Category: theory of change

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!

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.