The secret to a good golf game is simple: watch the best players in the world, learn what they do, and simply apply those techniques to your own game. That will make you just as good as them, right?

Of course not. There are too many other factors at play to make it that simple: natural athleticism and work ethic to name two. Yet, when nonprofits think about best practices and how to integrate them, they often commit the same fallacy: just do what the successful nonprofit does and we will be just as successful.

The reality is that a practice or program that works in one setting is not guaranteed to deliver the same results in another. As a practitioner of developmental evaluation (an approach championed by Michael Quinn Patton, a guru to many in the field), I find myself cautioning nonprofits against the hyper-optimism that often accompanies the launch of a new initiative, especially one that comes with “proven results.” My caution is rooted not in pessimism but in recognition that program success is a result of numerous factors, the most significant being the quality of local implementation and, more to the point of this article, the context within which the program operates

In simple terms, a best practice is so because of everything else that is going on around it.

  “Why” Before “How”

A nonprofit driven by the plug and play fallacy believes that the most important task in the replication of the program is to learn “how” to do it. I refer to this approach as the learn — apply scenario. For many, it is a cruel lesson learned when program success lags behind expectations. After all, the model was researched, the money was secured, and the program was implemented “by the book.” From there, it was simply a matter of applying the how-to knowledge and waiting for the results to pour in. Unfortunately, when the results are not achieved, too many are left scratching their heads wondering what went wrong or what they could have missed in the application of their learning.

What is missed by so many nonprofits in learn – apply scenario is consideration of why the practice was able to deliver results in its original setting.  To instill this mindset, I introduce a more comprehensive and context-sensitive approach to program planning, which look like this: 

Learn — Interpret — Adapt — Apply

The need to learn about a best practice or program remains essential.  Before deciding to adopt a practice, nonprofits need to delve beyond the executive summaries to understand what was done specifically, to whom, and which practices can be linked to the desired results. There simply is no substitute for this. However, before jumping to the application phase, nonprofits need to detour through the intervening steps of interpretation and adaptation. It is here where context demands the spotlight.

To interpret is to consider the original program context and asks the question ‘why is it working there.’ More specifically, the interpretation phase focuses attention on the conditions under which the program produced its initial success, including the resources – human, financial, and cultural – that were available; the obstacles that had to be overcome; and the synergy resulting from its interaction with other programs, to name a few.

Conversely, to adapt is to consider the best practice within your own context by asking, ‘what will work here.’ The amount of adaptations necessary to fit the program to your context will vary and depends on a number of factors. Key factors include characteristics of the people you plan to serve, the program capacity of the provider organization, the presence of partners, and the trickiest of all, the presence of a culture that supports change and innovation.

Principles Before Practices

The approach I am advocating represents a fundamental shift in our thinking about program replication. Rather than thinking of best practices, which implies mere mimicking of other organizations, sometimes we are better served by thinking in terms of effective principles, which introduces the importance of context and which, eventually, can lead to more effective outcomes as a result.

I saw this at play with a cluster of grantee schools involved in a foundation-invited initiative to enhance parental involvement in low performing schools. Each took its turn describing what it had done and what its results were. The activities were varied – one instituted a parental advisory council, one tagged parent-teacher discussions onto student performance events, and one started sending home a newsletter that focused on home-based literacy enrichment activities. In short, each school had found an approach that worked for them, mostly through a series of trial and error efforts.

The grand mistake would have been for the schools to leave the meeting thinking, ‘we should do that.’ Rather, the more helpful take-aways from the meeting are more general in nature: 1) parental involvement is more likely if parents have a say in how and when they are involved; and 2) new approaches to parental involvement are more likely to take hold if they are integrated into existing structures and practices rather than if they require the creation of something new.

Imagine the creative practices that can be developed by any school based on these two principles. And the good news for golfers is that even if you don’t have the athleticism and work ethic of Tiger Woods, you can still improve your game by remaining balanced over the ball and slowing your tempo — the core principles of an effective golf swing.

Okay, we all get it.  Collaboration is good and nonprofits should be doing more of it.  But exactly what is it that we should be doing more of? 

Many nonprofits share information back on forth, many conduct joint programming, and others participate in co-op arrangements to bring down the costs of purchasing, employee benefits, even cleaning services.  Does this count as collaboration as intended by those singing its praises?  My purpose is to provide a brief introduction so that we can at least have a common vocabulary for describing what we are doing and perhaps should be doing more of.  I recommend the book, Forming Alliances: Working Together to Achieve Mutual Goals as a resource for those interested in the intricacies of alliances in its various forms.   

As is most often the case, simple examples will help clarify the important distinctions.

Scenario #1: A section of the main street that runs through my part of town is closed for the next two months for road improvements.  It is a major inconveniece for everyone, including the fire department, the postal service, and the UPS drivers who use that road on a regular basis.  My assumption is that the street department contacted each of these parties well in advance of the planned closing so that each could make alternative plans.  This is an example of the need for coordination.

Scenario #2: The local school system hosted an open house event for parents and students that included information on each school in the district as well as information on family resources available in the community.  Several agencies were present at the event, including neighborhood youth centers, the literacy alliance, and Head Start.  The presence of these supporting agencies is important to the schools and the families they serve, while the opportunity for exposure is important to the service providers.  In other words, each benefited from the physical presence of the other in the course of doing what they would be doing anyway.  This is an example of cooperation.

Scenario #3: A local sports training facility is preparing to launch a national program designed to bring organized baseball to youth living in the inner city.  Knowing that it does not have the financial, physical, or human resources to pull it off on its own, the facility sought out other organizations whose missions align with some aspect of the program’s goals.  For example, they turned to the Boys and Girls Club as a natural recruiting base for participants.  In exchange, the Boys and Girls Club has reallocated staff time to focus on recruiting new Club members who may be attracted to the new baseball program.  The community transit system — not the city bus system but the one established to provide access to those lacking resources — has committed time and money to transport the youth from the Club to the program site.  And a former major league manager with ties to the community offers an annual baseball clinic at the facility and commits the proceeds from the clinic to the new program.  What makes this arrangement special is that the partners either align or reallocate their own resources to support something that is bigger than themselves and, more to the point, over which they don’t have total control or final authority.  Thus is the essence of collaboration.

In sum, all of these arrangements have their place.  The key is to figure out exactly the nature of relationship needed to advance the main cause, whether it is the coordination of traffic flow or the advancement of a mission that transcends any one organization.