Author: Eric B. Jacobson

Writer, storyteller, and pop culture enthusiast
case for support, fundraising, logic model, rationale, strategy, theory of change

Are you really solving the problem?

During my time in philanthropy, I reviewed many grant proposals, many of which were pretty good. They did a good job describing the project, and usually did a good job describing the problem they hoped to solve. However, nearly every proposal had the same flaw, something missing, something that inevitably led to tough questions from the Program Officer who was in charge of developing the grant. What was the missing piece? A failure to connect the project to the problem. In other words, how will this project actually solve the problem?

Let’s take an example. Say the problem you’re trying to solve is hunger among the homeless in the Bay Area, and let’s say you’re requesting a grant to provide free meals for 100,000 homeless people over the course of a year. We can understand the problem and its importance, and we can understand the project and its importance, but at the end of the grant, will you really be any closer to solving the problem? Will there really be less hungry people in a year? Is it possible there could even be more hungry people?

I’m not suggesting that feeding the hungry is a bad idea. It’s a good idea. In fact, it’s necessary in order to help these people survive another day. However, it’s also just a short-term solution to the symptoms of a much bigger, long-term, systemic problem. If your mission is to solve hunger, feeding the homeless is a necessary but ultimately insufficient step to take.

This is why organizations benefit from developing a Theory of Change. Yeah, we know. “Theory of Change.” It’s one of those fluffy, jargony buzz words tossed around by foundations and consulting wonks. But when developed effectively, it helps an organization to clarify what it does, and more importantly, why doing what it does helps to solve the problem.

The truth is, a solid, articulate theory of change helps organizations to be more strategic by identifying the key opportunities for influencing the system. Oftentimes a theory of change is equated to a strategy (“we do this therefore we get this”), but a good theory of change is a system-wide view that provides the context and rationale for a strategic plan. Done well, a theory of change makes a strong case for why your strategy is a smart, practical, and effective approach to achieving your mission and solving the problem.

Does your organization have a clear theory of change? Do you feel confident in explaining why your approach and programs are effective mechanisms for solving the problem? Have you had to face the tough questions from funders to explain the rationale of your programs? Post your comments below.

case for support, communications, logic model, messaging

Why you’re not communicating your impact effectively

When organizations talk about their results, they focus on the direct activities they carry out. They talk about meals served, or students taught, or trees planted. This puts the focus on the work they do – their activities and their projects. These are an organization’s outputs: the products they make or the services they provide.

However, the work they do (the “what”) is done for a reason (the “why”). Organizations don’t serve meals and teach students and plant trees just for kicks. They do those things for some desired impact – to make a difference, to solve a problem, to change a system. And a change in the behavior of a system is called an outcome. So outcomes, not outputs, are our desired impact. And outcomes are why people support the work you do: they believe that what you do will actually make a difference and solve a problem.

If you want to communicate your impact to your supporters, you need to start talking in terms of outcomes (changes in the system) rather than outputs (the products or services you provide). Talking about how you’re changing the way things work in the world will be far more compelling – and it will differentiate you from the many others who are still talking about their outputs. Moreover, learning to talk about the outcomes you’re achieving can start shifting the conversation away from output-focused project-specific support to broader support for your organization. It’s a win-win situation: the supporter gets to hear about their desired impact and the organization can solicit support for their cause instead of a specific output.

Yes, measuring impact can be challenging (another topic for another day) but those who monitor and articulate their impact are more effective at building support for their causes. Why? Because at the end of the day, we care about outcomes. After all, it’s why you produce your outputs.

Does your organization talk about its impact in terms of outputs or outcomes? What would it take to talk about your outcomes? Are there challenges to talking about outcomes?

communications, messaging

Want to communicate effectively? Cut the crap.

In a previous post I discussed the importance of understanding your target audience when trying to communicate with them effectively. Equally important is speaking their language.

I’ve spent much of my career in the environmental nonprofit world, where there is no shortage of complex language, jargon, and acronyms. Not surprising, since it’s a field grounded in the natural sciences, with lots of incredibly smart people who received higher degrees from impressive education institutions. It’s a culture of intelligent individuals trained by academia to study and solve complicated and difficult problems. The problem is that the people whose support they want may not be like them.

Sure, their audiences care about the environment, but they may have different backgrounds, different educational training, and different professions. They may not be comfortable with complicated language that’s difficult to decipher, let alone terminology and acronyms they’ve never seen before. Just as you need to understand the interests and values of your target audience, you also need to understand how to communicate with them. So if you want to communicate to them effectively, you need to cut the crap.

That’s right: cut the crap.

What does that mean? It means exactly what you think it does: be clear, be concise, and cut to the chase. Get to the heart of the matter and use simple language so your audience doesn’t have to decode your message. (Simple language doesn’t mean you have to dumb things down – just that you should use common words and syntax to talk about complicated things.) Don’t make it difficult for your audience to understand you, and don’t distract them away from your primary message.

Scientists are notorious for being poor communicators because they’re too smart for their own good – they know a lot and they have their own culture where certain language and terminology is accepted, even expected. But it’s not just scientists with this problem: every organization has its own culture where certain concepts, terms, and acronyms become commonplace. The problem is that when we speak with “outsiders” we tend to still use the same language we use with our colleagues – the language that we are comfortable with, even if our audience is not. But communications isn’t about us. It’s about them.

So what is an organization to do? The first would be to keep internal language in check. Yes, it’s convenient to use short-hand and acronyms for more efficient communication, but again, the more you use that language, the more you’re training yourselves to speak that way with those outside your organization. The second thing is to cut the crap. Review your written communications and make sure you’re communicating simply, clearly, and concisely. Prepare yourself for verbal communications, whether it’s with a funder, a partner, a donor, or anyone else. Keep things simple and to the point.

It may be difficult for you to do at first, but it won’t be difficult for your audience. And that’s the whole point.