If you have not read Part 1 & 2 of this article, CLICK HERE

•

Engagement is the culture of the organization. Community is engaged in every aspect of building, running & sustaining programs.

•

Engagement used only as a tool to further specific objectives such as fundraising.

•

Organization seen as part of the community, and the community as part of the organization.

•

Conscious effort required to “go out to the community to see what they think. (We = organization = in here. They = community = out there.)

•

Organization works with / alongside the community in every aspect of its work.

•

Organization works for the community (vs. with / alongside the community).

•

Community shares ownership of the issues.

•

Community does not share ownership of the organization’s issues. Lack of engagement / apathy often cited as source of frustration.

•

Simultaneously builds an engaged community in the normal course of building, running & sustaining programs.

•

Building, running and sustaining programs does not simultaneously build engagement. Community building typically not seen as a significant part of the mission.

•

Operates all aspects of programs by engaging supportive friends who help in multiple ways (volunteer, advocate, advise, give money, etc.).

•

Engagement used primarily as a tool for cultivating large-dollar donors. (Small dollar donors typically not engaged but instead only sent fundraising appeals.) All non-financial benefits of friendship considered the purview of other departments - program staff, volunteer manager, advocacy staff, etc.

•

Board / staff / volunteer "diversity" not an issue, as the community is deeply engaged with the organization’s work at all levels.

•

Ongoing “diversity” struggle to find board and staff who reflect the community served by the organization.

•

Engaged organizations can always rely on the community when times are hard.

•

Traditional organizations more apt to feel they are on their own, fighting a competitive battle to stay afloat.

•

Nuts & bolts of the programs infrastructure are infused with the organizations vision for a strong community.

•

The program’s infrastructure does not create community-building synergy.

•

The shared nature of the program’s infrastructure simultaneously creates shared ownership of community issues, with everyone working together towards a common goal.

•

Traditional models build stand-alone programs, reinforcing the organization’s perceived “sole” ownership of community issues.

•

All advantages of Community Engagement are used to strengthen the actual nuts & bolts of the programs infrastructure.

•

Stand-alone programs are not engaged at the core. They stand alone (and fall alone).

•

Engages other organizations in the core of the mission, leading to cooperation & trust in other areas. Replaces spirit of competition & scarcity with a spirit of abundance.

•

Traditional approaches reinforce the sense of competition for scarce resources.

•

Resource development success is directly tied to mission / vision success. The more the group accomplishes its mission & vision, the more money comes in.

•

No direct link between mission success & fundraising success. Increased mission success does not directly generate more money.

•

Understanding that they have an abundance of existing assets frees organizations to see other groups as compadres vs. competitors.

•

Organizations believe they have few (if any) assets. Strength is perceived to derive from external sources, fueling their competition for scarce resources vs. other organizations.

•

Organizations with a sense of their own internal abundance are less likely to take actions that go counter to their vision & values in their quest for financial stability.

•

Organizations living in scarcity and fear are more likely to take actions that go counter to their vision & values in their quest for financial stability.

•

Mission is actually one of the assets to build upon.

•

Programs whose fees do not directly cover the program's expenses are seen as the opposite of an asset. They are often referred to as “subsidized” - a drain, a liability!

•

Organizations start their resource development planning with a strong base of assets upon which to build.

•

With no internal sense of the abundance they have to build upon, organizations always feel they are starting from zero.

•

Building on their own strength not only builds financial strength but cultural / emotional strength within the organization.

•

Organizations feel weak, looking outside themselves for strength, living in fear, reacting from a sense of scarcity.