Sometime in everyone’s career, regardless of how lucky or strategic you have been, something happens that you cannot control. It doesn’t usually happen at the most convenient time, either.
During such a “crisis” you have to stay on top of what is happening and deal with the situation maturely and with control.

A non-profit crisis can come in the form of a scandal (the accountant ran away with $50,000), through an “act of God (as in the Asian tsunami or Hurricane Katrina), or the executive director all of a sudden leaves under “cloudy circumstances.”

However and whenever a serious crisis occurs you should be prepared with a media strategy that minimizes your organization’s risk of going under. So, this week let’s look at ways you can successfully deal with a crisis in your non-profit.

1. Don’t totally panic and give the message that you have absolutely no idea what to do. Try to stay relatively calm and give the message to your staff and leadership that you will all be able to handle this situation.
2. Appoint one spokesperson and form a crisis team of three or four people inside the organization to deal with the situation. The team’s job is to determine what the spokesperson will say to the media. Make sure that only one person (preferably someone who is articulate and understands the issues) is authorized to talk with the media.
3. Be honest with the media at all times and communicate exactly what you know. If you don’t know answers to questions, say you don’t know the answer and that you will get back to the person who asked the question within 24 hours.
4. Be pro-active with the media, your funding sources, and your stakeholders and communicate with them through e-mail and telephone calls. Try not to let them find out about what happened through the media and other outside sources.
5. Make a list of the key media contacts now so that when you need them you will have them at your fingertips. Get to know at least one media contact personally so you can have someone who might be able to guide you through the maze.
6. Write a script for the person who answers the phone at your office and also for your board members and key volunteers. Even though they will not be authorized to talk with the media, they will have contact with the community and they need to know what the talking points are.
7. Brief the members of your core leadership team daily on the updates so they will be able to communicate these updates to others. This will also help them feel a sense of confidence in regards to coming out of the crisis in decent shape.
8. Have a lawyer available to advise you if there are any legal or liability issues. Make sure you have an attorney review any press releases you plan on sending out.
9. Learn from the crisis and make sure you evaluate how you have done with your crisis team and board/staff leadership.
10. Develop a report based upon your notes . Include specific recommendations on what you would do differently so the next time this happens you will have a solid, pre-tested plan in place.

I spent every day of last week providing intensive training sessions for NGOs at the Open Society Forum (the huge philanthropy funded by George Soros). It was challenging, but it was also great fun. I was training NGOs working on the environment, human rights, open governance, budget reform and other issues. One of the highlights for me was the work with a coalition of 12 organizations that are trying to minimize the impact on mining in the Gobi Desert. I believe that this will become the single largest issue in this country.

The government has been negotiating for years with Canadian and Australian mining companies, and just a few months ago they signed an agreement to allow open pit mining in the Gobi Desert. This will be the largest copper mine in the world and will quadruple Mongolia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The mine should be open by 2014 and is expected to produce copper (and revenue) for approximately 80 years. This will be a huge amount of money for this most rural and isolated country.

One of the largest deserts in the world, the Gobi (its name is Mongolian for desert), is located in the southern part of the country where it borders on China. The mine will employ more than 10,000 people and even though the agreement calls for 80 percent of these people to be Mongolian, the experts I spoke with told me that the companies will not find even 50 percent of Mongolians that want to do this work in the most remote area of the country. The Chinese government is participating in the deal because they want access to the cooper, so it is likely that much of the labor will come from China.

The mines will be located in a small village, with a current population of less than 500 people. You can imagine the impact the mines will have on this community and this part of the country. There will be entire towns built, and extensive road and railroad systems laid down to carry the copper to distribution points. Huge underground water reserves will be used in the mining process, greatly reducing the water table and imperiling the ground water and river systems. Remember this is a desert!

I mentioned in my last report that I spent a weekend facilitating a retreat in a Ger camp in the countryside with the Responsible Mining Initiative. They are trying to encourage the government to develop a responsible policy for all mining, including a prospective gold mine that could be the third largest gold mine in the world. One of the strategies we discussed is to make the mining companies pay for monitoring the environmental impact of their work by providing resources to environmental NGO’s . It is clear to me that although the government should play the monitoring role, it cannot because of the self-interest of the members of Parliament and the graft and corruption that will only increase with these new resources. I suggested that the NGOs pressure the government to set up a tax based upon a percentage of revenue that is taken out of the land—these are resources that can never to be replaced! The tax would be used set up a trust fund (completely separate from the government’s general fund) to provide on-going support and sustainable resources for the environmental organizations and other independent monitors. In the United States we are in a financial mess in part because the government did not monitor and regulate the financial, housing and investment corporations as they should have. We have had 225 years to practice democracy, while Mongolia has had less than 20 years.

I believe there is a strong role for RMA in Mongolia and I want to continue to support the emergence of their civil society sector. I met with the entire Political Science Department of the National Mongolian University (the flagship school) to discuss the possibility of an exchange program. We are developing a plan to bring 10-15 of our Masters of Nonprofit Leadership Students from Regis University to Mongolia next year. We are also planning a bi-lateral symposium next June to look at the state of civil society and the National Mongolian University wants to add courses to help develop the NGO sector throughout the country.

I loved my time in Mongolia and this trip was one of the best of all my international experiences. What I like about this country is that even though there are major social problems—poverty, alcoholism, air pollution, environmental damage, government corruption—there is a wonderful sense of optimism in the future and people are willing to get involved and fight to make democracy work. In many of the countries Richard Male and Associates (RMA) is working in people can’t wait to get out, but Mongolians in Diaspora are moving back to get engaged and involved in their country’s future. There is a real sense of hope and optimism and I have met very few people that are interested in leaving Mongolia to move to the U.S. or other places. It is great to see.

The weather continues to be very cold and the quality of the air in Ulaanbaatar is poor, but the people are wonderful. It is really exciting to be welcomed by them and to be able to play a part in the development of their democracy.

It has been quite a whirlwind trip-I spent last week in Guatemala where the temperature was in the high 70s, and then arrived in Mongolia three days ago where the temperature was minus 10 degrees. I’ve just facilitated a weekend retreat in a Ger village (Gers are portable felt homes, like yurts) outside of the capital city of Ulaanbaatar trying not to freeze. This is the first time in my life that I’ve hiked to the mountains to stay warm and out of the wind and cold. Oh well, everything is an adventure in life and it is the journey and not always the results that count.

The retreat was filled with amazing people who come from herder families that raise goats, sheep, horses, camels. They have lived their whole lives in Mongolia and it was fascinating talking with them about the issues and the extent of the poverty and social indicators. It was really educational and I began to read some material on this and found:

• 40% of the people live on less than $2.00 per day
• Over 37% are “officially” classified as living in poverty but a much larger percentage of people are simply not counted
• Over 50% of the population has severe addiction to alcohol (Vodka and beer)
• Literacy rates are among the highest in the world at over 95% but unemployment is extremely high.
• The gap between the small pockets of vast wealth and extreme poverty
• is thinning out the middle class

Life in the capital city, Ulaanbaatar, where about 40 percent of the population lives, seems to be a struggle for most people. In winter, the weather is very severe and the city is heavily polluted due to three Russian built coal-fired power plants. The Ger homes surrounding the central city area are all heated by coal and that contributes to the pollution, there are too many old cars that use leaded gas from Russia, and there is also a general lack of interest by the government to see cleaning up the city as a priority. The capital city sits in a bowl surrounded by mountains and in the winter air inversions trap the pollution in the city. In the short summertime (from May 15th- September 15th) the winds pick up so the air is cleaner.

Wages are very low and the cost of living seems very high. Many apartments could cost $500+ (USD) per month and it eats up a lot of the salaries, not counting the food and other necessary costs. The surprising thing to me as I came in from the airport was seeing all of the new building and construction-one engineer described this as “crane city”. I don’t see how the people will afford the costs of the new apartments and office space, but I am sure the developers think they will be occupied.

I am on my second visit here at the invitation of the Asia Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Forum. On my first trip in March I established enough credibility to get invited back by these two foundations, both of which have a very strong and visible presence with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Tomorrow and Tuesday I am conducting a three-part training session for over 50 people on topics such as designing and developing campaign strategies, leadership development and resource development. These are three critical topics that all the NGOs need. On Wednesday, I am conducting an open training session at the Open Society Forum for more than 50 NGOs working on everything from disability rights, food and relief, and economic development. Then on Thursday and Friday I am concentrating on the human rights, women’s and open election organizations that are working to foster greater democratization in this country.

The environmental organizations, including the NGOs fighting to minimize the mining impact on this fragile environment, are among the strongest and most visible coalitions of NGOs in the country. These groups have already been quite successful in creating pressure on the Parliament to make sure that some polices are in place to minimize the destruction and damage that mining companies have done in countries such as Peru and Indonesia. I am coaching the leaders of organizations in an environmental coalition of government, mining and NGO stakeholders that is trying to minimize the negative impact of the mining interests and develop a responsible mining policy for the country that protects the land, water, animals, and people. Mongolia is so far north and the climate is so severe that farming is out of the question and cashmere and mining are the two largest sources of income for the government. Since I was here in March the government has approved an agreement with a Canadian company to mine in the Gobi Desert, which is in the southern most part of the country bordering on China. The Canadian mining company will have access to the largest untapped copper reserves in the world. In addition to copper, Mongolia has huge gold, coal, uranium and other metals, making mining a vital source of revenue for the government.

The NGO sector in Mongolia, as it is in all of the Eastern and Central European countries formerly under Soviet control, is very new and fragile.

The NGO sector has ballooned over the past decade, with thousands of these groups cropping up. However, probably only about 10 percent are true NGOs with a membership, constituency, and genuine mission. Most of them are “one person shows” by people who are taking advantage of an opportunity to get money for themselves through a government contract or grant, and they see forming an NGO as a way to get a tax advantage. Unfortunately, these “bad apples” have impacted the reputation of the “good apples” and the reputation of NGOs among government officials, university leaders and the general public is quite negative. The government really needs to tighten up on the criteria and evaluation of NGOs to assure that they meet higher standards.

In addition to the local indigenous organizations that I work with, there is a full range of international NGOs that provide relief and development services, as well as support organizations such as the United Nations. World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asia Pacific Development Bank and others.

As is true with most of the developing countries of Africa, Latin and South America, and Asia, the growth of the NGO sector has been explosive, but very chaotic, unorganized and inefficient. There is a definite split between the large sophisticated, international NGO’s such as CARE, Save the Children, Project Mercy, UNIFEF, Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club and the local, indigenous NGOs. The larger organizations have a lot of credibility and prestige, pay significant salaries and therefore tend to dominate the NGO landscape. In fact, most of the resources that the grassroots and local NGOs use to operate come as a result of a contract with one of the international NGO to provide services. This has caused most of them to depend on these contracts, and to go from one contract to another-following the money rather than the mission that they were originally created to fulfill.

Most of the NGOs in developing countries have a way of operating that does not bode well for their future viability and success. In general, the NGO sectors are comprised of very small organizations that have a strong mission focus, but lack organizational and financial strength. Many of them have pervasive issues of internal trust among and between their members and constituencies that is a throw-back to their history and culture. They tend to be tactical rather than strategic, and focus almost exclusively on individual issues rather than building capacity. Most tend to have sprung up around a charismatic leader and the concept of developing layers of leadership is foreign to the prevailing culture. The overriding pattern in many countries (even though there are exceptions) is that there is little or no organized philanthropic history and the governments provide no resources to support the NGOs. These issues, coupled with a significant lack of support institutions (there are no Richard Male and Associates or similar organizations) that understand how to build and develop NGOs makes the viability of many organizations and movements questionable. People seem to find a way to start-up their NGOs and to grow them to a certain level, but the building blocks for sustainability are lacking. There is much to be done here, and I hope to return!

On October 18th I traveled with P.J. D’Amico to spend an intense week in Guatemala working with organizations committed to women’s reproductive rights and independence for people with disabilities. These two nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are doing excellent work with the primarily indigenous, Mayan community in one of the three poorest countries in Latin America (the other two are Haiti and Bolivia).

Guatemala is a country of amazing beauty—everything is green and bright with bougainvilleas and other amazing flowers and fruits—no wonder it is known as the “land of perpetual spring.” The country has 22 volcanoes and even through the mist and clouds of the early morning, we could see the magnificent Fuego (Fire) Volcano that dominates the town of Antigua, where we stayed. Antigua is very quaint, with winding streets, cobblestones, courtyards and Catholic churches at every turn. The city is filled with Spanish language schools, artesian markets and wonderful restaurants. It is in no way typical of the rest of Guatemala. It is certainly not typical of the countryside or of Guatemala City, where we flew into.

Guatemala’s natural beauty masks the underlying toxicity of the government. Most of the people live in extreme poverty and helplessness, and suffer from one of the highest crime rates in the world. As soon as our host picked us up at the airport she immediately said to “lock your doors and keep your windows shut.” Antigua, about an hour’s drive from Guatemala City, is the tourist capital of the country, and much the safest of the two cities. Both of the NGOs we worked with were based here.

Guatemalans tend to be very small in height, but very kind and welcoming. Most of the ones we met lived in concrete slab houses in the city or corrugated tin homes in the countryside. Life seems to be a struggle for the overwhelming majority of the people. Just getting enough food for the day—beans, corn, tortillas and occasionally chicken—takes up all their time.

Guatemala is like so many of the developing and poor countries that Richard Male and Associates (RMA) works with where you see small pockets of vast wealth amid terrible poverty. There is a very tiny middle class and it is almost always the middle class where real social change and social justice begins. When you are always struggling to get through the day it is difficult to look ahead at the possibilities for the future.

For those of you who have not visited Guatemala, it is a tropical country located just south of Mexico and it touches both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. It is about the size of Tennessee or Ohio. Guatemala grows a huge variety of fruits including pineapple, guava, mango and it is famous for its coffee. Guatemala is also one of the largest producers of snow peas and broccoli in the world. In the northern third of the country (in the Petén Region) are found the largest concentration of rain forests in Central America.

Guatemala’s population numbers 13 million people with about 50 percent being indigenous (Mayan) and the rest of the population Latino or a mixture of Spanish and indigenous. Guatemala has the largest percentage of indigenous people in Latin America. About half of the population is Catholic, down from around 90 percent in the 1960s, as there has been a concentrated and successful recruitment effort by evangelical Protestant denominations, many of them from the U.S.

During the civil war that lasted for more than 30 years before peace accords were signed in 1996, the country was ruled by military dictators and thousands—mostly the Mayans—died or fled the country. Even during the past decade or so of peaceful “democracy” the government does not provide a decent quality of life for its people. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few who control almost all of the political and economic strings.

The population is growing much too fast, the private sector cannot provide quality employment, and the government cannot provide its people with education and health care. The overwhelming majority of peasants are working at extremely low wages, if they have a job at all. Human rights are still a very real issue, especially for women.

Guatemala’s population has increased more than four-fold in the last 60 years with the average woman having close to five children. More than 50 percent of the population is under 15 years of age with less than four percent living beyond the age of 65. Even with these huge increases in population the government and the Catholic Church fight population control or reproductive rights for women. A third of the people live in poverty and survive on less than $2.00 a day. With half of all children living below the poverty line, it isn’t surprising that 10 percent of them die before the age of five, and half of those that manage to survive are malnourished.

This statistic continues to amaze me—and we see the very same thing in Ethiopia where RMA has done a lot of work. Here you have a country with unbelievable natural resources and a total inability to feed, house or protect the health of its children. It seems to me that much of this issue is not about money or resources, but rather corruption and the lack of political will among the leadership to develop the infrastructure needed to provide services for its people. Everyone we have talked with about this situation says that Guatemala has “gone downhill” during the past decade and all of the other countries in Latin America have improved. Why? People want to take care of their families and the country is fertile enough to provide enough food for everyone. There are only seven doctors per 10,000 people and in many areas of the countryside areas there are no doctors or medical facilities at all. Why does this happen and what will it take to change this situation?

One of the reasons people gave is that crime is siphoning off significant resources and probably preventing legitimate industry and economic development from taking place. Everywhere we went, everyone we talked with warned us of both the random and organized crime that is pervasive throughout the entire country, with the possible exception of Antigua. Even in this tourist capital there are armed guards everywhere, police and security people every 20 feet, and big black Toyota police pickup trucks on every street. Crime is everywhere and it is narco-crime, personal theft, political and police corruption, both in organized and unorganized fashion.

In Guatemala City, gangs of violent youth are everywhere and the daily murder reports force everyone who can afford it to live behind concrete walls with armed guards. Guatemala has one of the highest violent crime rates in Latin America. In 2008, approximately 40 murders a week were reported in Guatemala City alone. I am sure this lack of security causes people to withdraw and protect themselves rather than reaching out to develop their communities.

P.J. and I enjoyed the time we spent with the NGO that provides services for people with disabilities. This is a community that continues to struggle even in the United States (I have worked on disability issues for more than three decades, including many years spent working to pass the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA.) Developing countries frequently have a higher than normal percentage of the population with disabilities (under normal conditions it is about ten percent) because of wars and conflicts, lack of medical care, and accidents, and the issues of accessibility are huge. There are no curb cuts for people in wheelchairs; restaurants and other businesses are not accessible, and neither are buses, taxis or any other type of transportation. During the rainy season in areas where there are no paved roads, the mud prevents people from even going out of their homes for months at a time. Unemployment rates in this population can be as high as 90 percent. Guatemala’s disability community has made an effort to change government policies, but with everything the government is dealing with, these issues are not even on the radar screen.

We also worked with a leading NGO that addresses population control and reproductive rights. They are struggling to get the government to validate the fact that population control is a critical issue because of the influence of the dominant church and the “machismo” attitudes against birth control. The United Nations has included population control in its millennium goals and recently the London School of Economics came out with a report that ties population control to global warming. It is clear that a critical aspect of a country’s ability to feed its population and reduce poverty has to do with the number of children that women bear and so the correlation between population control/reproductive rights and poverty is crystal clear.

I am flying back to the United States now and am leaving tomorrow for Mongolia to continue the work RMA does with environmental, human rights, and women’s organizations there. Even though Mongolia is all the way across the world in a totally different climate zone and cultural context, many of the problems share similar roots.

Most people think of a leader as someone who sets the strategic vision and direction of their organization, raises money, and interviews and hires new staff. But a significant amount of a leader’s time is also spent facilitating groups (e.g., committees, board, staff).

I have led a number of organizations over the years, and I’d have to say that the majority of my time has actually been spent facilitating small groups. It is in these small settings that people learn the active role of listening, presenting and arguing ideas, defending values and accomplishing tasks. Understanding leadership in small groups is an indispensable skill in effectively managing and leading an organization.

Let’s look at some ways you can become a better leader and facilitator of small groups.

1. Make sure everyone agrees on the agenda. Try to involve the group in the development of the agenda, and ask them if they have additional ideas for the meeting.
2. Create an atmosphere of involvement and engagement. Make sure you encourage people to ask questions and actively participate in the discussion.
3. Summarize points and decisions before moving onto the next agenda item. Make sure people are clear about what was decided by their discussions.
4. Rotate leadership. Give everyone in the group a chance to lead the group. In a small group, everyone is a leader with a different role. Try to rotate the chairperson of the group on a weekly or monthly basis so that each person gets an opportunity to develop their leadership skills.
5. Conflict is not necessarily bad. Conflict is inevitable with any group so don’t discourage it. Make sure there is a climate that allows disagreement and conflict to surface in a constructive manner.
6. Determine who will be making the decisions. Some groups will not act until there is consensus; others will make decisions by majority vote; others are just looking for discussion and then have the CEO/executive director or chairperson make the decisions. Regardless of which decision-making style you use, make sure the group is clear about how decisions will be made and who has the power and authority to make decisions.
7. Put timelines on the agenda to make sure you get through everything. This is also a good way to move through the topics at a decent pace.
8. Be clear what items really need action. Some items are just for discussion while other items on the agenda require a decision to be made. Clarify when you are introducing the topic whether it needs action or is just for discussion.
9. Create win-win situations. This is especially true with new groups or with people who don’t have much group work experience. Try to have the early items on the agenda less controversial so that the decisions reached demonstrate success. This will help build confidence that everyone in the group has the ability to work well together.
10. Evaluate the meeting. Ask the members: How did the meeting go? What was positive? What was negative? What would you change?