Non-Profit Marketing Week # 6 – Harvard Case StudyYour Name H.docx

Non-Profit Marketing
Week # 6 – Harvard Case Study
Your Name Here
Date
Introduction
Start your paper here. An introduction paragraph is a good idea.
It should state the TOPIC of your paper and provide a roadmap
for the reader. Indent five spaces the first sentence in each
paragraph.
External Environment Influence
Indent first sentence in each paragraph five spaces. Answer
question assigned. Make sure to use a reference for this
section.
Stakeholders and Needs
section.
Stakeholders Power, Legitimate Claims & Urgency
section.
Watson Assurance of Non-Repeating Same Situation
section.
Three Strategic Alternatives Reviewed
section.
Recommendations for Watson’s Children Center

section.
Conclusion
Your final paragraph should provide a summary of your paper.
This reminds the reader of where you took them on your road
trip. It is similar to reviewing your photographs after a
vacation. There should be no new information included in the
conclusion.
References
APA format please – second & subsequent lines must be
indented five spaces
NA0349
(
Watson Children’s Shelter
)
Bambi Douma, University of Montana Jeffrey P. Shay,
Washington & Lee University Michael Harrington, University
of Montana
(
A
)frustrated Fran Albrecht, executive director of Watson
Children’s Shelter (hereafter Watson) in Missoula, MT, had
just hung up the phone with the Director of the Child and
Family Services Division (hereafter CFServices) for the state
of Montana. ftis call was one of several outreach efforts to
CFServices by Albrecht or members of her Board of Directors,
and Albrecht felt as if she were spinning her wheels. It was June
2011, and Albrecht was anxious about what the remainder of the

year would hold.
CFServices was in charge of protecting Montana children from
harm by ensuring they had a safe environment, either with their
own family or a licensed caregiver. For several decades,
CFServices had been sending western Montana children in need
of shelter and protection to Watson. In the past six months,
however—soon after Watson built a second facility to handle
demand—CFServices decreased the number of children being
sent to Watson. CFServices had changed its philosophy from the
accepted practice of removal of a child from an abusive or
severely neglectful situation to placing a priority on family
preservation, with removal of the child as a last resort.
Albrecht had called the CFServices’ Director again with the
purpose of restating her organization’s value to that referral
agency. “Please tell us what you need,” she said, “and we can
respond.” Albrecht had great confidence that not many local
organizations had the ability to assist CFServices as Watson
could. She felt that, especially during these tough economic
times, Watson was one of few organizations that was
proactively asking what CFServices needed and one of even
fewer that had the capacity to adapt to the needs of the agency.
Albrecht had worked tirelessly since she was hired in 1997 to
build the organization as “the shelter” for children in need in
western Montana. Watson’s mission was to provide, on a short-
term basis, a safe, nurturing environment for victims of abuse,
neglect, abandonment, or family crisis. By all accounts, Watson
accomplished many of the organization’s goals, but the change
in CFServices’ philosophy was a major cause for concern, as the
result was an underutilized new facility.
Albrecht’s thoughts turned to her Board of Directors meeting
scheduled in two weeks. She felt blessed to have the board
members she did, but she wondered how
Copyright © 2015 by the Case Research Journal and by Bambi
Douma, Jeffrey P. Shay, and Michael Har- rington. An earlier

version of the case was presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting
of the North American Case Research Association in Quincy,
Massachusetts. fte authors would like to thank Fran Albrecht for
her participation and Deborah Ettington and the CRJ and
NACRA reviewers for their valuable comments and
recommendations.
these changes in CFServices’ philosophy would affect the
Board, Watson staff, and the communities of Missoula and
western Montana. Albrecht had many questions running
through her mind:
All of our work conducting research, completing due diligence,
and writing a business plan led the Board and me to the same
conclusion: We needed to build a second facility to meet the
needs of Montana’s children. And now people are saying we
jumped the gun because it’s underutilized. How did we miss the
potential for a change in CFSer- vices’ philosophy? How can we
assure that something like this doesn’t happen again? And, most
important, what can we do now that the playing field has
changed?
After considering an array of options, Albrecht identified three
to discuss with the Board: maintaining operations while
advocating a policy change, diversifying Watson’s services, and
closing a facility.
NoN-Profit iNdustry iN MoNtaNa
From 2001–2008, the number of non-profit organizations in
Montana grew by approximately 36 percent, and the assets and
expenditures of those organizations increased 70 percent and 32
percent respectively. fte growth in registered non-profits
continued in the state despite the recession, and in 2010 there
were more than 5,000 operating in Montana and more than
1,200 in Missoula alone.1 Missoula was even listed in Forbes

magazine, several years running, as one of the nation’s cities
with the highest number of non-profit organizations per capita.2
Shelter and Children’s Services in Western Montana/Missoula
In 2010, there were approximately 218,000 children living in
Montana, with 20 percent (44,000) of them living in poverty.3
Known victims of child abuse and neglect totaled a little more
than 1,400 and there were another 1,700 living in out-of-home
care.4 fte state had also seen an increase in the use of
methamphetamine and alcohol by parents and persons acting as
guardians of children, which historically led to an increase in
the number of children needing shelter.
Referral and Placement Process
Children in crisis (i.e., neglected, abused, or abandoned) were
once sent to orphanages, but by 1975 all orphanages in
western Montana had been closed. For several years following,
children in crisis were taken to an open jail cell, a hospital bed,
or a police officer’s or social worker’s home until a safe home
environment could be secured. fte need for homes or shelters
dedicated to caring for these children was evident, and a system
developed between governmental agencies and caregivers.
Teachers, doctors, police officers, and other caregivers typically
identified children in need and then passed the information to
referral agencies such as Tribal Social Services, mental health
centers, and ultimately CFServices. It was then the
responsibility of referral agencies to evaluate whether the child
was in danger and in need of placement with a provider (shelter,
foster home, group home). Referral agencies would contact
providers with services that matched the needs required by the
situation, considering such factors as age, gender, type of care
required, and whether siblings were involved. Consideration of
parental rights was also important and required that children be
placed in shelters in close proximity, meaning within a 1–2 hour
drive of the parent’s home to facilitate

2Case Research Journal • Volume 35 • Issue 1 • Winter 2015
visitation. Referral agencies also considered the cost of care
since they were constantly concerned with budget limitations.
Placement with a provider was a temporary solution, with the
length of stay depen- dent on many factors. fte shelter or
home’s role was to provide care for the child while CFServices,
in conjunction with the courts and professionals involved,
determined the best placement for the child. fte providers
served at the will of CFServices and the courts, which had the
ultimate decision on whether to move a child from placement
for further evaluation or to be sent home. Assessments of the
mental, emotional, and physical condition of the child, along
with assessments of the parents, determined what, if any,
treatment was required. In cases when the treatment of parents
was not possible, did not achieve the expected results, or other
risks to a child still existed, the provider began trying to match
a child with foster parents. Careful consideration of the fit of
foster parents and their families was important. Once foster
parents were selected, the provider and CFServices assessed
whether the child was ready to move into a new home
environment, with the primary concern being that the child
would no longer have multiple trained professionals in close
contact. fte goal of all involved was to move the child into a
safe home environment so the child could have as normal a life
as possible.
Finding placement options for children in crisis was often a
difficult task for CFServices due to the lack of options for age
appropriate and desirable shelter facilities. Referral agencies
desired more room for emergency shelter placements as well as
placements for young children from cities other than Missoula.
Many cases required additional opportunities for respite care,
therapeutic care for behavioral issues, foster care services, and

in-home support. ftere was also a high demand for more
placement options for physically challenged and high medical
needs children, as well as children who were victims of sexual
predators. Child protection workers also noted they wanted to
see organizations offering more cultural opportunities,
prevention services, over- night visitation, and in-house
assessments.
Demand and Supply
From 1990–2000, western Montana counties experienced an
average population growth rate of 20 percent, much higher than
the growth in eastern Montana counties. Along with this growth,
there was a correspondingly increased need for shelter capac-
ity in the region. Most community leaders viewed organizations
such as Watson as providing a much-needed service to the
community and its constituents. However, the existence of
shelters in a community was not without strain. Due to their
emotional and psychological condition, children living in
shelters often required additional care and services from the
public education system, including special aides who attended
school with the children. State and federal allocation of funds to
cover these additional costs were not always consistent with
actual costs. As a result, many public schools incurred
additional costs that may not have been budgeted. Providers
such as Watson, therefore, took great care in placing students in
schools and made every possible effort to assure that no
particular school was assuming responsibility for all of its
children. Watson believed that it went to great lengths to
achieve a positive relationship between the organization and the
public schools in which children enrolled.
By 2006, western Montana had several providers (see Exhibit
1). Most facilities had a capacity of four to sixteen children and
served children between the ages of ten- and eighteen. Watson
recognized the gap in providing shelter to younger children in

Watson Children’s Shelter3
crisis and was the only non-Native American reservation shelter
providing emergency care for the infant-to-fourteen age group.
As more child protection services became necessary, more funds
were needed to support children in crisis, and individual orga-
nizations began to compete more intensely for grants and
funding. A slowing state and national economy also put pressure
on private donors, as they had less discretionary funds available
for philanthropy.
In general, children’s shelters such as Watson received fees
from CFServices com- mensurate with the number of children
placed at the facility. Group homes such as Youth Homes and
AWARE, Inc. were similar to Watson in many respects, but they
typically allowed for longer stays and drew from different
sources of financial support which included a federal match.
WatsoN ChildreN’s shelter history/BaCkgrouNd
Watson Children’s Shelter was a private, independent,
charitable, non-profit organization providing emergency
shelter to individual children. It was established in 1977 as
Watson’s Receiving Home when Janice Watson, who had
operated a nursery and daycare since 1968, opened her home to
children when police and state child protection services
needed to place a child in safe care. fte daycare facility closed
in 1997.
Since then, Watson evolved into an emergency shelter that
served 80–100 abused, neglected, or abandoned children
annually. fte children had often experienced physical, sexual,
or emotional abuse, and some were also severely emotionally
disturbed or learning disabled. Other children were victims of
secondary abuse, from situations in which they observed
domestic violence, substance, or sexual abuse. As part of its
mission, Watson sought to ensure that children placed there

experienced a sense of normalcy with respect to childhood:
attending school; participating in recreational and cultural
activities, including hikes, movies, and camping; as well as
eating meals together in traditional “family” settings. Watson
took pride in providing a staff-to-child ratio better than
minimum state requirements and in employing twenty-six
individu- als in direct care or program administration positions,
and hundreds of volunteers in non-direct positions annually.
Watson’s facility was designed to maximize flexibility, but still
had constraints. fte facility had four pods (each providing
accommodations and bathroom facilities for four children), a
commercial sized kitchen, central eating and play areas, a
meeting room, and office space. For a child to be placed, there
needed to be a room available with a same gender (sometimes
siblings of different gender were placed in the same room) and
relatively same-aged child (most rooms were shared by two
children). Moreover, Watson’s staff needed to consider the
profile of the child to be placed and the child with whom he/she
would be sharing a room. Shelters such as Watson, therefore,
were often run at less than full occupancy even though there
might be open spaces and children in need of shelter care.
Watson’s focus on children in crisis from infants to age
fourteen had certain benefits. First, the shelter was able to
attract and retain staff members with interests, competencies,
and training for working with children in this age range.
Providers who offered services to older children required
different competencies and services to meet the needs of
children who may have experienced longer periods of neglect
and/or abuse. Second, Watson was able to provide an
environment with activities suitable for this group and more
consistent with the typical family (i.e., families with 2–3
children

spaced 1–2 years apart). And third, assigning rooms to children
based on age, gender, and particular needs became more
difficult with older children. For example, assigning an
eighteen-year-old male child to a room necessarily meant that
his current or future roommate would have to be within 1–3
years age, the same gender, and not have particular needs
prohibiting having a roommate.
In non-fundraising campaign years, Watson received a majority
(approximately 60 percent) of its funding on a fee-for-service
model from CFServices, Tribal Social Ser- vices, and other
referral agencies. Other funding sources included grants from
agencies such as the United Way (approximately 10 percent),
annual fundraisers (10 percent), and private contributions from
donors (20 percent).
Leadership and Governance
When Albrecht joined Watson in 1997, she took a struggling
organization that needed immediate capital and helped to
transform it to a growing organization focused on meeting its
mission. Her initial push had been on improving community
relations, educating the public, and developing strategic
relationships—but she also focused on providing additional
support to the program staff because Albrecht recognized them
as the core of the mission. In 2000, Watson increased the
licensed capacity to sixteen children with the construction of a
new facility. By 2011, Watson enjoyed strong name recognition
in the Missoula community, and Albrecht’s relationship with the
members of the Watson Board of Directors was—as put by Dr.
Larry Gianchetta—“nothing short of exceptional.”
Gianchetta, Dean of the University of Montana School of
Business Administra- tion, served as a Watson Board member
from 1997–2006 and was Board President from 1999–2000. He
also served on the Watson Capital Campaign Advisory Com-
mittee from 2007–2010. Gianchetta commented that Albrecht’s
concern for children made her stand out as an extraordinarily

talented leader. “She always has loved the kids, and they have
loved her,” he stated. “We all knew early on that she was an
excel- lent administrator and manager, but her passion for the
kids is so genuine and real that you can’t help but be fascinated
by it.” Albrecht herself stated, “I am so transparent with the
Board for good reason. fte Board needs to see that these
children are not languishing in our care and are continuing to
blossom.” Gianchetta’s feelings reflected the observations of
other board members. Colleen Powers, an insurance executive,
entrepreneur, and member of the Board since 2002, stated:
“Fran’s reason for being is those kids. She presents child
profiles at each meeting and there isn’t a dry eye by the time
she is finished. Board members share her passion for the
children.”
Gianchetta likened Albrecht’s relationship with the Board and
other community stakeholders to her relationship with the
children. “She always is so sincere, committed, and effective
at conveying the vision and mission of the organization that you
find yourself excitedly jumping on board to help push initiatives
forward.” Powers agreed, saying, “Fran has worked hard to earn
the respect of the Board and of the community. It is so easy to
become committed to the shelter because of Fran’s passion.
She’s a dynamic leader who has great ideas, and there’s no
doubt that she’s there for the kids. It has been a real privilege to
serve on the Board, and I think it speaks volumes that nearly
every Board member remains engaged for three 3-year terms.”
Albrecht, when discussing her strong relationship with the
Board, stated that she viewed her role as a connector and her
best asset was “to know my own weaknesses and depend on
others for expertise.” She considered the members’ diverse
array of

experience to be Watson’s main strength: “We always have been
very fortunate to have had a broad cross-section of experience
as far as the members of the Board are concerned. We’ve
benefitted tremendously from the guidance offered by so many
members who gave of their time and talent to serve. I really
believe that the diversity of our Board helped us deal
effectively with our different challenges.”
In addition to attending directly to the business, Albrecht spent
time networking with executive directors of other local non-
profits, serving on advisory boards of for- profit businesses,
attending workshops on “best practices” for care of children,
and dealing with operational issues. Albrecht and Watson’s
program director, Deboruah Baylor, were members of the
CFServices’ Youth Advisory Council, formed in 2006 as a
result of a federally mandated improvement plan for the region
that included Mis- soula. ftat council met quarterly at
CFServices’ offices in Missoula with a purpose to provide and
receive feedback from community services involved with
CFServices.
faCility exPaNsioN
In May 2004, Albrecht began thinking that the mission was not
being adequately fulfilled. Watson had been at full capacity (all
sixteen beds filled) since October 2003 and was turning away
children at the rate of one to two per week because of space
constraints. As one child was discharged, another was admitted.
fte average length of stay for a child placed at Watson was
approximately forty-five days. Social workers who learned that
Watson was full would not even make a call for placement
there, so it was unknown how many children were actually
being turned away. CFServices allowed Watson to increase its
licensed capacity to eighteen for a period of time, by adding
bunk beds to several rooms to accommodate the need.
Albrecht brought her concerns regarding space limitations to the
Board of Direc- tors. ftere was concern from at least one
member that they wouldn’t be able to start another capital

campaign because Watson had fairly recently finished the
previous campaign for increasing capacity (improving the
facility to sixteen beds in 2000). Gianchetta recalled that not
everyone jumped on the bandwagon for a new campaign
immediately: “ftere was a lot of back and forth with the Board,
and there was a perception, albeit minor, in the community
that Watson had ‘had its turn.’”
Needs Assessment
After discussion with the Board, Watson contracted with the
Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) at the
University of Montana to complete a needs assessment, which
launched in April 2005. fte goal of the research was to gauge
perceptions and experiences with Watson and its emergency
shelter services, as well as to determine any perceived demand
for additional emergency shelter capacity. fte BBER research
team conducted twenty-three confidential interviews with
program administrators, other non-profit organizations,
CFServices’ and Tribal Social Services’ personnel, volunteers,
donors, and community members. In addition, it held two
separate focus group discussions (ten social workers each)
between June and August 2005. fte key findings are shown in
Exhibit 2.
Comments from social workers who responded during focus
groups were varied, but generally positive. Some felt that there
were not enough emergency shelter facilities in western
Montana. Some had positive responses specifically about
Watson; one social worker stated, “It is pretty telling when a
child has been there and years later they
don’t have a negative memory of being there, which I have seen
time and again.” Some expressed the need for more
communication with Watson about the children placed in the

shelter and also conveyed their desire for Watson to relax some
of its rigidity in terms of scheduling and adherence to rules.
From these findings, the BBER recommended more hard data be
collected on need and location for a new facility, that Watson
talk to stakeholders, undertake a public education campaign,
and fix any communication issues. fte final recommendation
was that Watson should celebrate its remarkable reputation.
Business Plan and Capital Campaign Feasibility Study
Albrecht was encouraged by the needs assessment findings and
started working with the Board on the initial planning phases of
a potential capital campaign to build an additional facility,
beginning with a business plan. Looking for assistance,
Albrecht contacted Gianchetta, who referred her to one of his
entrepreneurship professors who was also a business plan
consultant. Meanwhile, referrals continued to be turned away
from Watson at an average of one to two children per week.
fte consultant, along with a recent MBA graduate, worked with
Watson staff and the Board and verified that not only was there
a need for a second Watson shelter, but that two facilities would
have enough demand to operate effectively and be financially
viable. fte business plan outlined a $4.5 million campaign for
building and operating a second facility. Albrecht and the Board
decided to engage a local fundraising and philanthropic
management consulting firm to conduct a feasibility study to
determine if there was enough general support for a capital
campaign that large.
ftose consultants gathered data in late 2006, and Watson
received the recommendations in January 2007. fte feasibility
study supported pushing forward with the campaign, as the firm
found universal agreement that Watson achieved its mission and
an absence of negative perceptions that would impede
fundraising efforts. In fact, there were no negative issues raised
by anyone in the survey, with fourteen out of the nineteen
potential donors contacted, rating Watson in their “top five”
contribution choices. Many of the people surveyed considered
the needs assessment and business plan as positive steps, but the

most overwhelming factor cited in support of building a second
shelter was that the population of children in need would
continue to grow. In addition, many respondents indicated that
they were confident in the leadership of the organization to do
the right thing and as a reason the capital campaign was likely
to succeed. Respondents also agreed that $4.5 million was a
tough, yet attainable, goal. fte consultants also discovered that
many of the potential campaign contributors did not understand
why there could not be another expansion to the current facil-
ity rather than a new facility. ftis supported the BBER’s earlier
recommendation of a public education campaign (as to licensing
numbers and ratios, etc.). Timing was
favorable, as stated in the report:
First, the economy in Western Montana continues to experience
strong growth and the stock market is somewhat stable and
growing moderately. ftese factors can sometimes impact the
size of gifts you receive from some of your lead gift prospects,
those who can set the tone for the eventual success (or failure)
of the campaign. Also, several other high-profile community
campaigns . . . are at or near conclusion. While new campaigns
will always emerge, there seems to be a window of opportunity
at this time if you can get out ahead of the curve.
Both Gianchetta and Powers recalled a unified Board in terms of
moving forward with the second facility (see Exhibits 3a and 3b
for a list of those involved during the campaign phase). “We
had done a needs assessment, a feasibility study, a business
plan,” remarked Powers. “We were convinced that the need
wasn’t going away.” Gianchetta expressed confidence in
Albrecht and the process leading up to the decision by saying,
“She knows how to raise money better than anyone I know. We

were not concerned because of all the due diligence.” At the end
of 2007, the Board voted in favor of a capital campaign to build
a second shelter. Expecting the capital campaign to produce
positive results, the Board also voted in favor of beginning the
expansion process at that time.
It was also fourth quarter of 2007 when the recession that
affected so many parts of the country hit Missoula and western
Montana, causing Missoula to lose a couple of significant
employers. Although the recession “officially” lasted two years,
Missoula remained mired in its effects, with some improvement
by 2011.
Expansion Complete
Even with the economic downturn, the three-year $4.5 million
capital campaign pro- ceeded without any major obstacles or
challenges. Albrecht and the Board were elated that they could
now meet the demand of children in crisis. In July 2010, Watson
opened its second facility just south of Missoula. fte additional
shelter doubled capacity, allowing for sixteen children in each
facility. Although the average length of stay from July 2010
through June 2011 was approximately two months, some
children remained at the facility until their family crisis was
resolved or until a suitable home could be located.
uNderutilizatioN
In November 2010, the volume of children being served by
Watson began to decrease, causing the facilities to be
underutilized. Albrecht set out on a mission to determine the
reason(s) underlying the decreased demand. She knew that if a
perception spread throughout the community that the new
facility was not needed, it would reflect nega- tively on her,
Watson, and its Board, as well as other critical stakeholders.
Albrecht and some of her Board members met with
representatives from CFServices in Missoula in an effort to try
to understand what Watson could do differently. “We were
unbeliev- ably frustrated,” Albrecht said, “because we were
convinced that a strong demand still existed. We were confident

that we could adapt and adjust, but we needed to know what
issues we were facing. We also were really concerned about the
children who needed us and what might happen to them.” ftree
Board members even met with representatives of CFServices in
Missoula without Albrecht to ensure that changes were not due
to personal issues involving Albrecht.
What they found both intrigued and frightened Albrecht:
CFServices had changed its policy and practices (for
undetermined reasons) to employ a “family preservation”
model—which resulted in children remaining in their homes or
homes of family members with the provisioning of in-home
services and social worker visits to main- tain the family unit.
In addition, CFServices had transitioned to a “one worker, one
child” practice in which one worker was assigned to a child
from first involvement with CFServices to a resolution and
permanency planning. Previously, workers were trained in two
units: (1) intake, which included first involvement with
CFServices and
possible removal from the home; or (2) intervention, which
involved the social worker developing permanency planning for
the child and family. CFServices’ social workers suddenly
found themselves spending hours in court hearings with no time
to conduct investigations, or lacking the appropriate training to
effectively serve at intake when they previously had served in
intervention. ftese changes had resulted in fewer placements at
Watson. Albrecht made the decision to temporarily close one
shelter to save on operational costs.
Albrecht and the Board discussed how “scary” these changes
were, not just for their organization and the funding decreases,
but also for the children in crisis. fte Watson mission was to
serve the children, but CFServices was the gatekeeper. Watson

couldn’t afford to break that relationship—even though, in
Albrecht’s opinion, when the family preservation model failed
and the children then required removal and placement at
Watson, those children appeared to be even more damaged.
Albrecht was also concerned that the decrease in placement
was only affecting short-term shelter care, as a group home
administrator had told the Youth Advisory Council in a recent
meeting that there had been no change in his numbers.
Impact on Watson
fte reduced placement numbers had a direct impact on cash flow
and operations at Watson (see Exhibit 4). Reduced placement
also decreased Watson expenditures because there was no need
to pay for staff and other related variable costs for children’s
needs (food, clothing purchases, etc.).
In addition to the financial effects, the staff experienced less
predictability and consistency of work and training. Some staff
members sought and obtained other employment opportunities
during these “down” times. When placements increased again,
Watson was not able to procure the services of these staff
members. In addition, training—and thus care—suffered when
staff did not receive enough hours to become well versed in
effective practices.
Albrecht also spoke to the largest campaign donors about her
concerns, receiving support and encouragement to continue her
research and to work through the underutilization issue.
Powers stated, “fte community confidence was overwhelming.
We all had no doubt that the demand for services would bounce
back.” Gianchetta also pointed out that Watson had faced
challenges similar to the current underutilization issue at
various times during his tenure as a Board member. “Emergency
shelters are subject to lots of different rules and regulations,
and Fran regularly faced challenges involving some party
essentially trying to shut things down. Her tenacity in doing
what was best for the children always seemed to carry the day.”
In January 2011, Albrecht, Baylor, and Powers met with
CFServices again to ask, “What can we do to help you help us

help kids?” No direction was given, although Albrecht
presented different program ideas. Powers recalled Albrecht’s
concerns for the children and her emotional statement following
the meeting, “We will see children die and then we will see
changes.”
Albrecht’s Need to Make a Decision
Feeling extremely frustrated after her June 2011 telephone call
with the Director of CFServices, Albrecht knew she needed to
present the Board with several alternatives and a decision
needed to be made soon. She opened a file on her desk that held
papers
and notes containing suggestions and ideas about the
underutilization. Some of the ideas were her own, some were
from the Board members, and still others were from emails and
phone calls from interested community members. As she sorted
through the suggestions, themes started forming possible
options. She sat back and reflected on the three most viable
strategic alternatives.
First, Watson could continue to operate both shelters as
effectively as possible under the changed CFServices’
philosophy while working to change that philosophy back to one
focused on child safety first. Albrecht was confident that the
numbers of children in crisis remained constant, and therefore
children in crisis simply were not currently receiving proper
care.
Second, Watson could increase its reach by extending its age
limit, geographic region served, or services provided. Under
this strategy, Watson could consider seg- menting ages and
services on a by-shelter basis. Any of these moves would put
Watson in direct competition with other providers and duplicate
services. Albrecht did have concerns, also, as to what

operational changes (in terms of staff training and services
provided) would need to take place.
Finally, Watson could close, sell, or lease one of the facilities.
Albrecht knew that the Board would raise this option. Albrecht
was concerned about potential detrimental effects on community
support of Watson, and she was skeptical about the prospects of
finding a bona fide purchaser or tenant willing to pay market
value.
Albrecht and her Board (see Exhibit 5) had to make a decision
fairly quickly. Albrecht had heard rumblings that she had made
a mistake with the new shelter and she felt ultimately
accountable and responsible. She was concerned about her
Board losing confidence in her and Watson.

Exhibit 1: Western Montana Children Shelters and Homes as of
2006
Organization
Location(s)
Proximity to Missoula
Ages Gender
Child Profile
Watson Children’s Shelter
Missoula
Infant to 14 M & F
Abused, neglected, abandoned, or families in crisis.
Youth Homes
Missoula, Kalispell, Hamilton
2 hours NW
1 hour S
10–18
M & F
Youth at risk, families in crisis.
AWARE
Statewide, Missoula
12–18
M & F
Challenging mental, emotional, physical needs.

Discovery House
Anaconda
1.5 hours SE
10–18
M & F
Delinquent, neglected, abused.
Kairos Youth Services
Great Falls
2.5 hours NE
10–18
M & F
Youth at risk, families in crisis.
Blackfeet Nurturing Center
Browning
3.5 hours N
Infant to 17 M & F
Abused, neglected, and abandoned.
Florence Crittenton Home
Helena
2 hours E
14–20
F
Pregnant and parenting homeless girls.
Intermountain Children’s Home
Helena
2 hours E
10–18
M & F
Moderate to severe emotional problems.
Open Gate Ranch
Trout Creek
2.5 hours NW
10–18
M
Abandoned, neglected, abused.
Pioneer Youth Home

Dillon
3 hours SE
8–18
M
(No information available.)
Second Circle Lodge
Ronan
1 hour NW
9–18
M & F
Abused, neglected, and families in crisis.
Sinopah Group Home
Kalispell
2 hours NW
12–18
F
Abused, neglected, or families in crisis.
Source: Watson Children’s Shelter Business Plan, 2006

(
Exhibit 2: Summary of Key Findings from BBER Interviews
Key findings from the interviews included the following:
Overall general agreement existed that a new facility was
needed to provide
emer
-
gency
shelter for children, especially those up to the age of
fifteen.
The
need
to
provide
safe
alternatives
for
children
on
both

an
emergency
and
a
long- term basis was cont
inuing to
grow.
CFServices
personnel overwhelmingly had positive things to say about
Watson and Albrecht’s management of the
shelter.
Differences
of
opinion,
based
on
the
system
in
which
the

respondent
was
employed, existed about Watson being a “team”
player.
All respondents agreed that Watson was committed to the
well being
of the children in its
care.
The interviewees foresaw several significant challenges for
Watson if another shelter were to be built. Included among
these challenges were the following:
Ability to raise the necessary funds for construction and
operations/maintenance of the new
facility
.
Possibility
of
causing
potential
discontent
among
members
of

the
community,
includ
-
ing
the non-profit community, if Watson were to move into the
(long term) group home
area.
Staffing issues (including finding qualified staff with all
appropriate license
s and
suf
-
ficient
training).
Serious challenge posed by the political culture and prevailing
climate that might drive federal, state, and local policy
decisions (with one
CFServices
administrator who noted this particular challenge not expecting
Watson to
face problems filling the
beds, but
expecting more legislation to be proposed to further the
protection of parental
rights).
Source
: BBER Summary Report for Watson, 2005
)

Exhibit 3a: Watson Staff and Board of Directors during
Expansion Campaign, 2007–2010
Watson Staff
Fran M. Albrecht, M.Ed., Executive Director
Brooklyn Vosen, Development Coordinator
Deboruah Baylor, M.A., Program Director
Pat Beebe, Office Manager
Watson Board of Directors
Title and Organization
Renee King, President

Director of Human Resources, Western States Insurance
Sue Larew, VP
VP, First Interstate Bank
Susan Moriarity Miltko, VP
Attorney, Williams Law Firm
Gregory Peck, C.P.A., Sec/Treas
Branch Manager, JCCS Accounting Firm
Greg Beach
VP, Beach Transportation
Sydney Carlino
Financial Consultant, D.A. Davidson & Company
Steve Falen
Partner, Partners Creative
Nicole Hagerman
Project Mgr, MT World Trade Ctr; Owner, House Design
Jennifer Heggen
Owner, Sleep City; Ashley Furniture Home Store
Tom Hilley
Broker, Lambros Real Estate; Owner, Sean Kelly’s
Colleen Powers
Senior VP, Terry Payne & Co.; Owner, Ranch Club
Sandra Simmons, MD
Pediatrician, Missoula Valley Pediatrics
Mark Wakai
VP of Bus Dev, Pres. of Phys. Serv., St. Patrick Hospital
Chris Warden
VP of Technology, Washington Business Services
Legal Counsel
David C. Berkoff
Garlington Lohn & Robinson
Source: Albrecht email, 6/7/2011

Exhibit 3b: Capital Campaign Team during Expansion
Campaign, 2007–2010
Campaign Committee
Advisory Committee
Barbara Evans
Missoula County Commissioner (retired)
Mary Evey

Community Volunteer
Stuart Evey
Former Chairman, ESPN
Larry Gianchetta
Dean, University of Montana School of Business
Bob Minto
President, ALPS
Jan Parks, C.P.A.
Jan Parks & Associates
Steering Committee
Colleen Powers
Jennifer Heggen
Barry Kenfield
Retired Hospital Administrator
Dave Olson
Pete Lawrenson
Director of Security, Montana Rail Link
Clint Romney
Owner, Title Services Inc.
Gina Joseph Wilson
Ravalli Republic; Owner, West Boutique
Building / Design Committee
Don Anderson
Owner, D.A. Construction
Kent Bray
Architect, CTA Group
Tom Hilley
Gene Mostad
Owner, Mostad Construction
Pete Nazelrod

Developer
Todd Schaper
Architect, CTA Group
Jesse Vigil
Architect in Training, CTA Group
Marketing Committee
Partners Creative Design Team
Brent O’Connor; Owner, Irish Luck Productions
Source: Albrecht email, 6/7/2011
Exhibit 4: Watson Profit and Loss Statements (provided by
Watson, September 2012)
Jul 2010–Jun 2011
Jul 2009–Jun 2010
Ordinary Income/Expense

Income
Miscellaneous Revenue
6,202.41
1,815.04
State Pay Fees
364,163.56
406,088.18
Grant Awards
242,670.81
40,670.26
Total Income
613,036.78
448,573.48
Expense
Wages, Benefits Taxes
632,418.85
541,505.74
Professional Fees
14,498.51
3,866.94
Insurance Expenses
26,748.03
17,900.89
Marketing
4,389.75
4,591.58
Membership and Dues
3,791.00
2,815.08
Miscellaneous Expenses
3,282.44
1,765.34

Office Supplies, Postage, and Printing
12,919.86
9,213.54
Program Supplies
86,034.66
85,218.19
Repair and Maintenance
8,535.99
11,032.71
Taxes
0.00
0.00
Utilities
36,142.95
26,239.61
Depreciation Expense
45,047.66
40,919.00
Total Expense
873,809.70
745,068.62
Net Ordinary Income
–260,772.92
–296,495.14
Other Income/Expense
Other Income
Capital Campaign Contributions
779,400.24
552,714.32
Special Event Income
93,236.66
85,718.15

Unrestricted Donations and Gifts
211,204.37
185,290.54
Endowment Donations
26,161.44
35,175.00
Investment Unrealized Gain
364,521.83
301,212.32
Total Other Income
1,474,524.54
1,160,110.33
Other Expense
Capital Campaign Expenses
6,987.35
52,992.92
Investment Mgt. Fees
20,114.55
8,167.42
Investment Unrealized Loss
86,637.18
162,080.51
Fund Raiser Function Expense
35,825.62
24,254.22
Total Other Expense
149,564.70
247,495.07
Net Other Income
1,324,959.84
912,615.26

Exhibit 4: continued
Children in Care
76
62
Days of Care
4,610
5,315
Average Length of Stay (in days)
60.66
85.73
Average Placements in Shelter per Day
12.63
14.56
Exhibit 5: Watson Board of Directors—June 2011
Sue Larew, President
Susan Moriarity Miltko, VP
Attorney, Williams Law Firm
Steve Falen, VP
Partner, Partners Creative
Sydney Carlino, Sec./Treas.
Financial Consultant, D.A. Davidson & Company
Greg Beach
VP, Beach Transportation
Nicole Hagerman
Project Mgr, MT World Trade Ctr; Owner, House Design

Joe Johnston
VP of Marketing, Integrated Information
Solution
s, Inc.
Stacey Mueller
Publisher, The Missoulian
Colleen Powers
Senior VP, Terry Payne & Co.; Owner, Ranch Club
Drew Rieker
CPA, JCCS Accounting Firm
Randy Rupert
Regional Director of Marketing, CTA Architects Engineers
Leslie Scott, M.D.
Sandra Simmons, M.D.
Chris Warden
VP of Technology, Washington Business Services
Source: Watson website, 6/6/2011
Notes
1. http://www.mtnonprofit.org/SectorReport/

2. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0214/038_print.html
3.
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/stateprofile.aspx?sta
te=MT&loc=9043
4.
http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/statefactsheets/2012/montana.pdf

Non-Profit Marketing Week # 6 – Harvard Case StudyYour Name H.docx

Non-Profit Marketing Week # 6 – Harvard Case StudyYour Name H.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from vannagoforth

More from vannagoforth (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Non-Profit Marketing Week # 6 – Harvard Case StudyYour Name H.docx