I have a few pieces of standard advice that I give to friends that are applying to program officer positions, so I thought I’d share the same advice with you, my virtual friends. Program officer positions rarely come open, especially now with so many foundations downsizing, so it is important that you do what you can to stand out.

• Don’t ask, don’t tell policy for your age- If you are a younger applicant, please take your graduation date off of your resume. Regardless of how much relevant experience you have, many hiring managers will write you off as a youngster if your undergraduate or graduate degree was received after Y2K.
• Work your networks- If you used to nanny for the board chair or you were in Americorps with one of the program assistants, make sure you talk to that person before you apply and mention that they encouraged you to apply in the cover letter. There is nothing that gives you an easier edge than name dropping. It won’t get you the job but it will make the HR person that is going through 300 applicants take a second look.
• Know your target- Get to know the culture of the foundation from your previous interactions with them in the community or through a thorough read of the website. Do the grantees fit your values, do you believe in the mission, do you respect the reputation of the other staff? Make sure it is a fit before applying and if it is a fit with your values and experience, explain why in the cover letter.
• Know the job- Is the foundation looking for a generalist that can analyze a variety of nonprofits? Then highlight your analytical skills and expertise across the field. Are they looking for a content expert? Then it’s time to put that oceanology degree to work.
• Be timely- If you are interested in a position, don’t play hard to get and wait until the last day to apply. Many foundations start screening applications a week or two after the position is posted. They may already have a favorite candidate if you wait until the last minute.
• Don’t sell yourself short- Many people see their dream job and don’t apply because they are sure that they don’t have a chance.  Even if it seems like there will be most experienced applicants, you might just have the mix of education, personality, and experience the foundation is looking for. You miss 100% of the shots you don’t make.

What other advice would you give to someone applying for a program officer position?

I’m proud to announce Tom’s of Maine “50 States for Good” program, which will celebrate and reward non-profits whose efforts are focused on lasting, positive change. Tom’s of Maine will award $100,000 to five nonprofits from a community fund that will ultimately be directed by a public vote. To launch the “50 States for Good” initiative, Tom’s of Maine has created a virtual hub at www.50statesforgood.com, where applications for participation are available from June 1 through August 30 to all qualifying 501 (c)(3) organizations. After the submission phase, online voting by the public will determine which five projects will receive $20,000 each.

Tom’s asked nonprofit bloggers to develop videos advertising the program, you can see my video above. I’ve managed to squeeze my husband, son, and daughter in the video (hey, if Aaron Spelling can do it, so can I), see if you can find them.

Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri is seeking nominations for the position of Director of the Kathryn M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies in the George Warren Brown School of Social Work. The School seeks a director who will coordinate the Center’s curriculum and program development and will work to recruit and support students. The director will act as a liaison to and develop productive relationships with American Indian communities and constituencies, both local and national. In addition, the successful candidate will pursue philanthropic opportunities to expand the Center’s resources and scope of impact. This exciting opportunity is a senior staff position with the possibility of a non-tenure-track faculty appointment. The School seeks candidates with strong interest and experience in working with American Indian communities and issues.

Even if the economy recovers this year, you’re likely to have fewer grantmaking dollars available next year because of the wacky world of endowment economics. What kind of evaluation tools are you using to help your grantees do more with less while preserving and growing your base of support in the community?

An increasing number of foundations are turning to evaluation with a diversity lens (EDL) to ensure they remain effective. Even if your work doesn’t focus on diversity, using the principles of EDL will help strengthen the impact of your grants, deepen your connection to the community, and transform evaluation into a learning process (as opposed to a simplified measure of cause and effect).

Here’s how: One of philanthropy’s leading authorities on EDL, Dr. Ricardo Millet , says that EDL’s tools allow you to engage the community in constant and authentic contact that invites a diversity of input, not only from all the various cultural stakeholders but through the variety of ways for them to access you.

This includes inviting grantees and a range of diverse community leaders to discuss program strategy and offer input on key strategic planning decisions, such as determining the underlying causes of community challenges and collectively setting benchmarks that address them. Staff and board members also need to have a cultural makeup that reflects the community and understand how this facilitates communication and achieves results. Realize that EDL isn’t about cause and effect so much as learning and growing.

EDL is still an emerging field of evaluation study, which means right now you have a great opportunity to affect its growth. You can participate in field-wide discussions about it and offer suggestions for best practices based on your observations.

Dr. Millett has agreed to respond to readers’ questions and comments about EDL. You can reach him at the following e-mail address: ricardo@ricardomillett.com.

For more information: Check out  GrantCraft’s publication on a similar concept, grantmaking with a racial equity lens, and also check out the website of Diversity in Philanthropy later in June, when Dr. Millett’s case study on EDL is published (at this link).

I have always prided myself on having a semblance of work-life balance but last week was a prime example of why I do not have it all figured out. As our fiscal year is ending, I realized that I will lose some vacation time because I haven’t taken any real time off since I started my job at Headwaters. As I looked at my calendar to figure out when would be a good time for vacation, I realized that I have scheduled commitments throughout the summer and last week was my best chance at some time away. During this time we are also looking a a variety of new funding opportunities, that are especially important now (because of the little global economic meltdown and its impact on our endowment and our nonprofits). So during this relaxing vacation:

• I went into the office to meet with a board committee, participate in a conversation with a consultant about an application we are submitting, and to pick up a pile of files for another grant application,
• Participated in  variety of conference calls,
• Checked email every few hours and responded to about 100 emails,
• Went to a school conference,
• Checked my Twitter-feed endlessly and forwarded interesting links to my staff

This isn’t a “woe is me” post, this is a “woe is my staff” post. It has taken me till the sixth day of workaholic craziness to realize that I am being a terrible example to my staff and to my family. For the staff, I am saying that vacation time doesn’t really mean time “off” from work, it means an expectation of being connected from another location. I may not mean that, but its what I show by example. It also looks like I don’t trust them to make decisions in my absence, which is also not the intention but it sure looks like that. For my family, it means that when I say that I am hanging out with them, I am actually thinking about work and often doing work. There is nothing more exciting to a five year old than watching Mommy check her Twitter feed.

The only good thing about noticing a character flaw is that you have to notice it before you can fix it. Here’s to making not working work next time.

Working in the field of childhood obesity, I’ve recently been learning a lot about the slow food movement and talking to advocates addressing hunger and access to healthy foods.  One such advocate recently sent me a link to a blog posting where the author saved a McDonald’s hamburger for 12 years and it looked pretty much the same from day one.   During the same time of reconsidering whether I will ever eat another McDonald’s hamburger, my foundation (like many others) is being confronted with reductions to both our administrative and our grant making budgets.  My team just completed re-prioritizing our current and future grant making plans which included looking a lot more closely at sustainability.  How long will a program last after our immediate grant ends? 

I’ve also been reflecting on the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy report “Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best”.  It had been on my reading list for a couple of months now and I finally got around to at least reading select chapters.  One that particularly caught my attention was the “Effectiveness” criterion.  I have been a proponent for operational grants for quite some time because, when done right, they can lead to strengthening the sustainability of an organization.  I also support multi-year grants but with the stipulation that the funder and organization work together to ensure that, if the program is effective, it can continue operating after the grant ends.  I was a little disappointed that the report didn’t touch upon sustainability as part of grant making effectiveness.  To me, the two should go hand-in-hand; if a foundation is willing to make the commitment to a 3-4 year grant, then the grantee should have a sustainability plan ready for when that grant ends.  And I’m not just talking financial but also sustainable impact on the community being served, such as through grant making for policy change.

So, does your grant leave the grantee ready to continue its good work when your funding ends or is the organization scrambling for more funding a year before the grant’s over?  Will the impact of the funded activity last beyond the foundation’s financial commitment?  Do your grants last longer than a McDonald’s hamburger?

PS: Click here if you’re curious about the 12-year old hamburger.  I haven’t eaten one since…

This guest post is from Chelsea Pennick, who is a young professional working in Montana and is the blogger behind New Voices in Conservation. I have always been impressed with how Chelsea builds her virtual and in-person networks and asked her to share some of her tips. From Chelsea:

Working for a foundation with national giving programs, I have the privilege of seeing what is happening in rural communities across America.  Working for a national foundation has helped me to grasp the common threads among the grassroots organizations in my field-their context, operating environment and unique challenges.  We have the additional privilege, in my opinion, of being one of a few foundations located in a small city in a very rural state.   Building my network here in Montana has been important, both professionally and personally.  Following are reflections on my experiences:

Rule 1: Don’t Burn Your Bridges

So maybe this rule is universal.  But no where more so than in a rural area.  That intern that you supervised last semester and were glad to be rid of?  Just wait, they could be on the hiring committee for your next job.  The co-worker that you struggle with every time you have to work with them?  Don’t tell them off in your ‘I’m leaving this joint” elation–they could be friends with your new boss.  The degrees of separation are few to none.  Be ready to walk the fine line of being friends with your co-workers and bosses.  And if you’re not friends, work on creating positive working relationships at least.

Rule 2: Relationships are Everything

Again, its nothing you haven’t heard. But in a rural community, the next job you get is likely not even going to be in the paper–its going to come through your personal or professional network (which are the same thing-see Rule 1).   I’m not talking about your Linkedin Network (though I have one), I’m talking about your grocery-store-shopping, coffee- & beer-drinking, dentist and hair stylist, and maybe your mom-on-Facebook network.

Rule 3: Be Patient-Be Flexible

That ideal job you’re after?  Sit down, get comfortable.  It could be awhile.  For that reason, it would do you good to be flexible.  Your career trajectory is not likely to mirror anything you see on TV or in the Movies.  Make the most of the job you have because you may be there for awhile–and rather than wasting all that good time, make the most of it. Look for every opportunity to learn a new skill, offer to help the folks in other departments, get on a board.  Better yet, work on getting on the board of the organization you want to work for.

If you are determined to move on from your current job-likely you will have to think a bit more broadly about what you are hoping to gain and the skills you want to develop.  This may mean working for a for-profit to gain sales skills that could be put to work as a development director or associate.

Rule 4: Learn to face your foes head-on

If you’re the type to run away when conflicts arise, then rural living may not be for you.  Leaving your job when the heat rises is often not an option.  Instead, the lack of alternatives challenges you to face the situation head-on and try to figure out how to work through it.  I’m not saying this is the best practice every time, but when you get the initial urge to bolt, you might realize that the job you have is the only one in your field.  Now’s the time to bone up on your conflict resolution and difficult conversation skills–they are good to have in your toolbox anywhere you live.

What lessons have you learned building your network?

Chelsea Pennick is Program Associate at the National Forest Foundation where she manages grantmaking programs and learning opportunities to build the capacity of organizations working to find collaborative solutions to natural resource issues.  She writes about her experiences living in a rural area and building her career in the community conservation movement on her blog at New Voices in Conservation.

I was so impressed by Marc Sirkin’s thoughtful nonprofit analysis of Jeff Jarvis’s book “What Would Google Do” that I thought I would take a crack at how the book applies to the foundation sector. Marc’s summary of the book at its application to the nonprofit sector is dead on. From Marc:

If you haven’t yet read the book, the basic premise is that Google fundamentally operates differently than traditional businesses by embracing concepts like abundance (as opposed to scarcity) along with open communication, collaboration and community. That’s too simple an explanation, but to be honest, you should read this book anyway, so I’ll skimp on that since I know you’ll order it immediately!

In any case, those same traits and behaviors that Google uses are polar opposite of how many traditional non-profits operate. Like most traditional business models, many non-profits have are caught in an odd spot – it’s clear that something big is happening, but there hasn’t been a forcing function like Napster demolishing the music business for example that has created a need for massive, fundamental change. Unfortunately for many large non-profits, I believe it’s about to happen and is going to really surprise and destroy a lot of well known and traditional institutions.

I think these same factors are also going to destroy the relevance of some foundations. Don’t get me wrong, many ineffective foundations will continue to exists because the market doesn’t weed out foundations that are not adding value to the community but some that embrace some of the values that Google has modeled will thrive during this time.  Here are some of the themes that are applicable to foundations:

Make mistakes well- Many Foundations are terrified at the thought of failure (i.e. wasting money), that they won’t take the risks necessary to have real success. Using Google’s model of beta testing, foundations could fund a series of pilot projects that are transparent and allow for critique of the foundation’s theory of change and  process to access funds (application, length of time for grant process, additional technical support).

The masses are dead, long live the niches- Foundations with missions like “here to make our community a better place” are wasting impact and grantseekers time. Very few foundations are actually interested in receiving applications from nonprofits across the spectrum, they have an idea of the types of programs they would like to support but leave their guidelines vague so they have the option to support emerging needs in the community (or pet projects). By picking a specific area and maybe even tactics for the work they support, foundations would develop relationships in their field of interest and would develop an impressive knowledge base to find new solutions to the problems they are trying to address. Catering to the nonprofit masses only leads to mediocrity.

When presented with a problem simplify, organize, and make it all transparent- Foundations have access to amazing data about community problems and tried solutions. Distilling community problems to a more simplified problem statement, organizing all of the information the foundation has on that area, and making it available for all to see would move our sector closer to solutions.

Collaboration with customers- A key foundation customer is the grantee. What are we doing to collaborate with our nonprofit colleague? Mandatory training and paperwork is not what an effective collaboration is made from. How about open conversations about foundation and nonprofit challenges? Open relationships where both partner realizes they can’t accomplish their goal with out the other?

The problems that we are facing together are too urgent for us to blindly hold on to old ways of doing this work. We need to let go of the processes and mindsets in our sector that are holding us back and think about how getting googlerific might help us bring innovation to our field.

How would you like to see foundations innovate or simplify?