Políticas de Entregas a Rendir

Foremost in the minds of most leaders is the health and vibrancy of their organizations. Of course, on one level, this makes sense.

W h y W e ’ r e h e r e 

But when stability itself becomes the goal, its effects can lead to inwardness. We could see this plainly among those organizations with local affiliates and members. One leader explained to us that her top priority is enabling state chapters to develop “their core functions,” which include “having a business plan to establish resources, 501(c)(3) status, board [recruiting], that sort of thing.” Another leader described the core competencies for their affiliates in this way: “Board management, defined programs, fundraising.” As you can see, in both instances, there was little mention of outward, community goals.

Internal operations are also the predominant frame of refer- ence for leaders of locally based organizations. As one leader of a local grant-making organization said, “My first priority when I got here was to make sure we have the right people on staff.” In practice, this means that making such staff changes often becomes a prerequisite—a precondition—for working in communities. We encountered the same pressure time and again in our efforts with the

12 cei stations. And yet, as you’ll come to see, once the public broad-

casting stations were able to turn outward intentionally, it was their community focus that became the driving force behind significant internal changes, and not the other way around.

When asked to describe the role they play in communities, most leaders in our study were apt to talk about the programs they implement, services they provide, and constituents they represent; few included the community’s health, their connec- tion, or engagement with it. One leader put it this way, “We’re a program organization.” He then added, “We have a very specific goal. We work with communities that want to adopt our pro- grams!” In our work with cei stations, we initially found a similar notion sounded by many public broadcasters, who said that

their primary mission is to create and broadcast television and radio programs. Again, the health and development of the com- munity itself did not come up. Many organizations use the word

readiness when talking about communities. What they mean

by the term is whether a community is ready to adopt the organi- zation’s program or services!

Many organization leaders told us their focus on programs derives from their funding, which is tied almost exclusively to program expansion and implementation. Thus, they develop staff as program managers because their funding stream re- quires them to deliver on programs; and they reproduce pro- grams from one community to the next because funders say they want to replicate successful initiatives. “There are few grant

rfps [Requests for Proposals] for engagement or community

building work,” said one organization leader. “It is very difficult to develop capacities [engagement] when funding is all about the delivery of programs.”

These financial incentives often narrow or define the role that organization leaders believe they can afford to play, or should play, in communities. As one leader put it, “We’re not really in a posi- tion to play a broader community building role. No one wants to fund us to do that.”

Organizations with a successful program model feel tremen- dous pressure to further grow these programs—and to do it quickly. “We’re hot right now,” explained one leader representing a youth-oriented organization. “People want to fund us to come to their communities. The feeling in our organization is that we may not stay hot forever—so we’ve got to grow!” He concluded by saying, “I’m not sure if we’re a good fit in every community, but the money says, ‘Go!’”

W h y W e ’ r e h e r e 

Some organization leaders even suggest they feel bullied by funders to expand their programs and services whether or not a given community is a good fit for the program. One leader of a group working on health-care issues said, “We don’t really even ask if our programs are right for a community. Instead, we ask, ‘Where do we think we can get our programs adopted?’” His organization was under a mandate from a key funder to reach specific expansion quotas, which became the ultimate priority for the organization rather than making an impact on the communi- ties it served.

The way leaders are evaluated further promotes their intense focus on their organizational needs and interests, even when both are out of sync with their communities. Several leaders told us that grant and board evaluations rarely include any notions of their relationship with the community, beyond the effective spread of their programs. This is a trend we see nationwide. One leader, who summarized the conditions facing most organizations, gave voice to the concern saying, “I’m not evaluated by how well I involve people. Keeping my job depends on what we get done.” Many of the leaders we interviewed also describe how difficult it is to demonstrate a connection between community engagement and their impact in communities. “Until we can show impact,” said one leader, “no one cares. It’s just process.” This, too, was some- thing we heard repeatedly from public broadcasters. As you’ll see, the cei stations were able to address this concern head on and demonstrate the benefits from engaging with communities. Even leaders who believe engaging communities is essential to their work were hesitant to make engagement a priority with- in their own organizations. One leader who talked at length about how engagement is pivotal to the success of her work in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n – F i r s t a p p r o a c h 

communities, quickly added, “I would get fired if I told people I was doing engagement.” Another leader said, “Even when I’m doing engagement, I don’t necessarily tell people that’s what I’m doing!” And yet another leader added, “I’ll be frank; engage- ment is not something I’m going to go to the mat for. It’s just not worth it.”