Community TechKnowledge

I could be living in a dream world, but it seems to me that when I began working in nonprofit orgs, back in the early ‘80s, things were a lot simpler in the third sector.

(For example, did anyone ever really say “third sector,” then?)

Fast forward 30 years, and nonprofits are awash in a vast new lexicon representing the advent of technology as a business requirement. Outcome modeling, asset mapping, and impact measurement are at the forefront of our new nonprofit thinking. Gone are the days of counting outputs, telling an inspiring story to open checkbooks, and mission passion as the be-all and end-all of nonprofit motivation.

Now, many universities offer advanced degrees in nonprofit management and there are countless organizations that act as information repositories and thought leaders in 21^st century nonprofit development. It can be a bit daunting to cherry-pick the relevant information and incorporate it into social welfare programming.

Don’t get me wrong! In the “old days” a lack of accountability, true impact measurement, and transparency sometimes resulted in wasted money, futile effort, and harmful outcomes. As a case in point, my first job was working in a de-institutionalization program for the chronic mentally ill. This program was considered the premier social experiment of its day. Who could argue with the notion of closing expensive mental hospitals that warehoused mentally ill adults – often for life? Who could find fault with the compassion and kindness of placing these same folks in real neighborhoods, with access to community-based services?

I worked in that nonprofit for seven years and I never had a doubt that we were on the high road – nor did the funders, my fellow workers, or the medical community who prescribed the mega-doses of psychotropic drugs required to keep these same patients manageable and compliant. We all felt like intrepid social justice ground breakers – making the world a better place for those who had traditionally been locked away, out-of-sight and out-of-mind of the more fortunate members of our community. We didn’t have the data to prove our impact, but then, no one else had the data to confirm we weren’t improving lives. So forward we went, sure of our position and without the checks of real outcomes statistics.

Frankly, some of the only people who ever voiced concerns about the presumed eventual happy outcome of removing a long-term resident of a locked mental health unit, medicating them with drugs they often refused and almost always avoided whenever possible, and placing them in a seedy halfway house or lonely efficiency apartment in some of the worst of our city’s neighborhoods (the only areas where neighbors did not complain about these placements) were the clients, themselves.

They were often frightened, desperately lonely folks who had long ago lost touch with family and friends and had few, if any, coping skills for day-to-day living in the community. The twice daily visits that my coworkers and I made – to take them to receive food stamps, give them medications, or drive them to the local drop-in center for the mentally ill, did not make for “a real life,” any more than the hospital did. In reality, quite a few of those folks spent most of their time trying to get back onto psych wards and into hospitals where they felt safe and they were no longer alone.

My colleagues and I were constantly called upon to intervene in these attempts; the theory was that if they could just build enough skills, just experience enough successes, and just achieve significant time out of the hospital, they would eventually become integrated into their neighborhoods and their communities, form relationships outside of the mental health system, and achieve a higher quality of life.

Well, I am not saying this never happened – but, looking back, I know that it didn’t happen often enough. Without short and long term data on outcomes, which was nearly impossible to achieve without the necessary information technology, we could only provide anecdotal information on results. Our only records were book after book of longhand “S.O.A.P.” documentation on every one of sometimes thousands of client visits, made over many years, all stored in the chart room of our offices. This left our best-guess opinions in reporting on client progress; opinions that, I now suspect, were highly biased by our sincere belief that what we were doing was right and good.

In addition, what we might have predicted, with more foresight, was that the day would come – once the hospitals were closed – that it would become less popular and economically feasible to pay for social work professionals to visit the chronic mentally ill every day and personally shepherd them through their community placements. When the bulk of that funding was eventually withdrawn, large numbers of these same clients became either homeless or mired in the criminal justice system. They simply lacked the skills or the safety nets of family and friends to protect them from their inexperience in maneuvering the complicated world of employment, housing, health care, and basic social interactions.

I am not relating this to criticize well-meaning professionals and advocates who cared so passionately about those who suffered from an archaic mental health treatment system. I still believe that closing state hospitals was the right thing to do and that ‘80s medications offered a new option for at least some folks to enjoy a less restricted and more satisfying personal life. Instead, I use it as an example of how nothing is simple when we approach very complex social problems. Many factors must be considered, and both funders and service providers need to throw a very wide net in order to access all the pertinent data, knowledge, and experience in planning, executing, and evaluating multifaceted, social welfare programs.

It is CTK’s intent, via our blog, to provide a real and valuable resource for our many thousands of nonprofit customers, and our numerous nonprofit website visitors, all of whom are providing funding and services to address complex, systemic social issues. We feel that it is our obligation to offer many viewpoints, a variety of expert opinions, and a broad compendium of knowledge that can truly assist in the management of nonprofit organizations and specific programs.

Thus, we present in our new blog the thoughts of some of the best minds in the country, on a wide variety of pertinent, nonprofit-related topics. CTK thanks Deborah Elizabeth Finn for acting as our blog curator; her vast experience as a thought leader provides the scrim though which literally mountains of nonprofit-related information may be filtered.

I also wish to express my gratitude to the many professionals who have stepped forward, as guest bloggers, to share their nonprofit expertise.

Experts such as John McNutt, Andie Whitley, Michael Gilbert, Laura Quinn, Robert Egger, Ian Runeckles, and everyone’s favorite, The Nonprofit Curmudgeon, are kindly and generously kicking off our 2012 series on such fascinating and relevant topics as: Nonprofit Electronic Advocacy, Software ‘s Role in Program Evaluation, Mission Focus, Data Driven Grantmaking, Motion vs. Progress, Circuit Riding, and more!

We hope that the viewpoints expressed encourage nonprofit executives and service providers to consider new ideas and viewpoints as they execute their important missions in our communities.

Many thanks!

Kathryn Engelhardt-Cronk
CEO/President, Community TechKnowledge, Inc.
President, CTK Foundation
1-877-441-2111 Ext 115  

(c) 2012 by Kathryn Engelhardt-Cronk
 

Unless otherwise noted, Community TechKnowledge, Inc (CTK) and blog authors have no financial or other business relationship.  At no time will the contents of this blog be used by CTK to promote software products or services.  Guest bloggers own all rights to their blog editorial and statements by bloggers do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of CTK.