• Home »
• Resources »
• Articles
» MS River Basin Benchmarking Report

Mississippi River Basin Benchmarking Report

INTRODUCTION

---

This summary report highlights findings collected from the interviews. It is divided into the following sections:

• Introduction that describes the general purpose of the workbook and issues that readers should consider when reviewing the findings;
• General findings that offer some conclusions about the current state of organizations based on the data received;
• Organization profile that documents measurable indicators from the participating organizations;
• Workbook response data that lists averages for how groups responded to the questions;
• Organization needs and priorities that are based on the goals set by the organizations themselves; and
• Next steps.

When reviewing the findings and data, it is important for readers to remember that:

1. The workbook is a self-assessment process and does not include an objective standard by which all groups can be compared. Comparisons made in this report are based on each group's own understanding of the questions in the workbook and their own judgment of performance.
   
2. Groups used different methods to complete the workbook. Some groups used a group process with board and/or staff members. In other cases, the executive director (sometimes with input from staff members or a board member), a volunteer leader, or another staff person completed the workbook.
   
3. Respondents made individual assumptions about the questions asked of them. The workbook includes 46 statements. After each statement, respondents are asked to answer the following two questions:
   
   • Does this describe your organization? (1=not true, 5=always true)
     - and -
   • Does this matter right now? (1=doesn't matter, 5=matter a lot)
   Some respondents thought a statement described their organization as "5" (for example, that they have a current written strategic plan) and that it also mattered a lot right now. In other cases, respondents thought that since the statement described their organization as "5," it was, therefore, less important (we have a strategic plan so it is less important compared to other organizational issues).
   
4. Groups were often not able to answer every question. The most common reasons for not responding were that the question was not applicable to them or they did not have accurate information to give an answer.
   
5. Groups participating in this project self-selected. They are not a random sampling of environmental and conservation groups in the Mississippi River basin. An argument could be made that their decision to participate demonstrates an existing interest in organizational capacity building and desire to focus on those issues.

Given the variables listed above, we believe that the results still provide some important insights into the organizational strengths, weaknesses, and priorities of environmental and conservation groups in the Mississippi River basin. However, we maintain that the workbook's true value is as an educational tool rather than the results it produces.

The following groups completed the workbook:

Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Foundation (LA)
Cannon River Watershed Partnership (MN)
Clean Up Our River Environment - CURE (MN)
Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota (MN)
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana (LA)
Foundation for Sustainable Development (TX)
Friends of the Minnesota Valley (MN)
Friends of the Mississippi River (MN)
Friends of the Upper Mississippi River Refuges (WI)
Gulf Restoration Network (LA)
Louisiana Environmental Action Network - LEAN (LA)
Louisiana Labor/Neighborhood Fund (LA)
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (WI)
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MN)
Minnesota Lakes Association (MN)
Minnesota PIRG (MN)
Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Board (MN)
Mississippi River Basin Alliance - MRBA (MN/LA)
Missouri Coalition for the Environment (MO)
New Spirit Neighborhood Organizing (IL)
Ozark Regional Land Trust (MO)
Prairie Rivers Network (IL)
River Action (IA)
River Alliance of Wisconsin (WI)
Rivers Council of Minnesota (MN)
Southwestern Illinois Resource & Conservation Council (IL)
Standing Cedars Community Land Conservancy (WI)
Taxpayers for Common Sense (WDC)
Tennessee Clean Water Network (TN)
Trailnet, Inc. (MO)
Upper Mississippi River Campaign - Audubon (MN)
Wetlands Initiative (IL)
Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy (WI)

GENERAL FINDINGS

---

Data from the phone interviews reveals the Mississippi River basin's environmental and conservation nonprofit landscape. That landscape includes:

Organizations that are growing. Organizations reported adding on average more than one new staff position during the year. About three-quarters of the groups said they increased program areas or issues.

Organizations that rely on foundation support. Fifty percent of the organizations' budgets come from foundation grants. Another 20% comes from government contracts or grants. Most groups, however, indicated that they want to diversify their funding base.

Organizations that are becoming increasingly professional with good internal controls. Organizations rated themselves highly in relation to accounting, budgets, and reporting. They have implemented or are working on things such as policies and procedures, job descriptions, and other more formalized structures.

Organizations that want to focus more on human resources. In general, organizations would like to have better staff support for their boards, do more board outreach, develop the fundraising skills of their board members, and more systematically recruit and maintain members and volunteers from which to develop leaders.

Organizations that have high staff turnover. Twenty-one percent of the organizations reported having new executive directors, which is a slightly lower rate than the turnover rate reported for the wider nonprofit community by the CompassPoint Nonprofit Support Center. Forty-three percent of staff members filled new positions. This figure corresponds to an increase in program/issue areas.

Organizations that do not have structures in place to effectively recruit, train, and sustain volunteer involvement. Almost across the board, organizations had a difficult time reporting accurate numbers of volunteers and the number of hours they worked. In fact, the reporting was so arbitrary and inconsistent that we decided not to include numbers for those questions. For example, groups don't often track event vs. on-going volunteers. Some groups reported having "hundreds" of volunteers. Others said something like: "We've got ten volunteers and I think they each worked about 25 hours." We should also note that some groups do not involve volunteers as a matter of choice.

Based on those responses and responses in the "Members, Volunteers, and Leaders" section (see below), it is clear to us that, of the groups that involve volunteers, the majority of them do not have a coordinated system for recruiting, training, managing, and supporting volunteers. This raises the question as to whether environmental and conservation groups in the Mississippi River basin have fully considered the benefits of volunteer involvement and the human resource potential of volunteers. If "what gets measured gets managed," then there is no "economy" of citizen participation because few organizations are tracking it.

Organizations that struggle to meet budget. More than half of the participating organizations did not raise 100% of their planned budgeted income last year. About one-third of the groups had less than 50% of this year's budget revenue already committed by the beginning of the fiscal year.

ORGANIZATION PROFILE

---

This section captures some basic measures of the participating organizations' work. These organizational indicators will allow groups to measure their growth and give us a "snapshot" of the state of environmental and conservation organizations in the Mississippi River basin.

Over the past year, have you decreased or expanded program areas or issues? (Decreased a lot/decreased/stayed the same/increased a little/a lot)

How often do the Executive Director and Treasurer create or review financial statements?

WORKBOOK RESPONSE DATA

---

The workbook asked respondents to consider 46 statements. After each statement they were asked to rate numerically whether the statement described their organization (1=not true, 5=always true) and whether it mattered right now (1=doesn't matter, 5=matters a lot).

Almost half (16) of the respondents rated themselves low ("1" or "2") for whether the organization has a current written strategic plan, approved by the Board, with clear and agreed-upon goals. In addition, twelve of the sixteen organizations that rated themselves low said that it matters a lot ("4" or "5"). Groups would also benefit from greater evaluation of their programs by learning about what has worked and how to plan more effectively for roadblocks along the way.

The greatest difference between where groups saw themselves and how much something mattered was building support so that programs and campaigns excite members and other constituents. More than half of the groups saw this as mattering a lot ("5"). They want to choose and design campaigns and programs that do a better job of attracting volunteers and financial support. Although groups reported having measurable goals for only 33% of their programs on average, they believe they are doing a good job of monitoring the goals they have.

Nearly two-thirds of the organizations that completed this workbook do not believe their funding is adequately diversified. Most groups, however, consider their fundraising to be cost-effective. This statement was one of only two in which groups on average placed themselves higher than the level of importance they gave it. Based on the high percentage of revenue from foundations reported in the "Organization Profile" section, it seems the data support this assessment.

Groups place a great deal of importance on budgeting, accounting, and reporting and, for the most part, believe they are doing a good job in those areas. However, nine groups (27%) ranked themselves low ("1," "2," or "3") for internal controls on financial transactions, which prevent people in the organization from misusing funds.

In general, groups see much to improve in their boards. Of particular concern are ensuring the board has members who are committed to the mission, have the skills and experience the group needs, and represent those groups involved in the organization's work. Many of the technical things, such as meeting preparation, meeting minutes, and financial oversight are getting done. They also want boards in which members leave and new members are added regularly, represent the diversity of the their communities, and are prepared for their role with job descriptions.

The greatest concern, however, is increasing board members' ability to raise significant resources for the organization or make a substantial donation themselves. This statement had the second largest difference out of all the statements in the workbook between whether it describes the organization and how much it matters right now. Only three organizations rated themselves high ("4" or "5") in this area, while eighteen rated themselves low ("1" or "2"). Twenty-four groups believe that board members' fundraising matters a lot right now ("4" or "5").

The most pressing need under this category is staff having a manageable workload and the organization taking measures to avoid staff burnout. Half the groups rated themselves low ("1" or "2") in this area. Only one group rated themselves with a "5." Interestingly, training or professional development and work plans that have clear and challenging goals, are linked to the organization's strategic goals, and are reviewed quarterly ranked relatively low on whether they matter right now. Over time, completing work plans, training, and regular evaluation are two activities that may make staff work loads more manageable.

Staff time and effort to help the board function well also scored fairly low for about half the groups even though they believe it matters a lot (twenty-seven groups rated it a "4" or "5"). Given the desire to improve board composition, renewal, and fundraising, it raises some questions. Are staff workloads so intense that they don't have enough time for the board? Is there a greater need for awareness of the connection between an effective board and program success? Is there a connection between lack of staff support for boards and a general lack of focus on developing leaders from within the organization?

Members, volunteers, and leaders scored the lowest of all categories. Recruitment of as many new members as it needed and could reasonably serve had the greatest difference (2.1) of all the statements in the workbook between how well it described organizations and whether it mattered right now. The issues addressed in this category significantly impact the health of most organizations and their ability to effectively carry out their mission.

It is our experience that many groups cite fundraising as a major organizational need, but data from this category suggests more emphasis should be placed on the recruitment and development of members, volunteers, and leaders. The above rankings, combined with the lack of trustworthy data about volunteer hours and numbers indicates a need for further exploration of this area.

Organizations see the greatest need to focus on making sure their stakeholders and target populations are well informed about its work, and that the organization receives the coverage it needs in the media and is able to track the coverage. Groups rated themselves low in the area of public feedback, but do not view it as something that matters a lot right now. Less than one-third of the groups rated it a "5." We suspect this is directly related to their membership and volunteer recruitment capacity and, ultimately, to their ability to build strong, effective boards.

ORGANIZATION NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

---

The following lists are a compilation of the participating organizations' needs based on data from the workbook categories.

Matters a lot right now (listed in numerical order from the averages)

Greatest differential between how statement describes organization and if it matters right now (listed in numerical order from the average)

Membership recruitment
Board fundraising
Systematic recruitment of volunteers
Development of leaders
Media coverage
Executive director evaluation

The workbook asks respondents to review their answers and to notice which questions they thought were most important to their organization. It then asks them to answer the following questions:

Groups often responded to the questions with statements that addressed a specific need of their organization. Their responses were put into one of the general categories listed.

NEXT STEPS

---

This report will be shared with all of the participating organizations. We hope that it will increase their awareness of organizational capacity building and give them a context in which to think about their own development. Many groups indicated during the interview that they would be focusing on such things as strategic planning and training during the coming year. We will complete the phone interview again in 2001, note efforts to address increase organizational capacity, and track any changes that have occurred.