Sexual Harassment in the Nonprofit Sector

The #MeToo movement has thrust an all too common workplace occurrence into the open: sexual harassment.

Commencing with the downfall of Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood, there has been an enormous ripple effect throughout the male-dominated media world. Powerful figures have had to answer for their abusive behaviors, some after years or even decades of inappropriate conduct.

The movement’s impact has expanded into the political realm, resulting in elected officials either resigning or forgoing reelection campaigns at the local, state, and federal level.

The nation is in the midst of a cultural sea change. From here on out, it will be difficult for the powerful to sweep sexual harassment and sexist behavior under the rug.

Despite the growing pressure on abusive men in sectors with high public visibility, there are still many industries in the U.S. economy that either overlook sexual harassment or enable workplace cultures that enshrine it. The nonprofit sector is one of them.

In the world of philanthropy, fundraisers rank among the most susceptible to unwanted sexual advances and mistreatment by superiors. Four out of five development professionals are women, meaning that the industry’s workforce as a whole faces a hostile work culture antithetical to the pro-social principles that underpin the philanthropic sector.

In a 2017 survey of fundraisers, Inside Philanthropy found that not only did a majority of female respondents report sexual harassment, but that a stunning 43 percent encountered patterns of mistreatment at work.

The nonprofit sector’s distinct structure makes its culture of sexual harassment particularly difficult to counteract. The industry features the typical power dynamics between management and staff, but also includes a host of other players in positions of power, from major donors to trustees. The Inside Philanthropy survey found that these parties were guilty of sexually harassing female fundraisers.

The complex web of power encourages many at the top to look the other way. Writing for Philanthropy, Sarah Beaulieu describes anecdotes from colleges where HR or executive personnel responded to complaints of sexual harassment committed by donors by referring to the incident in question as a “sticky situation.” A donor, after all, is not an employee of the organization, and a nonprofit’s top brass may be reluctant to jeopardize vital funding sources. As Veritus Group’s Richard Perry and Jeff Schreifels put it, for nonprofit executives, “money outweighs the offense and life just goes on.”

This lack of support for fundraisers is dangerous. Fundraisers meet privately with powerful figures, often over dinner or in situations that may encourage unscrupulous donors to indulge in inappropriate or even criminal behavior.

Like private businesses, most nonprofits maintain policies designed to safeguard against intra-organizational sexual harassment. Policies protecting against third party abusers, however, are less common. It is incumbent upon nonprofit leadership to make sure that staff members are protected by cogent and actionable policy measures that guarantee workers’ rights to pursue their important work free of sexual harassment.

By neglecting the wellbeing of its work force, the nonprofit sector only tarnishes its own image as a promoter of the social good. Nonprofits cannot do justice to their missions or brands without advocating for their workers.

In Historic Reversal of Policy, Met to Start Charging Admission Fees

Branding is just as important for nonprofits as it is for private enterprises. In today’s marketplace, nonprofits are up against stiff competition from a variety of industries for consumers’ attention, and effective communications are nearly impossible without a public identity that your constituents can understand and recognize.

One major U.S. institution just reversed perhaps its most notable policy, and the price its brand will pay in the long run is uncertain.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art (more popularly known as “the Met”) has been free to the public since the 1970s – that is, until now. Organizational leadership has announced that non-New York residents will now have to pay a $25 fee to enter.

Residing inside a publicly owned building, the Met is the largest art museum in the country, and its nearly 50 years of pay-what-you-want entry fees contributed to its international stature and cemented its identity as a truly democratic cultural resource.

During a visit in September, I participated in the pay-what-you-want system and gave the Met $25. In theory, visitors who can afford this recommended fee offset the cost for others who cannot readily pay. Some critics suggest that the museum did not effectively communicate this concept over the years.

Museum officials have cited two trends that led to the policy change: the last decade has seen yearly attendance sore by three million, while the percentage of visitors donating the suggested amount has plummeted by 46 percent. Additionally, the institution has struggled with mismanagement (its director Thomas P. Campbell resigned in ignominy last year), and it tackled its massive deficit only after receiving an $80 million gift from the estate of the late Herbert Irving, the largest gift the Met has ever received.

That life-sustaining donation, however, went toward stalled projects, such as a massive expansion planned for a contemporary art gallery. None of it was earmarked for subsidizing visitor access to the storied museum.

Arts and culture writers have pointed out that the change in policy diminishes the Met’s fame and character. Writing for the New Yorker, Alexandra Schwartz argues that accessibility of the museum “is an ethical mission, and an especially important one in a city that feels more and more closed.” Considering NYC’s increasingly prohibitive cost of living, the introduction of admission fees at the city’s historically free world-class museum does seem like the end of an era.

The art critic Roberta Smith from the New York Times specifically criticized the policy’s differentiation of visitors: “It divides people into categories — rich and poor, native and foreign.” Long billed as a shining example of equal access, the museum’s somewhat confusing admissions policy now separates visitors into different groups.

What these writers make clear is that this policy change marks a turning point in the museum’s history. Once, the Met was accessible, democratic, and open; now, it is like any other museum, a reality even more painful considering that its building is publicly owned.

There are no easy solutions for the Met’s woes. Perhaps the greatest takeaway from the situation is a cautionary tale: prioritize your organization’s key objectives and brand-affirming practices and proactively communicate them to the community and your audiences. Organizations will find themselves suddenly entering periods of change, so best to plan ahead and craft an effective messaging strategy for when difficult decisions need to be made.

How Nonprofit Management Should Treat Pro-Labor Millennials

Previously on Nonprofit Pro Media, we discussed the economic distress experienced by millennials, and how their financial plight has changed public opinion on labor organizing.

Unions experienced a precipitous drop-off in membership from the 1970s to the present. The public’s understanding and appreciation of labor unions followed a similar trajectory. The advent of the sharing economy, however, has resulted in a decidedly pro-labor environment, as contract workers in the rising millennial workforce miss out on the benefits that older generations enjoyed while struggling to make ends meet.

There are a number of reasons why nonprofits should treat pro-labor staffers with respect, valuing their opinions and working with them to create a more just workplace equipped to pursue the social good.

In today’s marketplace, millennials offer a number of indispensable skills; they excel at digital marketing, understand how to employ software to enhance productivity, and are adept at quickly researching and synthesizing disparate bits of information to solve complex problems. Additionally, millennials are passionate about social causes, including labor rights. Unions are adapting to millennial interests – such as social justice and equality – in efforts to appeal to them.

If your organization wants to attract the best talent of this generation, you cannot afford to under-compensate or exploit your workers. Doing so will hamstring your organization’s ability to hire skilled and passionate employees, thereby threatening your nonprofit’s efficiency in the long-run.

Furthermore, millennials make up a growing share of the voting public. This past election cycle, Generations X and Y surpassed baby boomers as the largest share of votes cast. Whether or not today’s political class is willing to accept it, millennials will soon be the decision-makers. Public policy affects all sectors, including nonprofits; building good faith and affinity with rising generations today can pave the way toward a fruitful relationship with the political class of tomorrow.

Here are five steps nonprofit management can take to ensure a just workplace:

1) Be Transparent
This may sound obvious, but as we explored in the second post of this series, nonprofits often overwork their employees. One deceitful way of doing so includes withholding key details of an employee’s rights and benefits. While nonprofit professionals are committed to advancing the social good, they also want to live balanced lives, and should be able to take advantage of all their contract has to offer.

2) Encourage Your Workers’ Passion
Studies show that millennial workers value employers who provide them with opportunities to contribute to the social good. While nonprofit professionals are able to work toward positive social causes on a daily basis, there is always room for organizational management to further harness the passions of its staff. Make sure to engage your millennial employees; ask them how the organization can better pursue its mission and adhere to its values. Invite discussion around the most pressing issues facing your nonprofit’s particular area of focus. Doing so will prevent daily work from becoming rote while strengthening your staff’s commitment to the organization’s agenda.

3) Understand Labor Rights
It’s the law: employees can express opinions about labor organizing and confer with their colleagues without interference from management. The fundraising affiliate for U.S. PIRG and Environment America shuttered entire offices that had threatened to unionize. The organization also pursued anti-labor polices that the National Labor Relations Board deemed illegal. Do not waste your organization’s resources on potential legal trouble: you will only tarnish your nonprofit’s image in the process.

4) Open Dialogue
If you are concerned that your organization cannot cope with a unionized workforce, talk with your employees instead of trying to derail their conversations. Many private businesses run disinformation campaigns to stymie labor organizing. This could have the unwanted effect of sowing division among your workforce – the last thing that a nonprofit needs. By addressing employee’s concerns from the start, you can prevent the situation from getting more complicated.

5) Provide a Seat at the Table
When everyone’s voice is heard, it is easier to work together. If your workers unionize, don’t panic. Nonprofits already navigate the back-and-forth between management, board, and funders. Educate your organization’s key stakeholders about the merits of unionizing and how it can benefit your organization’s brand by connecting with the key interests of millennials. At the end of the day, creating a just and fair workplace not only creates staff cohesion, but builds longevity.

Nonprofits Should Oppose the FCC’s Destruction of Net Neutrality

(Image: Backbone Campaign, Creative Commons)

In a 3-2 vote, the FCC voted to eliminate Obama-era regulations protecting the free and open internet. The rules upheld “net neutrality,” a system that essentially required internet service provides (ISPs) to treat all legal websites and digital services equally.

Net neutrality is a basic concept. It means that an ISP, for example, cannot legally hamper consumer access to another business’ digital products and services. This arrangement keeps the internet an open playing field where startups can jump right into the fray with established businesses and democratic discourse can flow freely without fear of retribution from powerful interests.

This is how the internet has generally worked. That is, at least until now.

Proponents for slashing the rules argue that they prevent innovation. In reality, with the regulations gone, ISPs will simply be more powerful, capable of capriciously billing certain companies more than others and stonewalling competitors that provide similar services to their own. ISPs will now be able to intentionally slow traffic to a particular website or block it altogether.

Ultimately, it will have the exact opposite effect that its proponents predict; it will lead to a less free market dominated by an increasingly small number of telecommunications conglomerates.

The move by the FCC was deeply unpopular, with 8 out of 10 voters disapproving of the rule change.

The vote ended up falling along party lines, with the Trump-appointed FCC chair Ajit Pai leading the campaign to destroy the regulations. Before occupying his current position, Pai worked as a top lawyer for Verizon.

Until recently, net neutrality enjoyed bipartisan support. In an editorial for the Houston Chronicle, the paper points out that net neutrality was part of the Texas GOP’s platform until 2014. Guess what companies co-sponsored the party’s 2014 convention that scrapped its support for net neutrality? Verizon and Time Warner Cable.

Everyone should be concerned about the long-term ramifications of eliminating net neutrality, including nonprofits. For one, nonprofits dedicated to the social good should oppose efforts to destroy the democratic nature of the open internet, which has created unprecedented access to knowledge, skills, and economic opportunity. By turning the internet into a tool for ISPs to pursue their self-serving agenda, the FCC attacked the core qualities of the internet that have spurred incredible innovation through broad accessibility and connected underserved communities around the world to a wealth of information.

Additionally, nonprofits should be concerned about what the elimination of net neutrality means for their own digital infrastructure. When ISPs roll out a tiered internet highway system, will nonprofits have the resources to pay the toll for the highest level, or will they lag behind better endowed private enterprises? Perhaps some organizations will enjoy special treatment from the ever-profitable telecommunications companies – unilaterally dictating the flow of information like never before – though this is far from a guarantee.

No matter who your organization serves or what your mission is, this ruling affects you. It will limit online fundraising efforts and outreach to students and teachers. Your message will face new hurdles reaching those in need or who may have an interest in your services. Expect budget-breaking prices for internet services that may not even provide you with what your organization needs.

Get creative with how you connect with your audiences. The price of an email could rise above that of a stamp. What would that mean for your communications calendar?

Most importantly, advocate for net neutrality. Call your state’s attorney general office and help them understand the devastating impact this ruling has on your organization and the constituents you serve. Internally, have the tough conversations with organizational leadership now and plan for the best- and worse-case scenarios. Chart a path that will ensure that your organization’s mission is not comprised no what lies ahead.

Labor Abuses in the Nonprofit Sector

(This is part two in a three part series on nonprofits, millennials, and labor unions)

As we discussed in last week’s column, millennials are facing a dire financial situation. Meanwhile, the popularity of labor organizing is higher than any other point in the past 15 years, with many millennials supporting unions regardless of their political affiliation.

The ever-risk adverse nonprofit sector often trails behind when it comes to adjusting to new trends. Considering the rocky track record that many nonprofits have with labor unions, it is worth taking a look at the organizational practices that could repel philanthropy’s rising, pro-labor millennial workforce.

Preparing for this will require reevaluating certain preconceptions. Nonprofits often hold unfeasible expectations during economic adversity. Even in an unfavorable market with diminished resources, the management and funders of mission-driven organizations will try and stay the course, slashing overhead while striving to render the same services and meet the same levels of productivity.

What is one of the primary means for cutting overhead? Unpaid work. Nonprofit management often pushes workers to put in overtime without adequate pay.

Take, for example, an ostensibly progressive nonprofit with an office in Philadelphia. I talked to a former employee who detailed a number of labor abuses that are simply astounding. The former employee explained that the staff was often expected to work over the weekends, but if anyone called in sick or had an emergency during the week, that person was docked pay.

In one situation, a colleague who had just worked through the weekend had to take his sick daughter to the ER on a Monday. Despite putting in more than enough hours to constitute a complete work day during the weekend, he had one-fifth of his weekly pay slashed as a result.

Additionally, the former employee explained that the Philadelphia office’s management lied to employees about having sick leave, something low-level employees learned at a training retreat when they talked to workers from a New England office who held the same job.

Nonprofits work to improve the world and promote the well-being and cultural enjoyment of their constituents. While the mission for each nonprofit is integral, it should not interfere with pro-social organizational practices that also demonstrate concern for employees’ welfare.

Mary Beth Hastings, an experienced nonprofit professional who has worked with health organizations around the world, discussed what made these sort of practices palatable for nonprofit leaders who — at least rhetorically — profess a dedication to the social good:

Too often, I have seen the passion for social change turned into a weapon against the very people who do much—if not most—of the hard work, and put in most of the hours. Because they are highly motivated by passion, the reasoning goes, they don’t need to be motivated by decent salaries or sustainable work hours or overtime pay…And how do you suppose that feels to young professionals with a college or graduate degree, living in a group house and barely affording student loan payments?

Nonprofits cannot simply will more resources into existence to get the job done. They can, however, enact sensible and fair organizational practices that enable younger workers to enjoy a modicum of security and a decent work-life balance. What may seem like a steep overhead cost upfront will be paid back through a dedicated workforce that trusts its leadership and makes enough to pursue its passions.

Help the People and Animals Impacted by the Southern California Wildfires

The images emerging from California are horrifying. Six separate wildfires are currently blazing through Southern California, having destroyed up to 170,000 acres of land to date.

The long-term ramifications – both economic and environmental – will be staggering. Furthermore, serious conversation concerning climate change is more urgent than ever, as its negative effects impact more and more people’s lives each year.

While these tasks are monumental, there are small ways that you can help right now. Consider making a gift to one or more of the following organizations in order to help the people and animals harmed by these horrendous fires.

Ventura County Animal Services

United Way of Ventura County

Human Society of Ventura County

The Los Angeles Fire Department Foundation

Millennials, Labor Unions, and Nonprofits

It’s no secret: millennials are earning less than their parents.

Some analyses put the decline in earnings around 20 percent. This is particularly debilitating for a generation that also possesses more student debt than its predecessors.

The reasons for the millennial wage slump are complicated. Older US citizens are working beyond retirement. Automation and cheap labor markets overseas have contributed to a (likely permanent) decline in US manufacturing. Highly profitable tech companies often make it big with small staffs.

There is also, of course, the “precariat”: the rise of non-salaried workers. This informal gig economy – embodied by the likes of Uber and Lyft – makes use of irregular employees to generate big profits. These explosive profits are incredibly stratified, with contractors at the bottom receiving no benefits and unpredictable compensation while those on top reap immense rewards.

While some pundits may contend that the gig economy is not meant to provide long-term employment, but rather serve as a stop-gap measure, the fact remains that economic opportunity is more diminished than any other point in modern history. People are landing in the gig economy and getting stuck in it.

This situation may be one of the reasons behind the surge in popularity of unions.

As of August, 61 percent of US citizens support labor unions, the highest rate in nearly 15 years.  Millennials no doubt play a huge role in this trend. Bernie Sanders, the most popular 2016  presidential candidate among millennials, was staunchly pro-union, and nearly 50 percent of Republican millennials support unions. That is an astonishing development showing a bipartisan trend in favor of labor organizing.

Unions are trying to take advantage of the change in public opinion, introducing social activism into their activities in order to attract millennials who value social justice. This was on display in January, 2017 when the New York Taxi Workers Alliance helped blockade access to JFK International Airport in response to Donald Trump’s travel ban on Muslims.

While companies in the sharing economy should take heed, so too should another part of the economy that has a fraught track record with unions: the nonprofit sector.

Nonprofits have struggled with unions and labor laws in recent years. Recall that large nonprofits such as U.S. PIRG opposed Obama’s overtime measure that would have guaranteed fair compensation for workers putting in more than 40 hours a week (note: a federal judge eventually blocked the rule, and the Department of Justice under Trump has since dropped the measure).

While U.S. PIRG was among many nonprofits that opposed the rule change, the organization has a particularly unfortunate history of anti-labor practices. For instance, a canvassing office in Los Angeles linked to the organization was abruptly shuttered and its employees let go after its staff decided to unionize. In 2012, yet another U.S. PIRG-affiliated office located in Portland fired employees who tried to organize with Communications Workers of America, resulting in a lawsuit that appeared before National Labor Relations Board.

Nonprofits are mission-based, the reasoning goes, so their employees should be mission-driven as opposed to profit-driven. Even if this approach lowers overhead and frees up resources for programmatic activities, does it truly fulfill a nonprofit’s general commitment to promoting social welfare?

In the next two posts on Nonprofit Pro Media, we will take a look at the intersection of millennials, nonprofits, and labor unions. Check in next week for a breakdown on labor abuses in the nonprofit sector.

Authenticity is the Key to Effective Nonprofit Branding

Image courtesy of Edgethreesixty Branding

An organization should ask itself everyday: does our brand reflect our identity? If the answer is anything but a solid “yes” it is time to institute change – fast.

Knowing who you are is the bedrock of effective communication. Everyday dispatches – including visual materials, internal and external communications, solicitations, call-to-actions, invitations, and annual reports – must project your organization’s brand and channel the key components of its identity succinctly.

Here are some informal case studies that demonstrate a variety of branding weaknesses.

The Philadelphia Orchestra demonstrates value by leveraging the name of its all-star music director. Yannick Nézet-Séguin’s name has become a stamp of approval on the orchestra’s communications materials, signaling a central role in the Philadelphia Orchestra’s public identity.

This is an interesting take on branding, albeit a somewhat short-sighted one. While the institution’s mark will stay the same, the music director will change over the years, thereby leaving the impression that the orchestra is most powerful and impactful with a “name” associated with it.

Another case study: the Please Touch Museum.

The institution’s trademarked name fails to convey its identity clearly. Originally located in Center City Philadelphia, the museum is now situated in Fairmont Park in a renovated historic building. Please Touch Museum’s current tagline which focuses on this geography, leaving its purpose in the dark. Using hyper-local terms alienates out-of-town tourists, decreasing the likelihood of them exploring this gem of a museum.

If the organization’s leadership wishes to reach a broader audience of families and donors in the greater Philadelphia area and establish the museum on national and international levels, it should consider revisiting its branding to underscore the experience visitors can expect. “Please Touch Museum® where kids learn through play,” is one fitting example.

Let’s look at one last case: The Salvation Army. The international humanitarian organization’s motto is “Doing the Most Good,” and the group maintains a commitment to “meet human need without discrimination.” There have been – however, a number of controversies over the past 15 years, including firsthand accounts of LGBQT individuals facing discrimination when seeking services from The Salvation Army. By directly contradicting its stated mission and ethical practices, this discrimination obviously does not mesh well with its public image. Critics of the organization have used the evident irony behind this brand to underscore the organization’s perceived hypocrisy.

Since accusations of anti-LGBTQ discrimination emerged, the organization has taken strides to improve its treatment of gay and lesbian individuals. Transgender people, however, are still frequently discriminated against and experience difficulty obtaining temporary housing through The Salvation Army. As long as the organization does not live up to its brand, critics will still be able to use it against the group, diminishing its effectiveness and preventing it from pursing its mission.
The most important component that could improve these brands: authenticity. Authentic branding and a clear understanding of organizational identity are key to developing a strong base of followers, donors, and patrons.

How Natural Disasters Will Impact Year-End Giving

Flooding in Houston. Wildfires in Montana. Life-threatening winds in Florida.

There have been an extraordinary number of natural disasters this summer that have hit our communities hard.

Houston – one of the United States’ biggest cities – is suffering economically as it begins to rebuild after Hurricane Harvey, which could end up being the costliest storm in US history.

Fires tearing across Montana are so intense that the air is dangerous to breath.

We don’t know the damage wrought by Hurricane Irma yet, but the impact will be enormous.

It’s also happening around the globe. Hurricane Irma obliterated one half of the island nation of Antigua and Barbuda. Monsoon rains in Southeast Asia have affected 41 million people, many of whom were already impoverished before having their entire material lives destroyed.

These events are inescapable, featured on the front page of all news websites and broadcasted to TV sets around the country by all the major networks.

Keep this in mind as your nonprofit gears up for year-end giving.

Each year, nonprofits compete for the nation’s generosity, participating in Giving Tuesday and rolling out carefully crafted campaigns to ensure that they have the resources they need to pursue their mission.

This year has already seen a surge in philanthropic giving resulting from the heated political environment, with legal and political groups benefiting the most. How this tends will affect the all-important year-end giving season is unclear. Have donors already maxed out their wallets?

The recent natural disasters will also inform how donors give. Humanitarian and basic needs organizations will be fundraising to help people reeling from these cataclysmic events, and the giving public – with horrific images and footage of the disasters in the forefront of their minds – could very well prioritize these organizations over other charities not directly involved in recovery efforts.

This could be among the most competitive year-end giving seasons in recent memory. The time to start cultivating messaging and strategy is now.

Jewish Museum in Philly Faces Cuts. How Can NMAJH Rebound?

The National Museum of American Jewish History (NMAJH) is feeling a pinch after several years of lackluster fundraising and growing costs.

The museum – inaugurated in 2010 and housed in a $150 million building on Philadelphia’s Independence Mall – is cutting 36 percent of its staff. Twelve of these positions were eliminated outright, with an additional six to be cut in the coming months. Other services inside the institution are being cut, curtailed, or consolidated. The museum will shutter its cafe and redistribute staff to take care of other responsibilities, and will begin closing on Tuesdays.

Ivy Barsky, the museum’s chief executive, discussed the cuts: “We’ve had to make some really difficult decisions, but it’s in order to sustain a bright future for the museum.”

These are tough days for institutions that celebrate, document, and/or preserve Jewish experience and history. The Trump Administration has suggested a staggering $3 million cut to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s federal funding, which makes up 5 percent of the institution’s overall budget.

In response, more than 60 members of congress have drafted a bipartisan letter decrying the move, which reads in part:

In our view, the mission of the museum has never been more important, particularly as the number of anti-Semitic attacks around the world rises.

Anti-Semitic attacks have grown in number since the emergence of the bigoted, online alt-right movement that works to indoctrinate internet users into hate ideologies. A number of Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated over the past 6 months, including one in Philadelphia, home to the NMAJH.

This sad social reality only underscores how essential these institutions are for cementing equality for historically marginalized groups.

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum, fortunately, probably won’t endure the proposed cut. There is some simple math at work here: with Trump’s disapproval ratings reaching historic highs, his more unpopular proposals that make fellow Republicans bristle probably won’t progress much further. As the strongly worded bipartisan letter from congress indicates, the proposal to cut funding to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is unlikely to go anywhere.

But for NMAJH, life is more difficult. On paper, the museum seems to do well; it has a membership base of 6,000 and a retention rate of around 90 percent, which is higher than many other institutions. The museum also enjoys a spot on one of the most celebrated stretches of museums and historical buildings in the United States. Nonetheless, financial problems persist.

So how can it emerge from its financial troubles? NMAJH’s leadership will have to make some hard choices. The museum, for example, may consider rebranding. Visitors of described the title as long and ungainly. Others view it as a museum for Jewish people as opposed a museum about and celebrating Jewish people.

Renewed online efforts are also likely in order. In this day and age, nonprofits need to function like media companies. By building relationships with its constituents online, NMAJA could grow its already solid membership numbers or stand out in a crowded field of Philadelphia-based historical and cultural institutions.

It may also be time to think outside the box. A number of institutions are experimenting with virtual reality. Such immersive exhibits could position the NMAJH as a next-gen cultural institution and elevate its profile.

Rebounding from financial difficulties is a struggle many nonprofits face. But if an institution’s mission is vital – which NMAJH’s most certainly is – it’s worth looking forward to a better future, so long as there is an elevated commitment from stakeholder groups (on both the local and national levels) and a strong willingness to persevere.

PricingPrivacy PolicyRefund Policy