Category: fundraising

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?

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?

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.