Category: messaging

case for support, communications, fundraising, messaging, rationale

How to write a good problem statement

When a funder asks for a problem statement (or a needs assessment), it’s an opportunity to explain the rationale for why you need support. The goal is to explain the issues while framing the problem in a way that sets the stage for your solution.

Unfortunately, I find that many problem statements don’t do justice to the work being proposed. They either don’t sufficiently describe the problem or they don’t frame the issue so that the proposed project seems like a good solution (or they just aren’t written well).

Here are three questions every good problem statement should answer to ensure you set up a compelling rationale for your proposed work:

  1. What is the need? I know this sounds obvious, but oftentimes people don’t accurately define the problem. It’s as if every organization is a hammer, so everything is a nail. You want to think about what’s causing the situation you’re trying to remedy and why it’s problematic. Describe the situation, why it’s bad for the constituents you serve, and what the barriers are to fixing it. If you set it up right, your work will be directly responsive – overcoming barriers and tackling the causes of the situation.
  2. Why is this important? Again, this might be an obvious question, but I’ve seen many problem statements that fail to answer it well. I’m sure you care about the problem and I’m sure you think it’s important, but why should I as a funder care? Why does this problem matter to the things I care about? Think about your audience and consider the broader impacts of the problem. Another way to frame the question is “so what?” Keep asking that question until you get to a compelling reason your audience will care about as much as you do.
  3. Why now? Funders have lots of proposals in front of them, and usually a limited budget for grantmaking. There are others who will also make the case that their work is important, so why should they support your work this year and not next year? You can frame this in two ways: either state why the situation is so dire it demands action now (crisis), or state why the conditions are ripe now for action (opportunity). Either way, make the case for why your work needs to happen now (or soon) to maximize impact.

Remember that you are not your target audience – you know more, you believe more, and you probably care more. Crafting a compelling argument requires understanding your audience and using solid reasoning. And it never hurts to test it out with people outside your organization – loyal donors, committed funders, or volunteers.

Whatever you do, make certain you have a convincing problem statement. It’s the first and critical step to garnering support for your work!

case for support, communications, fundraising, messaging, planning, strategy, theory of change

The key document your organization is missing

In my experience, most organizations have at least two key documents: a strategic plan and a fundraising plan. A strategic plan explains what you hope to achieve and how you plan to achieve it, and a fundraising plan explains how you plan to raise the money you need to execute your strategic plan.

More sophisticated organizations have two other important documents. The first is a theory of change, which describes the context, rationale, and purpose for your organization. The second is a communications plan, which describes how your organization plans to advance your program goals by building a base of support.

Yet even with these documents to guide the organization’s work, several organizations still suffer from a common problem: an inability to consistently articulate their organization’s value. It is often difficult for them to clearly state why the work they do is unique, important, and worthy of your support. And frequently different members of the organization – staff, board members, volunteers – will talk about the organization differently. Many of the organizations I work with come to me claiming they are not all on the same page about who they are, why they exist, and the work they do.

And this is a big problem. An unclear or inconsistent message about your work makes it difficult to build a base of support. People have a hard time getting behind your organization if it is unclear what it does, and it’s hard to present a strong brand that is both compelling and recognizable if there are lots of different messages out there about who you are and what you do. Perhaps most importantly, not being able to articulate your unique value makes it challenging to solicit funding. After all, if you can’t clearly state why your organization is so important, why should someone give money to you instead of one of the many other organizations out there?

The document most organizations need (but rarely have) is a case for support, also called a case statement. A case for support is a brief, clear, donor-oriented document that states why you need – and deserve – funding. It is the source document for all your fundraising and communications activities, and it is the prayer book that gets everyone in your organization singing from the same hymnal. It takes your theory of change and your strategic plan and synthesizes them into a statement about your organization’s unique value that you can use to build support for your mission. And it should be the precursor to any fundraising and communications planning; the case for support says how much you need and why you deserve it, while the fundraising plan says how you will raise it and the communications plan says how you will build a base of support to achieve your mission.

A case for support is just that: an argument for why someone should support your organization. We all need support to achieve our missions, so shouldn’t we all have a case for support?

For more on a case for support – what goes into a good case for support, how to develop one, and how to make it compelling – check out The Foundation Center’s upcoming webinar, “The Nonprofit Rosetta Stone: Making Your Case for Support” on Tuesday, March 31st. Register today!

fundraising, logic model, messaging, strategy

Are you including funds for M&E?

With limited time and resources, nonprofit organizations are often forced to make tough decisions. Given the importance of the work they do – to those who do the work, to the constituents they serve, and to their donors and funders – it takes priority over everything else.

In fact, nonprofits are so busy trying to get the work done that when it comes to monitoring and evaluation (M&E), they often choose to do the work rather than stop to reflect and measure their impact. The result is a focus on outputs (the products or services provided, e.g. number of trees planted) rather than outcomes (a change in the way people or the system behave, e.g. reduced rates of deforestation). After all, it’s easier to measure what the organization has done in terms of activities than what it has achieved in terms of impact.

The problem is that M&E is an essential part of doing the work well. At the most fundamental level, measuring the work helps an organization to learn and improve the work it does, so it can do it both more efficiently and more effectively. It also helps an organization make the case that it does in fact make a difference in the world – that its work is actually solving a problem and it isn’t just spinning its wheels with no lasting effect. Organizations who take the time to monitor and evaluate their work also demonstrate a sophistication in their management and approach that helps them to rise above organizations who don’t prioritize learning and growth. And all of this strengthens an organization’s case for support, which in turn helps it attract more funding for its work.

Of course, even if an organization wants to monitor and evaluate its work, it doesn’t always have the resources to invest in it. Donors provide funds to get the work done but not to do the M&E required to improve it. While an organization can do some basic M&E on a tight budget, it certainly helps to have some financial support – as well as the encouragement from donors.

And donors should be investing in an organization’s M&E. If nothing else, monitoring and evaluating the work helps donors to see and understand the result of their investment. For foundations who have broader strategies to solve a problem, it can help them to measure their progress towards achieving their own goals in the field, as well as better understand what’s happening in the field in ways that could inform their own strategies. And instead of running their own evaluations, foundations should have the grantees do the M&E, for two reasons: (1) because they’re out in the field and closer to the work, grantees can provide more accurate information; and (2) it builds grantees’ own capacity to do M&E and to continuously learn and improve their work.

Since M&E is so valuable to both organizations and their funders, it should be a part of project budgets. M&E can be a line item for a dedicated staff member, or a consultant to help design a system the organization itself can run, or even just a percentage of the grant. Organizations should be asking for M&E funds, and funders should encourage their grantees to include M&E in their project budgets.

The best part about building M&E into the project budget is that it sets expectations that M&E is a part of doing the work – not something apart from it. Because it is part of the work: learning and evaluation is an important feedback loop that keeps the work on track, focused, and ultimately effective.

There shouldn’t be a choice between doing the work or measuring it. They should be one and the same.