From “Looking for the good news about orchestras” on the Post’s Classical Beat blog:

Alan [Pierson] is taking just the kind of approach more and more orchestras are looking to these days. He represents a particular new-music, Gen-X sensibility, something even the Chicago Symphony is reaching for [...]

However, the bottom line is that the success of any new initiative — and the definition of “success” is fodder for a blog post of its own — depends in no small part on the organization’s motivation for launching the initiative in the first place. Too often, such attempts seem born of a vague sense that New is good, or, more cynically, of an idea that New gets funding, or, more desperately, of a realization that if something doesn’t change, the organization is sunk. But if New doesn’t fit in with your organization’s mandate, it’s not going to get you very far [...]

So which orchestras appear to be doing the best? The ones that seem to have sound artistic vision and energy: the Los Angeles Philharmonic, for instance. The ones who have established a genuine relationship to their communities [...] Then there are the ones that genuinely represent different models [...]

All of which invites a few simple questions: what qualifies as a genuinely “different model?” Not just for orchestras and performing arts organizations, but anyone? And how “different” can you get without disassociating from your mission? It seems like a tough — albeit, beneficial, thought-provoking — line to walk.

Rereading yesterday’s post just now, the following statistic kept leaping out at me:

Studies dating to the 1960s have suggested that children’s experiences inside the classroom are responsible for as little as 20 percent of their overall educational development.

20 percent. For all the focus placed upon on test scores and grading and ranking, the success of a particular student relies (by 80 percent) on factors that their school never sees — of which they might not even be aware. CFP Executive Director Barbara Harman made a key point in her response to the NY Times article yesterday:

Read all »

From “Finding a New Tune: How Arts Organizations Balance Creativity and Operations” by Corbett Barklie in the latest issue of The Nonprofit Quarterly:

By its nature, infrastructure is a barrier that splits the focus of an artistic group and demands attention. At its most positive, it protects the artistic product over the long term and ensures continuation. But to achieve long-term stability, the present must also be considered and planned. This planning often leads to self-conscious creative behavior, which can divide the artist from his art and the art from its community. Without equally considering the potential loss of spontaneity and engagement, recommending the development of infrastructure as the source of long-term security seems irresponsible.

Read all »

Writes Mark W. Johnson of Business Week:

Creativity, by itself, is not enough. As I’ve previously written in this space, inventions that aren’t commercialized — no matter how creative — remain inventions, not innovations. To be commercial, an invention needs to matter enough to a customer to be worth paying for. And what matters to most customers is not the invention itself but what job it enables them to do that they couldn’t do, or do well enough, before. The microwave, for example, when it was first introduced, was a terrible oven, but it was fantastic defroster.

Read all »

Good morning, folks! Just a small bundle of non-profits news and notes this week …

How You Can Change The World in 40 Hours a Week — As James McBryan aptly points out on the Taproot Foundation blog, “Changing the world is hard. Changing the world while balancing social, professional, family, and financial needs is even harder.” But contributing to your community (or a community thousands of miles away) can be part of the job that you already have. He tells a great story about creating a volunteer-tracking system for a local rose garden pro-bono — which not only benefited the gardeners, but led his company to realize that “this idea was something many organizations could use and [we could] create a platform from which hundreds of organizations could all benefit.”

Read all »

Welcome to Wednesday, Greater Washington! Here comes our weekly news round-up …

To Fight Povery, Invest in Girls — In the upcoming issue of TIME, Nancy Gibbs makes a compelling point: “sometimes freedom and opportunity slip in through the back door, when a quieter subversion of the status quo unleashes change that is just as revolutionary. This is the tantalizing idea for activists concerned with poverty, with disease, with the rise of violent extremism: if you want to change the world, invest in girls.” The numbers are also quite noteworthy: “An extra year of primary school boosts girls’ eventual wages by 10% to 20%. An extra year of secondary school adds 15% to 25% … And the World Food Programme has found that when girls and women earn income, they reinvest 90% of it in their families.” (On a related note: several of our non-profits are already doing just this!) Read all »

Courtesy of Philanthropy 2137, this short (two-letter-focused) post from last Friday:

It just occurred to me. The last decade was defined by the prefix “e” — ePhilanthropy, eDiplomany, eCommerce.

The next decade will be similarly defined by the prefix “o” for Open — oGov, oData, oPhilanthropy.

As they say on Sesame Street, this past decade was brought to you by the letter “E.” Will the next indeed be brought to us by the letter “O”? And moreover, what do these single-letter prefixes even imply? I always see that lower-case vowel as an indication of means and medium. In other words, “ePhilanthropy” is philanthropy brought to you by means of the Internet, giving that takes place and is shaped by its digital nature — and by its accessibility.

Read all »

We are now into the second week of a new year and a new decade — so recaps and resolutions are still very much on the brain. Along those lines, I would suggest checking out Network for Good’s Non-Profit Marketing Blog, which has offered a number of helpful resolution-related posts over the past week. In particular, Katya Andresen’s list of “What’s In and Out for Nonprofits in 2011” caught my eye:

In: Integrated communications/Out: Multi-channel communications

In: Appropriate use of technology/Out: Maximum use of technology

In: Speaking from the heart/Out: Speaking from the left brain

In: Narrative/Out: Bullet points

Read all »

‘Tis the day for mid-week news and notes… And let us know if you have anything to share with the CFP crowd!

How to Find Generous Donors — Just before 2011, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported on three new giving studies, conducted by Blackbaud, Network for Good, and the Daily Beast. Their findings? Our area stacks up quite well! In the Blackbaud study, DC and Maryland ranked #1 and #2 respectively for the number of donors with incomes over $100K. And Network for Good reported that DC is #1 and Virginia #8 in average giving per household.

Read all »

Welcome to Wednesday, Washingtonians!

“Are There Limits to Collaborations?” — this post over at Deep Social Impact definitely caught my eye. First, I wrote a quick post on the resurgence of an ethic of collaboration among disparate organizations. Second, on an intra-organization level, “collaboration” has certainly become a buzzword in recent years. But is collaboration always in the best interest of our mission and operations? As Cynthia Gibson writes, “What I — and others — are starting to see, however, is that there can be a tendency for organizations to see collaboration as an end unto itself, rather than a process, management style, or approach that’s a means to an end.”

Read all »