Mission Plus Strategy Consulting: How did you come to write Forging Nonprofit Alliances?

Jane: I was doing a lot of work in health consulting in the early 1990s, and during that period managed care was very big in the country and it was rolling over a large number of hospitals. Mergers and parent corporations became widely considered as the way to go and my clients asked me: Are we going to have to do this? How should we do this? I started looking around for resources to learn how to do nonprofit mergers and I couldn’t find much that was helpful so I went on a journey of discovery in the for-profit world learning about mergers there, and then trying to understand it from a nonprofit organizational development perspective as well as from a legal and fiscal perspective. I felt like I had to translate a lot of the information into nonprofit language and to understand the implications of the issues from a nonprofit perspective, as well. That’s what eventually led to the book.

Mission Plus Strategy Consulting: Have you primarily facilitated mergers, parent corporations, or both?

Jane: It’s really been a mix of both parent corporations and mergers. Looking back at my work over the past 15 years, there has only been one entity that utterly failed, or broke apart out of 23 or 24 facilitations that I’ve done. And the one that failed had more to do with several foolish choices by the CEO of the merged entity than anything else.

Mission plus Strategy Consulting: That’s a remarkable track record—one failed entity out of 24 facilitations. Do you feel that merger/partnership strategy is more or less relevant today than it was when you began this work?

Jane: In a funny way we’ve come full circle to the same place we were 15 years ago. At the time, managed care was the juggernaut that was supposed to roll over the healthcare industry and then keep going to the human services sector. But then that juggernaut slowed down and stopped in terms of its growth and didn’t really encroach on the mental health and human services sectors. At this point today, though, managed care is coming back because state governments are in such trouble. Something like 40 states are looking at Medicaid reform and several are considering capitated contracts for mental health, residential and human service programs. These changes are likely to affect providers of service to elderly, child welfare, and all forms of human services and is exactly what we had envisioned happening back in the 1990s. This is putting tremendous financial pressure on nonprofit agencies serving these populations to consolidate into networks and consider other models including outright mergers for smaller entities.

Mission Plus Strategy Consulting: If mergers are a good strategy for government-financed nonprofits, why aren’t we seeing more organizations merge, or hearing about the merger strategy more?

Jane: There are two problems I can see. First, mergers are an expensive strategy and I don’t see a lot of money on the table for organizations who want to merge. Funders don’t seem to want to help consolidate the sector by creating a pool of dollars for this purpose. Second, there just aren’t enough trained consultants to go around. We need more consultants trained in merger/partnership facilitation. The state of Rhode Island alone has instituted a 10 percent budget cut to human service agencies in 2007 and again in 2008, with no promises that there won’t be further cuts in 2009. That has caused tremendous stress on organizations so we now have groups of organizations coming together that want to consolidate in various ways (networks, mergers, parent corporations, and shared management services). Our firm is working hard to handle all the demand right now but we need more consultants trained in this work.

Mission Plus Strategy Consulting: What advice would you give to a human service nonprofit considering a merger or parent corporation strategy?

Jane: Third party facilitation is important. I’m familiar with a group right now that has been meeting for four months and going nowhere because they haven’t hired an experienced facilitator. A good merger/partnership facilitator should be able to help you design the process, the flow of the steps, and so on, so that’s the first step to take. The second thing to consider is to look for organizations where you have common ground around principles and values. Third, make sure that your vision is bigger than either of you. The outcome you are striving for—what you get, what the community gets—has to be compelling in order to make it worthwhile to change corporate control. You can’t do this for frivolous or inconsequential reasons. Keep your vision in front of you at all times. The process of consolidating is laborious, it takes time, longitudinally, day-to-day, and week to week, so you have to stay motivated.

Mission Plus Strategy Consulting: Jane, I’d like to thank you so much for your time and your many contributions to the knowledge of nonprofit mergers and partnerships. And congratulations on the 10th anniversary of the publication of Forging Nonprofit Alliances.

Jean Butzen, a consultant with Mission Plus Strategy, specializes in mergers and alliances in the Chicago area.

Investment

It is no surprise that most Africans are welcoming Chinese investment and products. The history of traditional Western aid and investment in Africa is one of a nagging “I correct you because I want what’s best for you” parental-like stronghold over the continent. Tired of “the politically motivated, finger-wagging approach of western governments,” numerous sources quote the lack of political motivation, as well as societal or environmental demands, as one of the primary reasons that Africa is welcoming the Chinese investment.

Sahr Johnny, the Sierra Leonean ambassador in Beijing, was quoted as saying the following regarding China’s projects in Africa:

“The Chinese are doing more than the G8 to make poverty history. If a G8 country proposes a project for Sierra Leone, there is an environmental assessment and evaluation of the human rights and governance situation. The Chinese just come and do it.”

Despite the claims of poverty reduction, the reality is that the aid flowing from China is not designed to alleviate poverty, as opposed to aid from the World Bank and the IMF, which falls under the category of “office of development assistance.” Therefore, it is not subject to social and environmental assessment. The assistance from China is purely aimed at promoting trade and development for China. Therefore, when an issue like the Darfur crisis in Sudan arises, China slyly steps aside and claims that its role is not to police other countries.

While this lack of social and environmental benchmarks may worry some, others praise the fact that much-needed investment has been able to flow freely into Africa. Some of the key areas of Chinese investment, which align with improving the efficiency of resource extraction, are telecommunications, energy, and physical infrastructure. These areas have traditionally been ignored by donors in Africa, who have instead favored social development programs such as education and health.

Although the money is flowing in, Africans have expressed concern regarding whether or not these investments will add long-term value in the sense of technology transfer, education, and opportunities for Africans. At the amazing blog Global Voices, a young Malawian girl questioned, “Am I being idealistic in hoping that they will teach us their unique skills in building and pass the construction mantle back soon after?”

Products and Services for the African Market

Not only has China offered investment in infrastructure, but there has also been an influx of Chinese products in Africa, which has rallied critics from both ends of the spectrum. According to the article “The Strategic Entry of China’s Emerging Multinationals into Africa,”

“…the Chinese multinationals have become adept at identifying so-called ‘market blind spots’, market areas that have essentially been neglected and under-capitalised. These are typically cheaper product lines that may not seem to be money spinners, but which would actually stimulate demand once available.”

Examples of these are Haier’s smaller refrigerators and Lenovo’s C100 laptop, targeting small and medium enterprises. Huawei provided the international market with low-end routers that were 40 per cent cheaper than other products, capturing 3 percent of the global market by 2002.

From that, it sounds as if the Chinese products are giving African people more choice, and filling market gaps. However, there are worries about the safety of the extremely cheap Chinese goods. If an exporter can’t pass FDA inspections, it may still be able to slip its products into African markets.

China as a Model for Development

Lastly, if you look beyond the investments and new products, and consider China a model of development that may provide a tutorial for Africa, it is both exciting and worrisome. A working paper issued by the World Bank in February of this year, titled “Lessons from China for Africa” is focused on the fact that “other developing countries struggling to grow and reduce poverty are naturally interested in what has been the source of this impressive growth and what, if any, lessons other developing countries can take from China.”

For those who are looking solely at economic indicators, China has lifted 300 million people out of poverty with unimaginable speed. China certainly did not achieve this success through a dependence on Western aid and structural adjustments.

Could China do the same for Africa?

The situation that has emerged in China, albeit economically prosperous, may not be the pathway that most would like to imagine for Africa. China may have tackled poverty, but what about inequality? While China has started to embrace the market philosophy from the West, the adoption of the freedoms that are usually associated with a democratic system is another story. You could trip over the number of examples of human rights violations in China, from incarcerated activists to the infamous “great firewall.”

What is happening in Africa right now clearly demonstrates a seemingly simple distinction that we may all sometimes forget to make; poverty and inequality are not one in the same. And, if poverty is addressed, will inequality then follow suit?

* For a more in depth version of this article please visit NextBillion.net

Grace Augustine is a research associate with the William Davidson Institute, an educational institute focused on researching and supporting organizations in emerging markets. She writes for the NextBillion blog and has an interest in economic development and clean technology for the world’s poorest citizens.

But in seeking a greater partnership, nonprofits also need to recognize the limits of government and the obstacle it can post to social progress.

Despite access to vast resources and regulatory power that can have a big impact on charity, government has failed to use its assets to develop innovative and even-handed partnerships with nonprofits to address critical social problems.

Government has proved a weak cop in policing foundations and nonprofits, a bully in menacing charitable groups that oppose its policies, a failure at creating innovative incentives to giving and volunteerism, and ham-fisted in channeling public funds to religious charities while ignoring discrimination in who they hire and serve.

For their part, nonprofits and foundations often act as if their social mission frees them of the obligation to account for themselves in return for the tax-exempt status they enjoy.

There has got to be a better way to tackle urgent social problems.

Nonprofits and foundations address the symptoms and causes of those problems, often serving as civil society’s research-and-development arm.

But nonprofits lack the resources and power more readily available to government.

As the Washington Post reported recently, some nonprofits leaders are calling for a special White House office or government agency to focus on nonprofits, community initiatives and volunteerism, while others are pushing for greater collaboration among charities, corporations, and government.

Jockeying for influence in a post-Bush administration, nonprofit leaders rightly are looking for ways to play a greater role in shaping public policies and leveraging government resources.

But nonprofits need to be smart, and to be careful what they wish for.

The charitable marketplace in the U.S. plays an indispensable role by taking on difficult and messy jobs no one else wants or cares about.

Because of their independence, nonprofits can be creative and entrepreneurial, can take risks, and can team up with partners that make sense and that recognize true collaboration requires giving as well as taking.

By treating government as a potential partner that requires cultivation and engagement, nonprofits can find ways to put its resources to productive use and develop innovative and productive collaborations.

But in making use of taxpayer-support resources, nonprofits also must recognize their obligation to be more open and accountable about the work they do and the results they generate.

While it is not the answer to society’s toughest problems, which are more effectively addressed through strategies that are market-driven and collaborative, and often spearheaded by nonprofits willing to take risks, government has the resources and power to make it an important partner in developing, supporting and investing in those strategies.

But in seeking closer ties with government, nonprofits must not forget it can be slow to take change or take risks, quick to meddle, and arbitrary in using its power.

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

It is harder to find this kind of focus in the world of social action, nonprofits, or philanthropy. First of all, who is the customer? The direct beneficiary of the service (the hungry person, the school child, the museum visitor, or the clinic patient)? Or the funder of the service provider (foundation, government funder, individual donor)? Or both?

Here’s the thing: When it comes to philanthropic institutions and customer service, the question of who is the customer is almost a second-generation matter. The truth is, our civic institutions are not very good at listening to any of the possible customer groups. Customer satisfaction as a measure and tool—real feedback from customers (whomever they might be) that actually changes organizational practice, focus, or services—is tough to find. We don’t know if the customer is right or wrong, because we rarely ask.

Foundations typically haven’t seen themselves as having customers. This is starting to change with the grantee perception data and reports from the Center for Effective Philanthropy. More and more foundations are commissioning these surveys, responding to the feedback, and posting the reports on their Websites for all to see. At the same time, CEP is amassing a database of results that allow for industry-wide benchmarking—so when foundations get their own data there is data there for comparison purposes. Soon, it may be “standard industry” practice to do these surveys, and foundations that don’t conduct the surveys or share their reports will be the outliers, not the other way around. Real organization change doesn’t just come from doing the survey, but from being held accountable to what the survey finds, to what your peers are doing, and to what the “industry” is doing. 

Nonprofit organizations do conduct user surveys, and then face the twin challenges of time and money to respond to the findings. Boards, funders, and partners rarely ask organizations for data on what their direct service customers think. Simply asking for this information would be a useful first step. But then those that do gather and use the information still do so mostly in isolation; there isn’t (yet) a comparable body of data from which to determine “industry benchmarks.” A shelter can learn from its findings and compare its own results over time, and this is better than nothing. But the kind of peer or competitor comparability that can spark real organizational change is still missing.

There is a lot of work underway to develop nonprofit and philanthropic ratings, outcome measures, and standards of operating procedures. In the course of this work it behooves us to remember two things: How do these measures reflect what the customer thinks? How can we gather and use customer input in ways that actually drive improvement?

Every business from television production to auto manufacturing can point to some kind of industry-wide customer satisfaction measures and processes—from Nielsen ratings to J.D. Powers and Associates to Consumer Reports— that they use to gauge and improve their work. The Web has only made this more so; see AngiesList, C/NET and Yelp for examples ranging from plumbers to doctors to tech gadgets to hair salons.

Customer satisfaction as a tool for change reaches beyond individual organizations to the consumer rights movement, a combination of grassroots activism, public awareness, educational programs, and regulatory structures, built around helping customers make informed, appropriate decisions based on accurate information. Shouldn’t we expect at least as much from our philanthropic institutions as we do from fast food restaurants and toy stores?

Cross posted from All Things Reconsidered and Philanthropy2173

Lucy Bernholz is the Founder and President of Blueprint Research & Design, Inc, a strategy consulting firm that helps philanthropic individuals and institutions achieve their missions. She is the publisher of Philanthropy2173, an award-winning blog about the business of giving, and serves as executive producer of The Giving Channel on Fora.tv.

For Shirky, it’s a tale of the times. “Four-year-olds know a screen that ships without a mouse ships broken,” he says. “Four-year-olds know that media that is targeted at you—but that doesn’t include you—may not be worth sitting still for.”

No question: All social media innovators today are “looking for the mouse”—working to find new ways to let those who use, hear, read, and watch media participate more fully. The most innovative enlist the use of mobile phones for a cause: The nonprofit National Democratic Institute uses text messaging to spot vote fraud in elections around the globe; Witness.org asks its supporters to photograph human rights abuses with their cellphones; the Zumbido project in Mexico created a mobile social network for people living with HIV/AIDS.

But nobody has cracked the challenge of “on demand” volunteering—until now. Social media entrepreneur and activist Ben Rigby, author of Mobilizing Generation 2.0, thinks he’s “found the mouse” for it with Volunteer NOW, his on-the-spot, GPS-aided mobile application that directs people who suddenly find themselves with some free time on their hands to a list of short-term volunteering opportunities near to their present location—be it an airport, an office building, a local Starbucks, or a city park. Rigby’s goal: to transform volunteering into an “impulse activity” that, for the cause-wired not otherwise looking to tune out or cat-nap, could be done on the fly. (Got 20 minutes? Review a contract for a nonprofit. Translate a document for a non-English speaker. Or, text for the nearest beach or park clean-up drive and spend your lunch hour in the sun.)

“Projects like SETI@Home showed that massive computational problems can be solved when a distributed group of people donate their computers’ spare CPUs to crunch data,” Rigby says. “(Volunteer NOW!) explores the possibility that this same theory can be applied to spare human ‘CPUs.’ We believe it will reveal a massive, untapped capacity to do good.”

Rigby is not the only social media innovator intrigued by the idea of spare-time, mobile volunteering. Leaders of Do Something, a New York-based nonprofit, started using mobile phones in March to recruit volunteers. The Beta version of its Do Something NOW! mobile program, funded in part by the Sprint Foundation, invites young people to sign up for volunteering through a form on its Web site; Do Something then sends them one or two text alerts each month with volunteer opportunities that fit their locations and preferences. So far, more than 1,000 people have signed up for the text alerts: Do Something hopes to have 10,000 signed up by year’s end. Opt-out rates, says Chief Marketing Officer Aria Finger, are running less than 5 percent.

Look for more examples of mobile volunteering in the months ahead. Katrin Verclas, founder of MobileActive.org, will be showcasing some at her global summit on cause-mobile technology in Johannesburg, South Africa, October 13-15. Google’s recent entry into the mobile phone market will add fuel to the mobile advocacy movement in coming months.

For more on how cell phones and other social media are dramatically changing society’s notions of free time, check out the Blip.tv video of Clay Shirky’s wildly popular talk at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco this past spring. It’s about 10 minutes long but well worth the cognitive surplus—Shirky’s term for free time—that you carve out to watch it.

Reprinted with permission from Cause Global

Marcia Stepanek is Founding Editor-in-Chief and President, News and Information, for Contribute Media, a New York-based magazine, Web site, and conference series about the new people and ideas of giving. She is the publisher of Cause Global, an acclaimed new blog about the use of digital media for social change. She also serves as moderator and producer of New Conversations for Change, Contribute’s forum series highlighting social entrepreneurs and new trends in philanthropy.

With non-white minorities now expected to become the majority of the U.S. population in 2042, eight years earlier than previously projected, fundraisers have an unprecedented opportunity to help transform their organizations and philanthropy.

The challenge is to engage the emerging American majority in the charitable marketplace.

According to a new report from the Census Bureau, the new majority will consist of Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander.

That new majority, which will eclipse non-Hispanic whites, will reshape the demand for services from nonprofits, as well as the pool of donors, board members and volunteers that nonprofits will need to engage to sustain themselves.

Key players in helping nonprofits tap that giving pool are professional fundraisers, whose job is to connect their organizations with givers in addressing the symptoms and causes of social problems.

Fundraising aims to engage individuals and other partners and secure their money, services, products, time and know-how in making our communities better places to live and work.

And with the U.S. population undergoing sweeping demographic change, including the growing role and influence of younger generations, fundraisers have a big job to do preparing their organizations to better serve the new majority and provide it with a compelling case for getting involved in giving.

That will require that fundraisers better understand the changing dynamics and demographics of giving.

Despite the emergence of the new majority, organized philanthropy and the nonprofit sector remain predominantly white enclaves.

But that is changing.

In North Carolina, for example, a donor-advised fund known as NCGives works with consultants as partners to build the giving capacity of African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, women and young people.

Located at the North Carolina Community Foundation, and funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation in Battle Creek, Mich., NCGives is working to help ensure that all Americans can be effective investors in the work of healing and repairing our communities.

With their fundraising staff leading the way, nonprofits can do a lot more to engage communities of color, women and young people as staff, board members, volunteers and donors.

By more closely reflecting and connecting with the populations they serve, nonprofits can find ways to better sustain themselves for the long-term and more effectively address the problems facing their communities.

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

Indeed, like the athletes competing for Gold in Beijing’s Water Cube, China’s censors have wasted no time showing off their speed and muscle: their moves to censor Twitter, crack down on video-sharing sites (both YouTube and a Chinese version of it called 56.com), and make it hard (if not utterly impossible) to load some Web sites such as Human Rights Watch and Reporters sans Frontieres from inside the Foreign Press Center remain firmly (and predictably) intact as of today.

But what’s happening this week in China, despite the widespread use of beefed-up, anti-censorship software by those would not be bowed, is more than simply an internationally-broadcast dust-up over who gets the last word (or the first online).

Internet censorship is on the rise in many countries, partly a reaction by nervous governments to the rapid and growing use of social media by citizen activists around the world. John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, says there has been a surge in the scale, scope, and sophistication of internet filtering. In the past five years, he says, “we have gone from a couple of states doing state-mandated Net filtering to 25.”

But there’s another big reason for social-change advocates to pay attention to Net censorship. The issue isn’t just about the type and number of Web sites accessible to Netizens at home and abroad. It’s also about what a free flow of digital information enables people to do. Social media, unfettered, change the way people in society organize themselves to get things done. Such things as mobile phones, Twitter, video-sharing services, and social networking sites make it really easy for people to self-organize into groups from the ground up rather than to be organized by others from the top down.

New media expert Clay Shirky, the author of Here Comes Everybody, a new book on the impact of social media on society, says this Net-driven social revolution (with a small “r") won’t be occurring at the expense of existing institutions (like governments or nonprofits, for example). But it could, he says, provide compelling alternatives that may, over time, weaken them considerably.

And that’s mostly what’s making officialdom from Beijing to Washington really nervous lately: this Web-enabled shape-shifting is already starting to happen. “Newly capable groups are assembling,” Shirky puts it, “and they are working without the managerial imperative and outside the previous institutions and structures that bounded their effectiveness in the past.” (Quick—remember that panel you missed at the last Net conference you attended about the waning influence of government? Odds are, they weren’t talking about George Bush.)

For now, the information war has no definitive winners or losers: Governments, as seen in China this week, are winning some rounds; citizen activists are wracking up other wins elsewhere, as in Burma during last fall’s Myanmar revolt and again in May, after Cyclone Nargis. But Net activists fear that sooner or later, governments could get the upper hand—and they’ve been using China’s Olympian censorship efforts to get everyone into the pool. (Amnesty International’s new Uncensor Web site named July 30 a Day of Protest against Net censorship in China. The Uncensor campaign is a joint fundraising effort with an Australian Facebook Cause group and organizers hope the partnership will last well beyond the Olympics.)

Not sure you’re ready to jump in yet? Go ahead. Re-read your mission statement. Take it global. Welcome to the war.

Reprinted with permission from Cause Global

Marcia Stepanek is Founding Editor-in-Chief and President, News and Information, for Contribute Media, a New York-based magazine, Web site, and conference series about the new people and ideas of giving. She is the publisher of Cause Global, an acclaimed new blog about the use of digital media for social change. She also serves as moderator and producer of New Conversations for Change, Contribute’s forum series highlighting social entrepreneurs and new trends in philanthropy.

• Take Back Your 9 to 5: Develop a Personal Mission Statement
• Take Back Your 9 to 5: Cultivate a Slash Career in the Nonprofit Sector
• Take Back Your 9 to 5: Ditch the Martyr Lifestyle

Each of the posts talked about an aspect of improving or enhancing your nonprofit career. But those are just some ways you can become empowered in this field. During this Saturday’s Women Rule Meet up in DC, seven awesome ladies sat around a table in a tea shop talking about so many ways we struggle and succeed in our work. I wanted to share one thread of our conversation that came from Gabriela Cadena, who is one of the most positive people I know.

Gabriela said that we need to see ourselves as co-creators in our careers. Our employers and even the nonprofit field itself are only one part of the relationship that we enter into when we come to work. And we should seek to take responsibility for that relationship. I took a step back in my mind when I heard that, because I meet so many young nonprofit professionals through my blog, at conferences, through my day job...and we have a lot of gripes with the nonprofit sector. Most of the time, our attitude is that our bosses are doing us dirty with these low salaries, our supervisors give us projects that are impossible to complete during regular working hours, and our clients need so much more than we can provide. No wonder so many talented people end up quitting before they’ve had a chance to make a difference. We give up because we don’t think about the other possibilities. We forget that everything is negotiable

Gabriela reminds us that we have to stop blaming other people or institutions or the culture of our sector for what we don’t like about our careers. If we can start to think of ourselves as co-creators of each relationship that we are a part of, it can lead us to more creative ways of structuring the way we work, so that it works for us.

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, DC area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

For charities, already struggling to meet rising demand for services with limited resources, the convergence of these growing pressures and their potential impact on giving can breed despair.

But nonprofits need to move beyond gloom and doom, and the sense of entitlement to which too many of them fall prey, and focus on doing what it takes to build their organizational capacity.

Advancing their mission effectively will require being smarter about running their businesses, delivering services, generating earned and contributed income, advocating for change, forming partnerships that work, and working to help shape the public policies underlying the symptoms and causes of the social problems they exist to address.

Those changes are needed because givers, funders, volunteers, board members and prospective partners expect nonprofits to be more accountable and to increase their effectiveness and impact.

The charitable marketplace is huge, growing fast and in need of clear-headed thinking and practical, enterprising ideas to make it be as good as it can be.

Tough economic times can be a catalyst for fostering new strategies to create more productive and collaborative models for delivering services and generating the resources nonprofits need to take on the urgent social problems our communities face.

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

That’s when I knew I was playing the martyr role for my nonprofit. I had neglected to take care of my body, and overworked myself for the sake of the cause. Many of us are stuck in this rut. We love our jobs and our organizations so much that we let our passion consume us and forget about taking care of ourselves. I changed some of my habits after getting hit with illness, but it really is a daily effort to set boundaries with myself, and to value my inner life over my professional life. Asia Hadley shares some of her self-care practices on her new blog, Beacons on the Frontline:

• Meditate daily in the mornings
• Pray with my husband, recite our marriage pledge, and read an inspirational daily thought in the morning and evening
• Maintain a gratitude journal
• Practice yoga
• Exercise daily (2-3 times per week at gym/other times at home)
• Spend time with friends
• Read
• SAVY Sister Circle with my mother and sister each Sunday over the phone (Prayer over the phone)

Here are some other ways to ditch the martyr lifestyle as a nonprofit professional:

Ask For a Raise
As nonprofit workers, our biggest beef is with our notoriously low salaries. But that doesn’t have to be the case. We don’t have to live in near poverty. Everything is negotiable, whether you believe it or not. If you’re doing a good job, there’s no harm in asking for a salary adjustment. I’ll take you back to my post on how to negotiate a higher salary. If what you really need for your own peace of mind is more money, by all means you should ask for it. You may not always get it, but at least your employer will know that you know your own worth. If you don’t place a value on the work that you do, your boss won’t value it either. It doesn’t have to be all about money either. You can negotiate a work-from-home arrangement or ask for more vacation time.

Take Care of Your Body
Exercise is a neglected part of our health, no matter what career field you’re in. But when you are dealing with a stressful position in a nonprofit, be it fundraising, counseling, or job training, you need to take care of your body much more than anyone else. Getting in regular exercise and eating healthy is essential. Springing for a relaxing massage every once in a while is a good idea, too. And if you can’t get motivated to exercise, try hiring a personal trainer or joining a group fitness class. I’ve learned a ton of other tips about staying fit and eating well from my mom’s blog.

Feed Your Spirit
Sometimes our spirituality can suffer when we’re focused on helping others. Regular prayer or meditation can be helpful not only in times of high stress, but to keep you centered and balanced during each day. I’ve just started going back to church for morning worship after years of taking all my Sundays for sleep because I stayed up late working all of the other days of the week. I also meditate and pray in the mornings.

Let Your Light Shine
Be a positive influence on others, even if you’re stuck in what you feel is a bad career situation. You may be overworked, but you don’t have to complain about it to everyone who asks you how you’re doing. Chances are, if you’re feeling the negative vibes, everyone else is, too. Break out your smile and ask your co-workers how they’re coming along. When you radiate positive energy, it tends to spread to others around you.

Quit Your Job
I know, it feels like a cop-out, but sometimes, you just need to let it go. Your nonprofit job may be noble and important to the community, but let someone else have that role if it is not working for you. Find another job that is a better fit for your personal and professional needs. It is not the end of the world, and quitting does NOT make you a failure. On the contrary, it can spare you from years of unhappiness with your career just because you feel obligated to the mission.

What are some other ways that YOU sustain yourself and prevent burnout in your career?

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, DC area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.