Category: logic model

collective impact, logic model, planning, theory of change

Your vision statement shouldn’t be unique

I worked with a client recently on developing a theory of change, and part of the process involves coming up with a vision statement. The vision reflects the organization’s desired outcome for the system in which they work. In other words, what does the system look like in a perfect world?

When we came up with a vision statement, it was big – not just bold, but on a global scale that goes well beyond the capabilities of this little organization of just a few people. There were two questions that arose: Is this vision statement too ambitious? And is this vision statement unique enough to our organization?

Here’s the thing: no organization works alone to transform a system (though they may think and act like they do). Transformation of an entire system is a huge undertaking, one that requires a diversity of approaches and competencies. Systems are complex and multifaceted, and multiple types of interventions will be required. An organization that tries to tackle them all will find itself reaching beyond its capabilities. (Conversely, an organization that thinks there’s only one way to solve a problem will not reach far enough.) And because no one can do it alone, the vision statement shouldn’t be unique to any one organization, because hopefully others share your vision and are working with you towards the same goal.

Within any given system, there will be multiple organizations or entities, each trying to transform the system in a different way. Each organization therefore occupies its own niche (hopefully), but collectively they bring about a common vision for the system.

Take education for example. There are several different groups in the Bay Area working on improving the education system in Oakland. Some focus on teacher preparation, some focus on after-school programming, some focus on informal education programs, some focus on testing and standards, and others will focus on policy at the state and federal levels. Then there are government agencies and privates entities with their own goals and contributions to the education system. Each group has its own objectives, but they all are working towards a common vision: an Oakland school district that meets the needs of its students.

A lot of times organizations equate a theory of change with a strategy: if we do this, then we will achieve that. If a theory of change is done right, it takes a broader systemic view, and helps an organization to identify (1) the potential points of intervention, (2) its unique role in bringing about the vision (the mission), and (3) areas of needed coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. In this way, an organization can define its unique value while also understanding how all the different actors collectively create change.

Thus, the vision is a systemic view beyond the organization, a goal to be achieved collectively, and the mission statement is the organization’s role within that system, based on its strengths and competencies and the needs and opportunities in the system.

No organization is an island, and no organization can do it all. But together, with a shared vision and clearly defined roles, organizations can achieve more than any one of them can achieve alone.

Does your organization have a vision statement that defines a collective achievement? Does your organization’s mission statement reflect its unique role within the system? Are you working with others who share an interest in the same issues?

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?