but here are some guidelines First look for energy People can learn new skills – but if someone comes to talk about work and doesn’t show you their energy, just walk away, however skilled they are. Building something new requires energy above all else. This doesn’t have to be “set the place on fire” energy that bubbles and lights up the room. It can be a quiet determination that says “This is my thing and I am going to get it done. I don’t want to be doing anything else right now.” You will know it when you see it. Be open to the unexpected (or unplanned) At the Centre for Health Policy we found ourselves with a Women’s Health Programme and Mental Health Policy programme which were not part of the plan. The right people came with the right energy and ideas, and the new initiatives flourished and contributed to the richness of the work of the centre. Your plan derives from the best ideas you had at the time. True leadership requires that you are open to the excellent ideas of others. Trust your gut, and never settle You know what you need in new team members – and you will recognize the skills and energy you are looking for. Sometimes a long unsuccessful search, or pressure from (say) the Board to fill an important position leads to employing someone who you know instinctively, is just not the right fit. If you have to make a temporary appointment do it. But the wrong appointment leads to incalculable costs in morale, wasted energy and settlement payments. Just don’t do it. Build the team and set them free Your job is to find the right people (or let them find you); ensure that the mission, strategy and plan is clear, create the team spirit and then let go – you have plenty of other things to do. This is not about neglect. But if you chose the best people, then let them get to work with within an established framework of trust, support and accountability. If someone resigns, let them go I have regretted it every time I have talked someone out of leaving. They want to go for a reason. More money or your power of persuasion won’t change that. The push factor remains. AND, when you persuade someone not to leave it puts enormous power in their hands – because if you have asked them to stay once, you will do it again, and they know you will tread carefully around them. And their colleagues will watch with suspicion that they are getting special treatment because you are desperate to keep them. Final Word Sometimes the nonprofit sector seems buried in tools and templates and frameworks and reporting requirements and job descriptions. Before you get to them, you need to have the right people in the right place. Finding and building that team is an intensely personal and human process. Nothing else works as well as it should if you do not get that first bit right. It is (literally) magic when it works.

Do you know the #1 reason why people quit their jobs? According to OC Tanner research, "79 percent of employees who quit their jobs claim that a lack of appreciation was a major reason for leaving." Early in my career as a manager, I vividly recall discovering this Gallup research: employees who receive recognition and appreciation at least once a week are significantly more productive and engaged, and less likely to leave their organizations. While I understood the importance of appreciation, I was surprised by just how frequently it needs to occur. Appreciating our team members for their hard work isn't just the right thing to do for them as valuable contributors; it also makes strategic sense for anyone concerned with team impact. Regular appreciation reduces turnover, boosts productivity, and benefits those who express appreciation. For nearly two decades, I've been deeply engaged in workplace appreciation. Through leading workshops, retreats for teams, and coaching executives on recognizing their teams, I've gathered valuable strategies to help integrate appreciation into everyday work. Start simple, and dream big too. Fair compensation and genuine time off are crucial for team well-being. Appreciation shouldn't replace fair wages or healthy workplace practices—if these issues exist, they must be addressed promptly. However, don't delay building a culture of appreciation while tackling more significant systemic changes. Send a quick text or Slack message right now to thank someone for their work on a project. Begin your next meeting with a round of shout-outs. You can start fostering appreciation today alongside your broader goals. Make it specific so that it is meaningful. Appreciation has to be more than "Hey, thanks!" or "Great job on the budget presentation!" Get specific about what you appreciated and the impact someone has had. You need not give a long speech or write a novel to say thanks, but a few specifics about what made their work so great will take the impact of your appreciation up many notches. Systematize it. If you want to appreciate team members more, put systems in place to make that easier to do amidst all that you're juggling. Set a weekly reminder to send out an appreciation or two. Add a recurring part of a team meeting agenda (and don't skip it!) to invite others to give each other recognition for good work done. Add to a project or event checklist to call the question of how appreciation can be built into the next time we do this project or event. Start a Slack channel or Google Space called #kudos and ask team members to express their appreciation for each other as soon as they think of it. Use a system like Thanks to give everyone on your team a budget for sending small thank-you gifts to each other. Make time to discuss appreciation directly. The best way to invest in a culture of appreciation is to discuss why it matters with your team and invest everyone in creating that culture. For my clients, this often looks like spending a few hours of a retreat or workshop discussing the research on appreciation, diving into how individuals like to be appreciated (we often use this book and its associated quiz as a tool), and brainstorming how to build that recognition into their existing systems. But you can also start small as well. Play Totem together as a team (when I was a nonprofit Executive Director, I'd bring this game to team happy hours). End your next team meeting with 10-15 minutes doing this easy activity . Appreciation resources you can use today To support you in doing this with as little friction as possible, I've created an Appreciation Toolkit with a sample session facilitator's guide, handouts, a slide deck, and lots of appreciation-at-work resources that you can get for free at www.jessicaeastmanstewart.com/appreciation . I hope it's so helpful! Jessica Eastman Stewart

The EmpowerLine App In Malawi, EmpowerLine speaks. The Gender and Justice Unit (GJU) is a non-governmental organization in Malawi that uses legal empowerment as a catalyst for gender equality and social and environmental justice. GJU works through strategic litigation, legal research, advocacy, and partnerships to promote access to justice across the country. In Malawi, 34% of women have experienced physical violence, yet only 40% of survivors seek help. Against this backdrop, EmpowerLine is changing what’s possible. EmpowerLine Malawi is a mobile and free platform that gives survivors of violence real-time access to justice, in their language, on any device. When laws exist, but justice is not arriving Despite progressive laws, for the vast majority of women in Malawi, especially in rural areas, it remains inaccessible. The reasons include limited access to legal information, language barriers, stigma, and a justice sector that is largely male-dominated and often rules against women. GJU is doing critical work to help women access information on domestic violence statutes, child protection, and workplace rights. Building trust, one tap at a time With Chameleonic, our work focused on a clear challenge to bridge the justice gap using technology. The question was not simply whether we could build an app, but how to build one that a woman would trust and actually use in a moment of need. Our project applied human-centered design methodology to shape a digital product strategy. Our role was to translate GJU’s deep legal knowledge into a scalable, user-friendly tool. We ran workshops and conversations with GJU staff to map the user journey, with a strong emphasis on privacy and simplicity. We designed the experience to feel like supportive, conversational guidance. In parallel, we focused on building GJU’s internal capacity to manage and update a digital knowledge base. A lifeline, now open 24/7 The immediate outcome was the launch of the EmpowerLine App . Integrated with GJU’s existing hotline, the app now gives women access to 24/7 scalable support. EmpowerLine was co-created with and for paralegals, communities members, and survivors. Every word and feature was shaped by real needs. Women who once faced stigma or fear now have a private way to seek help. Months after launch, while the numbers are not yet large - over 270 downloads - we have not yet focused on marketing. We know the tool serves as a first-line response for women in crisis, but we also know the impact can grow. GJU’s credibility as a digital leader has strengthened. They have a tangible asset that demonstrates how to scale justice in a low-resource setting. EmpowerLine works because it is integrated into GJU’s broader model: community liaisons, legal clinics, mobile courts, psychosocial support, and partnerships with justice-sector actors. GJU can now provide survivors and community members with immediate, private, 24/7 access to legal information and referral pathways, even when they are far from a legal clinic, unable to travel, or not ready to speak directly to another person. Before EmpowerLine, our work depended more heavily on in-person legal clinics, community liaisons, hotline support, and mobile court processes. Those remain central, but EmpowerLine now keeps legal empowerment available between those points of contact. This means a survivor can take the first step anonymously, in her own language, and on her own phone, while still connected to the wider GJU ecosystem of community liaisons, psychosocial support, legal aid referrals, and formal justice pathways. In that sense, EmpowerLine has helped us move from episodic support to continuous support. - Sarai Chisala-Tempelhoff, Founder of the Gender and Justice Unit As the consultant responsible for this project, I learned that the real barrier was not technological literacy, it was trust. Removing the fear before removing the questions. The women using this app are concerned about their data and afraid of further violence. We worked to eliminate those barriers. The app is free to access, and it includes a list of important emergency telephone numbers, being the most accessible and user-friendly for anyone that needs support. Another learning is the chatbot. We trained it not to hallucinate - a common problem with many AI systems - so it restricts itself to information found only in the available legal documents or contacting a legal professional. This is an ongoing challenge, because most of the time the chatbot will ask the person to contact a legal professional directly. Still building, still listening The ongoing work of an app also involves real testing and feedback-driven improvements, which we are currently pursuing. We are now refining the chatbot in more detail, making it accessible via audio, and working on an update to improve the bilingual option (in Chichewa). For GJU, the project fundamentally reshaped its approach to decision-making. Today, every programmatic choice - whether digital or legal empowerment - begins with a single, grounding question if the survivor will feel safe enough to use, understand, and act on the information it provides. This shift means that anonymity, local language, survivor safety, referral pathways, and community ownership now carry significantly greater weight in the organization's strategic discussions and resource allocation.

Last month, I attended the Africa Xchange 2026 conference in Nairobi, Kenya, organized by the Rockefeller and Hilton Foundations. Walking away from those three days, I realized how much insight I had gained, not just about funding and markets, but about how we tell our stories and move people to action. The conference theme unfolded across three days: money, markets, and mindsets. Each day brought panel discussions featuring diverse voices and moderators who weren't afraid to push the conversation deeper. There was genuine interactivity in Q&A sessions where the audience shaped the dialogue, networking moments that felt purposeful, and a film screening that became a masterclass in itself. The Power of Storytelling One session that stuck with me was led by Ndidi Nwuneli , CEO of One Campaign, on changing narratives and the cost of capital. She shared a four-step process for building stories that actually move people: First, name the problem. Be clear about what's broken or what needs to change. Second, establish the stakes—help your audience understand what they stand to lose if nothing changes. Third, offer human proof points. Share real data, real stories from the ground that validate your narrative. Finally, present the viable path forward—the solution you're offering. What I loved about this framework is how directly it applies to the work our grantees do. They're doing incredibly impactful work, but how many of them have the tools to tell that story compellingly? This four-step process isn't just about narrative, it's about translating data into stories that move decision makers to act. Activating Your Messengers Another critical insight was about who carries your message forward. There are insiders with direct access to decision makers, experts with technical authority and credibility, amplifiers who translate complexity into public trust, and activists who build grassroots awareness. Identifying and activating these messengers, and knowing when to amplify your message, is what strategic communication is really about. At Nonprofit Builder, this resonates deeply with our mission. We work with grantees who have vital stories to tell, but many lack the strategic communications expertise to get those stories in front of the right people at the right time. That's why we're expanding our network of communications consultants to help organizations build this skill. Because let's be honest: impactful work also needs funding. Strategic communications doesn't just amplify impact; it opens doors to the support organizations need to sustain their work. A Film That Inspired The Food 2050 screening and fireside chat was a highlight. It traced Rockefeller Foundation's food systems vision from a global call that generated over thirteen hundred visions across one hundred and nineteen countries to their current priorities in regenerative agriculture, school meals, and indigenous-led projects like the Sicangu 7 Gen Vision. Watching how community-driven, cross-sector innovation strengthens food sovereignty and nutrition reminded me why this work matters so much. From Ancient Ingredients to Innovation One moment that truly stuck with me was the live cooking demonstration by Slow Food Kenya in collaboration with the Slow Food Movement. They were showcasing how traditional, indigenous foods can be prepared in ways that are both delicious and deeply nutritious, ways that have sustained our communities for generations. The chef prepared a lentil burger. Now, I'd never had a veggie burger before, and I'd wager most people haven't either. There was genuine skepticism in the room beforehand. But watching the process unfold, boiling the lentils, forming the patty, frying it to golden perfection, was mesmerizing. What really impressed me was the approach to sauces. Rather than reaching for store-bought condiments, they blended their own from tomatoes that would otherwise be discarded from markets because they didn't look appealing. These rejected tomatoes became something extraordinary. When I finally tasted that lentil burger, the skepticism melted away. It was genuinely delicious—tasty, satisfying, and a powerful reminder that innovation doesn't always mean complexity. Sometimes it means returning to what we know works, what our communities have always known, and presenting it in a way that opens people's eyes. That burger was a perfect metaphor for the entire conference: taking traditional wisdom and showing how it can address modern challenges around nutrition, local food systems, and sustainability. A Word of Thanks I want to thank William Asiko , senior vice president for the Rockefeller Foundation's African regional office, for his thoughtful moderation throughout the conference. His contributions shaped every discussion we had. And to the master of ceremonies—Mack Maasai- thank you for guiding us through three days with grace and for that closing reminder that change is constant. If we embrace it as an opportunity rather than a threat, we're already halfway there. To the Rockefeller and Hilton Foundations: thank you for bringing so many of us together on the African continent to learn, share, and sharpen one another. Conferences like this are where real collaboration begins. Joan Gekonde, Capacity Building Officer.

Governance is one of those words that sounds procedural until you have sat with an organization in the middle of a crisis that a stronger structure might have prevented. Over the course of my coaching practice, I have worked alongside nonprofit leaders, board chairs, and executive directors navigating some of the most consequential decisions their organizations have ever faced. What I have observed, consistently and across very different organizations, is this: the governance model chosen at the foundation of a nonprofit does not merely shape how the board operates. It shapes whether the mission endures. This article reflects on five commonly used nonprofit board governance models through the lens of that coaching experience. For each model, I examine its design logic, the risks it carries structurally, and the strategic response that coaching work suggests is most useful. The aim is not to prescribe a single correct model, but to offer a grounded, practice-informed reading of how each one performs under real organizational pressure. The governance literature, particularly the work of Carver (2006), provides the theoretical scaffolding here. The observations and strategic reflections are drawn from practice. Why governance is a strategic decision, not an administrative one Most nonprofit leaders I meet treat their governance structure as a formality. Something the lawyer set up. Something that lives in the bylaws. Something to revisit when there is a problem. That is a costly mistake. Your governance model determines who holds power, who bears accountability, how decisions get made under pressure, and how your organization weathers the inevitable seasons of conflict, transition, and resource scarcity. It is not administrative scaffolding. It is the architecture of your leadership culture. Governance model & Strategies for Risk Management: There are five governance models most commonly used in the nonprofit world. Each one has a distinct logic, a distinct appeal, and a distinct set of risks that leaders often do not see until they are already living inside them. Model One: The Advisory Board Model In this model, the CEO or president selects a trusted group of individuals whose skills, networks, and reputations lend credibility and momentum to the organization. These advisors typically volunteer their time. They consult, they open doors, they elevate the brand. For organizations in early growth stages or those with high public relations ambitions, this model can be enormously effective. I think of a health advocacy nonprofit I worked with some years ago. Their advisory board included two physicians, a former government official, and a well-known philanthropist. Fundraising tripled in two years. The executive director was talented, driven, and deeply connected to the mission. Things looked extraordinary from the outside. Then the executive director made a financial decision that, in hindsight, should have required board approval. No one was watching for it. No one had been set up to watch for it. The advisory board had no formal accountability mechanism. When questions arose, there was no clear process for investigation, no record of delegated authority, and no way to hold anyone responsible without damaging relationships that the organization depended on for its survival. This is the structural vulnerability of the Advisory Board Model. It was built for influence, not oversight. Risk: Accountability becomes personal, not structural. When board members face liability, the mechanisms to assign it clearly simply do not exist. Strategy: Define the advisory role in writing. Build a parallel small governance committee with formal fiduciary duties. Never let the advisory model function as your only governance layer. Model Two: The Patron Governance Model This model attracts board members for a specific reason: their wealth, or their access to it. The primary function of the board is fundraising. Members contribute personally, introduce major donors, and open the organization to networks it could not otherwise reach. It shares surface similarities with the advisory model, but the dynamic is distinct. Patrons give. That giving is their power. The risk I see most consistently here is a slow erosion of mission clarity. When the people who fund an organization also sit on its board, the temptation to shape programs toward donor preference rather than community need can become irresistible. I have watched organizations subtly shift their theory of change over three years because certain board members were enthusiastic about particular approaches and their enthusiasm came with money attached. Equally, because patron boards are not typically built for strategy or organizational planning, gaps in leadership vision tend to go unaddressed. The board can sustain the organization financially while it drifts strategically, which is a particular kind of dangerous because the drift is quiet and comfortable. Risk: Financial power substitutes for governance authority. Vision and planning get neglected because the board was never built for them. Strategy: Create a formal separation between fundraising duties and governance duties. Bring in at least two board members specifically for strategic and planning capacity, independent of their financial contributions. Model Three: The Cooperative Governance Model Some organizations have no executive director. No president. No single person at the helm. Decisions are made collectively, by a board of equals. Every voice carries the same weight. Every vote holds the same value. This is democracy in its most direct organizational form, and it is often used in community-rooted nonprofits where the law requires a board but the organizational culture resists hierarchy. The story I think of here is a cooperative arts collective I spent time with during a consulting engagement. When things were good, the energy in that room was remarkable. Everyone felt ownership. Everyone showed up with something to contribute. The decisions they made together were often richer and more nuanced than anything a single leader would have produced. But when a conflict emerged between two founding members about the direction of the organization, there was no mechanism to resolve it. Neither person had more authority than the other. The board was gridlocked. And because accountability for individual actions was distributed equally, no one could be held distinctly responsible for the breakdown in trust that followed. Three years of momentum stalled in a matter of months. Risk: Personal morale and interpersonal dynamics hold disproportionate power over organizational decisions. There is no way to enforce accountability for individual actions. Strategy: Build explicit conflict resolution processes into your bylaws before you need them. Designate a rotating facilitation role for board meetings. Consider a small external advisory panel for moments of impasse. Model Four: The Management Team Model In this model, the board does not just govern. It operates. Rather than hiring staff for HR, finance, fundraising, and communications, the board organizes itself into committees that do the work directly. This rose to prominence in the 1970s and remains common in volunteer-led organizations: parent associations, scouting groups, hobby and community clubs, neighborhood associations. It is an elegant solution to a real problem. Many small nonprofits genuinely cannot afford dedicated staff. Having board members step into functional roles allows the organization to operate with minimal overhead. The pattern I watch for with this model is the committee chair who stops delegating. Who begins making decisions unilaterally because they know the work better than anyone else. Who becomes, in effect, a manager without a supervisor. When that happens across multiple committees simultaneously, you have an organization where five or six people are each operating their own small fiefdom, making inconsistent decisions, and quietly resenting each other for overstepping into shared territory. The board, which was supposed to be a governance body, has become an operational one. And no one is watching the whole. Risk: Board members slip into micromanagement. Decision-making becomes inconsistent across committees. Staff morale erodes when the lines between governance and operations blur. Strategy: Set written committee charters with explicit authority limits. Conduct an annual governance audit to check whether committees are governing or operating. Hire a part-time coordinator before the pressure to micromanage becomes structural. Model Five: The Policy Board (Carver) Model This is perhaps the most structured of the five. Developed by psychologist and governance consultant John Carver, this model draws a clear and deliberate line between the board and the CEO. The board governs through policy. The CEO executes. The board does not manage staff. It does not sit on operational committees. It sets the boundaries within which the CEO operates and evaluates whether those boundaries are being honored. What makes this model compelling is the clarity it offers. Board members know their role. The CEO knows her authority. Recruitment into the board is values-driven. There are few standing committees, which keeps the board focused and efficient. What I have seen strain this model, though, is an imbalance of trust. When the board trusts the CEO deeply, the model hums. But when new board members arrive with different expectations, or when the CEO's performance becomes a genuine concern, the model provides limited mechanisms for early, constructive intervention. The space between policy oversight and operational reality can become too wide. By the time the board has grounds to act formally, a great deal may already have gone wrong informally. Risk: Limited early warning systems for leadership issues. The board can become too distant from organizational reality. Trust, once broken between board and CEO, is hard to repair within this structure. Strategy: Build quarterly informal touchpoints between board members and senior staff that do not violate the governance model but reduce information gaps. Invest in CEO evaluation processes that are ongoing, not just annual. Consider combining this model with a targeted advisory layer for specialized domains. What I have learned sitting in these rooms No governance model is inherently superior. Each one was designed for a particular kind of organization at a particular stage of its development, and each one carries its own particular version of risk. The question is never which model is best in the abstract. The question is which model fits the organization you actually are, right now, with the people you actually have. What I do know is that the organizations I have seen navigate crises well almost always had one thing in common: their boards had talked about governance before they needed it. They had named their model. They had identified its weaknesses in advance. They had built, deliberately and imperfectly, the kind of structure that could hold weight when pressure arrived. If you are leading a nonprofit, I want to ask you a simple question: can you name your governance model today, explain why it was chosen, and describe where its structural weaknesses sit? If the answer is no, that is where the conversation needs to start. Not after the next crisis! Now, when you still have the space to think clearly and build well. Produced by Sabnam Mostari ( Click into her profile to book a call with her for coaching support) References Carver, J. (2006). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and public organizations (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Anonymous. (n.d.). Advisory board governance model [Unpublished reference document]. Source material provided for this article. Covers the Advisory Board, Patron, Cooperative, Management Team, and Policy Board governance models as applied to nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Sabnam Mostari is a Board & Governance coach and mentor. She works with profit & nonprofit organizations, social enterprises, and purpose-driven leaders on board structure, organizational culture, and strategic leadership transitions.

Financial planning and analysis for good decision making. Chile-based environmental advocacy charity FIMA has a strong record of managing its funder grants, keeping diligently within spend requirements, and being cautious with its unrestricted monies. It was time to evolve and also 'step back' to view the overall FIMA Finances at organization-level: The bank balance was healthy, but how much was grants part way through maturity, and how much ‘real’ reserve funds?; To what extent were committed costs over the near future covered by secured/planned income? How would finances would look over the next 1-2 years in various (income and spend) scenarios ? Not only were answers needed now – particularly for some logjammed decisions around, eg, whether desired pay-rises could be afforded – but processes and tools to make similar analysis going forward would also be valuable for the Finance team – who could then more constructively advise in leadership decisions on planning on fundraising and spending. The Work The project team was FIMA’s Finance team (Maca and Cata) and Steve Sweet, a qualified accountant based in the UK with experience in charity financial planning. Carried out over several weeks in summer 2024, regular 1.5 to 2 online coaching/ working sessions connected London and Santiago. First, an exercise was needed to see what was the 'true’ baseline of Free Reserves, stripping out the timing differences of some 20+ live grants – some of which paying in advance, others in arrears - and all in various stages of spend progress. The work produced a clearer organization-wide financial picture for FIMA, using accrual-based analysis to illuminate what baseline unrestricted funds were truly at its disposal. This became a vital starting point for financial planning . A simplified version of the Balance Sheet is shown! Next, a view on what a sensible level of reserves might be for FIMA going forward was needed. Too little could risk short-term income or cash shortages, if unexpected income or costs shocks arose, but too much risked missing chances to further mission or raise further funds. With the critical guidance and framework for Steve, and discussion, a new balanced distribution was reached, and we could compare that to the current situation (finding opportunities for optimization) To look at how the future could play out, a bespoke Income and Expenditure Excel model was built and co-populated (see graphic). A ‘window’ of 17 months, broken into c. 6 month planning increments, was used to balance planning with uncertainty. Pragmatic management accounting training was passed on, with concepts such as matching incomes and expenses to time periods to iron out tricky timing illusions produced by cashflow-only accounting. Incomes and expected costs for both a Base-Case and Best Case-scenario were apportioned to the periods, illuminating the extent to which current revenue plans covered costs overall. Gradually, as we populated the templates together, more clarity emerged on whether the business model was on track; where cost trade-offs might be needed in the future; and the extent to which new fundraising plans covered staff retaining and overall growth. How did it go, 18 months on… Maca from FIMA comments: “We now have a clearer picture of our financial situation, which allows us to make future decisions with greater confidence. Without this certainty, we had to operate with extreme caution, which meant we couldn’t, for example, determine whether we could afford to give our staff a pay raise. “ Definitely the biggest change for us was gaining confidence that what we're doing is right for the safe administration of our funds. Now we have an improved and validated decision-making tool, tailored for our non-profit model of administration. This allows us to see the bigger picture, adapt our decisions to the current scenarios and adapt if necessary. ” The work has also informed a follow-on project, also through Non-Profit Builder, to develop a formalized fundraising strategy in line with a broader charitable strategy. Finance have felt more confident in integrating into this fundraising strategy work, and the strategy is linking with financial sustainability needs. On what Maca would say to another organization considering a similar engagement: “I would tell them to seize the opportunity without hesitation. I would also tell them that it may require a lot of hard work and dedication, but the results are worth it”. From Steve’s point of view: “it was very gratifying to know the work helped free FIMA up to continue its important mission, with new confidence and insight. It was vital that FIMA were willing to ask the ‘why’ questions, and being sure they understood, during the process; this helped them build capacity and confidence to operate going forward”.

Strategic Tech For Meaningful Change. Data Behind the Mission: Building a System to Support Strong Partnerships The Hurdle: When Manual Processes Mask Meaningful Impact The Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy (the Alliance) is building indigenous sovereignty through clean energy. Acting as expert advisors, they work alongside first nations to scope projects, vet contractors, and secure funding to build renewable energy infrastructure on tribal lands. Behind the scenes, however, their internal capacity of the fundraising team was getting bottlenecked by layers of manual processes. Important relationships with philanthropists and sponsors were hindered by manual exports and mail merges. Staff “touch points” were siloed in email threads instead of a shared system that would help to ensure 360 degrees of care. For a team scaling at lightning speed, their CRM felt less like a tool and more like a digital paperweight. The Strategy: Automation as Empowerment Undaunted Consulting does not believe in set-it-and-forget-it services. We believe in building an organization’s internal power. For the Alliance, our consultants Mike Baker and David Dunn provided a strategic mix of technical automation and deep-dive education to turn their CRM into a functioning asset. We began by auditing their manual donor processes and replacing their copy-paste templates with the Alliance branded Salesforce templates. Merge fields pulled information directly into each message, ensuring accuracy and saving time on manual edits. A custom automation notified staff immediately when an online donation was made, ensuring that "thank you" notes were timely and professional. We also worked to integrate their system with event planning platforms and built out the architecture needed to differentiate between various sponsorships and opportunities, ensuring the data looked like the work they actually perform. " Working with Undaunted helped us set some processes and keep track of information that’s really important for the organization." — Gwen Torres, Manager of Fundraising & Development, Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy The Shift: Autonomy over Agency We focused on education as empowerment, spending significant time in one-on-one coaching sessions showing Gwen, Ruby, and the team how to navigate the back end, create their own lists, and send bulk messages independently. Our approach prioritized autonomy: equipping the team with the knowledge and tools to manage the system internally, rather than requiring (and having to pay for) ongoing external support. This collaborative approach turned a static database into a living source of truth where the team felt comfortable asking clarifying questions to better communicate their needs. Gwen stated: "It has helped to have someone as knowledgeable as David ask the right questions so that we can better communicate what we need. Sometimes we don't even know what we need or what that looks like in Salesforce. David seems to have a good knowledge of what nonprofits need and [is] also very sensitive to the nuances that our organization has." Ruby Merritt, the Alliance’s Development Coordinator, saw the immediate impact on her capacity, noting that the custom build allowed the software to finally work for the team rather than against them: "It's just made it more efficient. It's made it easier. It decreases your workload in the sense of it being faster and working more for us and for what we needed. It’s just very much catered to what we do. So that helps us be able to navigate it quicker and more tailored to just what we need from it." The Result: Protecting Data and Reclaiming Time By moving the history of their relationships out of inbox silos and into a centralized system, the team protected their most valuable assets while ensuring transparency. We helped them capture critical data that was previously being lost in "the mess" of email threads, allowing them to track the history and progress of specific projects with a few clicks. This has streamlined their internal reporting, moving from a situation where looking for data could consume a whole day to one where information is "live" and accessible. Chéri Smith, the Alliance’s President & CEO, shared: "As the Alliance's chief fundraiser, I used to spend precious time chasing down information that should be at my fingertips. Now it is. Having a system that works the way we work has freed me to focus on what matters most – building the relationships that power our mission." — Chéri Smith, President & CEO, Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy "A lot of our data is sensitive and I just feel like [Undaunted] upheld the data integrity when working with it." — Ruby Merritt, Development Coordinator, Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy " There's less loss of data. Training to understand that these are available tools helps us capture data that we need when we need to track the progress of certain projects." — Gwen Torres, Manager of Fundraising & Development, Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy This newfound clarity has fundamentally changed how the development team reports their impact. By building out custom dashboards and reports, we gave the team the tools to analyze their successes and refine their donor outreach based on real-time performance metrics. " To have it live, analyzing our successes and then customizing the types of opportunities we have, the types of donors that we have, and then being able to put that in a report, it really helps us see which aspects of our work are growing and what needs attention. It's streamlined our work and provides insights on where we need to improve." — Gwen Torres, Manager of Fundraising & Development, Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy The Conclusion: A Foundation for Growth The Alliance is now equipped with a live engine for social change that allows them to focus on where they are needed most. By streamlining their workflow and increasing overall efficiency, the team has transitioned from managing administrative friction to analyzing their successes in real time. This success has triggered a larger effort within the organization, as other teams see the value of centralized data and are beginning to expand how they use Salesforce to support the other pillars of the Alliance’s work. With a system that is catered to their specific needs and a team trained to manage it, the Alliance has the autonomy to scale their impact across indigenous communities. "It helped us streamline our workflow. It just increased our overall efficiency. Teaching us the automations that he did and just the quick processes that he did definitely increased my day-to-day productivity." — Ruby Merritt, Development Coordinator, Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy We’ve had other consultants before but there was the most progress with… Undaunted." — Gwen Torres, Manager of Fundraising & Development, Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy Produced by- Undaunted Consulting