Author: Eric B. Jacobson

Writer, storyteller, and pop culture enthusiast
fundraising, planning, strategy

Are you prepared for the worst?

When we do our planning, we do our best to take a realistic look at what might happen in the future. Whether it’s for budgeting or program planning, we often use our best knowledge of the past and present to foresee the likely future.

While we sometimes look at probabilities and risks, we usually only plan for one scenario – the one we feel represents the most accurate picture of how things will unfold. The problem is that we’re only preparing for one scenario, likely though it may be.

Moreover, often times that one scenario is skewed by various factors. Because while we do our best to set expectations for ourselves, we’re also working to set expectations for others: our managers, senior leadership, the Board, funders, key donors, etc. We want the scenario to be realistic but we also want it to be exciting, inspiring, and worthy of support. So although we may be conscious of the risks and how things can go wrong, we don’t necessarily account for those accurately in our planning.

In fact, in most proposals I’ve reviewed the risks section is by far the weakest, where organizations either say there are no risks or they are completely prepared for all risks – and neither is usually true. But who is going to write a proposal that says there are big risks and we might not be prepared for them? That doesn’t exactly build the kind of confidence we want funders to have in our organizations and programs.

The thing is, we can’t predict the future. And though there may be a likely scenario, there are also other scenarios we may encounter. Some may be in our favor, and others may work against us, but both types pose challenges and opportunities for our organizations. If we want to survive whatever comes our way, we should be prepared for more than one future. As the saying goes, “adapt or die.”

My recommendation to clients is that they plan for three scenarios: (1) a negative scenario, (2) a business-as-usual scenario, and (3) an ideal scenario. In the first, there are assumptions about losses and failures – not getting certain funding, an indefatigable obstacle to program work, opposition from an unforeseen source, etc. The second scenario is the one we usually plan for – a continuation of the current conditions, a future that is simply an extension of previous experience. And the third is what happens if things go our way – we get that big grant we’re vying for, our program exceeds expectations, unlikely windfalls happen, etc. By looking at these three, you can make contingency plans and be prepared to adapt to the good, the bad, and the expected. If you don’t get the funding you expected, how will it affect your operations, your programs, and your staffing? If that unlikely policy gets signed into law, opening up opportunities for advancing your mission, how will you allocate or acquire resources to take advantage of them? Adaptive management is how organizations not only stay alive but thrive, and scenario planning is a solid tool for adaptive management.

You don’t have to share your plans with everyone. If you think funders don’t want to see your worst-case scenario, you’re under no obligation to show them. At the same time, some funders actually appreciate that you’ve thought things through and that you’re prepared for risks. It demonstrates a sophistication and strength of management that many organizations don’t have. It’s something that you could set you apart and above others. But again, most important is that your organization can weather storms and grow in sunlight.

So be prepared. A little extra time planning can make your organization more adaptive and more resilient. That’s a risk worth taking.

What kind of scenario planning does your organization do? How do you account for risks and their mitigation? Have you ever been unprepared for a given situation?

Uncategorized

The real power of foundations

When people think of foundations, they think about money (or, you know, building construction, if that’s their thing). After all, foundations are sources of funding for a nonprofit sector full of organizations strapped for cash. And being such resource-rich institutions, foundations wield a lot of power.

However, the real power of foundations isn’t their assets. Sure, being able to support good causes – on their own terms, no less – gives them a lot of power. But it also affords them something far more powerful: a voice.

Because foundations have resources that they can invest, they can more easily get a seat at the table. They can get meetings with those that a small nonprofit may not have the clout to attract. And they can bring together parties that might otherwise ignore each other.

See, the real power of foundations these days is the power to convene. In an increasingly networked world, many still put up walls, bury their heads in the sand, and fail to effectively reach out to others. But the problems that we’re working to solve are big, complex, and messy. They can’t be solved alone, and they can’t be solved by fighting others. We need to work together if we’re going to make a real difference. We need to cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate. And that all starts with communicating – actually sitting down to talk things through, testing assumptions and forming real relationships, finding points of agreement and points of contention, identifying opportunities to work together and opportunities to divide and conquer. No organization is an island, and we can achieve more if more work together on the same problem.

So if foundations want to really create some significant change, they should leverage their power to convene. Their grantees will benefit from learning about others’ work and perspectives. Stakeholders will benefit from a broader view of the issue and sharing ideas about how to move forward. And foundations themselves can learn in ways that will improve their own strategies. Plus, since they often work across the system, foundations are also best suited for identifying those who would benefit from coordination or collaboration. (And if polite suggestion doesn’t work, they can always incentivize people will a grant, right?)

Working in a nonprofit organization, it’s easy to get lost in your own work and lose sight of the bigger picture. Some organizations manage to work well with others on their projects, but even then, it is often with a narrow cluster of actors, with many others left out of the picture. If foundations want to effectively solve problems, they need to do more than just dole out funds. They need to facilitate greater communication, coordination, and collaboration among the different stakeholders in the issues they’re tackling.

Throwing money at a problem may help, but a foundation’s greatest asset is its power to convene.

Does your foundation leverage its power to convene? Have you been invited by a funder to a grantee or stakeholder convening? What are the benefits of such convenings? How can they be improved so convenings are more effective?

case for support, communications, fundraising, messaging

It’s not me. It’s you.

It happens time and time again: an organization puts forth messages about why its cause is important but it doesn’t get the kind of response it hoped for. It’s bizarre, right? I mean, obviously the work is important. Why else would someone dedicate so much of her time and effort to a cause if it wasn’t important? Why would anyone dedicate his life to it?

The problem isn’t that your cause isn’t important (because it is). The problem is that there are lots of important causes out there.

There are more than 1.1 million nonprofits in the United States, all of them working on important issues. Donors have lots of options for where to put their support – more than they can actually support – and you’re competing against them. So it’s not just why you’re important, but why you’re more important than those other causes.

Yes, this is a somewhat subjective challenge. After all, what’s important to one person may not be to another. But that’s exactly the point. People are different: different opinions, different values, different interests. And the way to show that you’re more important is to appeal to those opinions, values, and interests. You’re talking about why the problem is important to you when you should be talking about why it’s important to your target audience.

Understanding your target audience is critical to crafting effective messages. You need to speak to their values, their interests, their concerns. We often think we have to prove that our cause is important, but it’s more that we have to prove that our cause is important to them. The question to ask yourself isn’t “Why do I care about this?” but rather “Why do they care?” Then, not only will your messages resonate with your audience, but you’ll stand out from the rest of the pack.

Do your messages speak to your audience’s values? How does your organization adopt your audiences’ perspectives? What have you found works best when crafting messages that target a particular audience?