Surveying the Field: Interviewing Catherine Lepone & Stu Manewith
Written by Victoria Shadle
As part of Surveying the Field and my endeavor to individually interview 20 strangers in the nonprofit sector, I recently spoke with Catherine Lepone and Stu Manewith.
Catherine lives just north of New York City and has held a number of senior positions at nonprofits including Director of Development and Executive Director and is President of her local Association of Fundraising Professionals chapter. Stu lives in the Greater St. Louis Area and spent the first half of his career working in-house at nonprofits before transitioning to work at technology companies that create products for nonprofits.
Keep reading to hear how Catherine and Stu responded to my four big-picture questions about the sector.
What do you think are the biggest misconceptions about the nonprofit sector?
Catherine often finds people don’t understand the differences between nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies in terms of the rules, regulations, and even terminology. They also don’t realize that it’s not just allowed, but actually beneficial, for nonprofits to make more money than they spend in a given year.
“It’s not a dirty word [for nonprofits] to have leftover money at the end of the year — it’s a sound business practice. Look at what we’re going through now with nonprofits being shut down because there’s not a cushion, many will be gone because they won’t have these types of reserves.” — Catherine
Stu also first thought of the misunderstandings surrounding nonprofits and money. He finds many people assume nonprofits are small and scrappy, and some even take issue with large nonprofits that appear to be operating more like a business.
“Some feel that there are nonprofits that shouldn’t be nonprofits because they have high revenues and operate like businesses — like hospitals and universities, for example.” — Stu
In Stu’s experience, many nonprofits have solid budget and governance aspects and that’s not just the case for larger organizations. While they might not have a lot of money in the bank, smaller organizations can still have financial fortitude. Stu argues that rather than pure gross revenue, an organization’s financial strength should be evaluated on how the funds they do have are handled, governed, managed, and whether they are appropriately restricted when necessary .
Looking at misconceptions within the nonprofit sector, Stu believes many nonprofit staff underestimate what resources are available for their organization. He believes if you look hard and deep enough, there are a variety of resources from free software to meaningful volunteer support. In our current world colored by COVID-19, Stu sees an opportunity for organizations to reach more broadly for support whereas previously it felt like resources were much more localized.
Catherine also talked about misconceptions from inside the sector and shared her opinion that nonprofits should not become too dependent on the government for grants that sustain cash flow. She argues the reason we have the charitable tax deduction in this country is so people can give to causes they believe in and that individual philanthropy should be a key focus.
“To expect the government to do those functions and grant money creates extra layers that interrupt efficiencies and cash flow… dependency is a risk, it threatens the sustainability of the organization.” — Catherine
If you could tell nonprofit volunteers or board members one thing — what would it be?
Stu urges prospective board members to do their due diligence so they know what they’re getting into if they desire to volunteer at that leadership level. He wants individuals to know that it could be more work than the picture that is painted — not because of dishonesty on the part of the nonprofit, but because when people become dedicated the time spent on this work can balloon from a few hours a month to a few hours a week. He also recommends prospective members fully investigate what their liabilities are as board members.
“[As a prospective board member] you need to make sure you know what your liabilities are — does the organization have directors insurance? If the organization is sued, what is your personal liability?” — Stu
Having said this, Stu also would share that being a volunteer leader for a nonprofit can be immensely rewarding and fulfilling. He believes serving in this capacity is admirable and can benefit both the organization and the individual.
Catherine similarly talked about the board recruitment process and strongly urges prospective board members to first get involved as a volunteer instead of jumping straight to being on the board. She prefers to have a committee system where individuals can meaningfully participate on a discreet project and can use that time to find a volunteer role that they’re truly passionate about.
She believes organizations also need to be honest about expectations upfront and what success would look like as a board member. Lastly, Catherine stressed the importance of board members personally giving to the organization.
“If you’re not prepared to write a check to the organization you’re on the board of at any level, that says something to other donors, staff, and board members. It shows you’re not quite as committed if you cannot be financially engaged in a meaningful way.” — Catherine
Addressing volunteers, Catherine shared that sometimes it’s better not to volunteer to do the thing that you do everyday at work. While it might seem like a natural fit to join the finance committee of a nonprofit if you’re an accountant, for example, she suggests using volunteer work as a way to learn and develop a new skill like marketing. Catherine did this early in her career when she volunteered with a speakers bureau and it forced her to practice and improve her public speaking skills.
What do you believe people think about working in the nonprofit sector, and how has that aligned with or challenged what you’ve experienced?
As a fundraiser, Catherine has faced a negative stigma about what it means to be in this line of work. People have assumed all she does is ask people to give money and that she’s not exchanging anything in return — she’s even been asked when she’ll get a “real job.” Catherine firmly believes that just because there isn’t a tangible product that nonprofits provide in exchange for donations doesn’t mean that nonprofit staff deserve to be looked down upon or receive worse pay and benefits than their counterparts in the for-profit sector.
In fact, Catherine would argue that for many nonprofit workers there is an added emotional toll. She used the example of those in healthcare who become emotionally invested in the lives of the people they serve and for whom attending funerals of those beneficiaries becomes part of the job.
Stu also talked about nonprofit compensation and the perception of low pay. He sees that to be true in some sub-sectors, but says in other sub-sectors it’s absolutely false and workers are compensated well and provided with benefits similar to what they would receive in the for-profit sector. He sees a significant difference in pay and work-life balance between the sub-sectors; for example, university employees compared to food bank employees could both be at nonprofits but experiencing radically different workload expectations and pay.
What cultural or structural norms have you seen at individual nonprofits or the sector as a whole that you would like to see change?
Catherine was quick to share that she would like to see changes in regulation and reporting requirements for nonprofits. She is frustrated by the funders that require very onerous reporting on measurements and outcomes. Additionally, she finds many of these funders will not pay for the salaries or associated costs for the staff needed to manage this process.
“People who give us money make incredible demands for reporting and what they want to see as a result of the donation, but are not willing to pay for the staff that needs to write, organize, and collect all of the data they’re requesting.” — Catherine
Culturally, she also wants to see nonprofit leadership invest in their operations and resources — including technology, decent office space, continuing education for staff, memberships to professional associations, and so forth. She also wants to see leaders being able to invest in simple acts of appreciation for staff like a small lunch to celebrate a special occasion — she sees these as not just a nice perk, but also a morale booster that keeps staff engaged and productive.
In thinking about what structural changes he would like to see in the nonprofit sector, Stu thinks nonprofits have to focus on how to make staff and programs successful when people are working from home. This is wholly driven by the conditions created by the pandemic and is not likely something he would have said in early 2020.
Beyond adjusting to these times, Stu believes nonprofit workplaces should strive to become, and appear, more professionalized. He wants organizations to invest in technology, provide adequate work environments, and offer employees a good benefits package that is comparable to the private sector. This not only improves productivity from current employees, but also makes nonprofits appear to be a more desirable place to work.
“Infrastructure [at nonprofit organizations] that mimics or reflects what is seen in the private sector, even in small companies, would address the misconception that nonprofits are not great places to work from a professional standpoint.” — Stu
Thank you Catherine and Stu for sharing your thoughts with us! To hear how two fundraising and board governance consultants answered these questions, check out our interview with Pam and Linda below, and all of The Nonprofit Collective Blog interviews here.
