Currently viewing the category: "Nonprofit Managment"

The Critical Need for Program Accountability & Evaluation

On By

Lately, I have been doing a lot of thinking and reading about nonprofit evaluation. As part of an evaluation team for a project, I have also been working directly with a range of nonprofits, providing coaching and guidance on evaluation design. I have come to believe that program accountability and evaluation is an area of conceptual and practical disconnect both within nonprofit agencies and between nonprofit agencies and the government and philanthropic organizations that fund them. In this blog I want to begin a conversation about the role of evaluation & program accountability in nonprofit organizations and in the next blog discuss how nonprofits can (and should) use evaluation to achieve greater social impact.

nonprofit accountability word trendAs a starting point, I want to create a visual for the concept of nonprofit program accountability. Among the technology assets in the empire of Google is a tool called NGram Viewer. Using this tool, one can enter a word or concept and graph the use of the word over time (using as a reference the database of Google Books). I recently used NGram Viewer to graph the concept of nonprofit program accountability. As you can see in the figure, nonprofit accountability first emerged as a concept in the late 1970’s and bumped along until the early 2000’s. It was at that point that the term began a steep incline with nonprofit program accountability becoming a living, breathing, much talked about idea. Note: please don’t overestimate the value of this word picture as I am not suggesting there is any rigor to the underlying data –its just a illustrating concept. With such a steep growth, one would expect nonprofit program accountability and evaluation to be a priority within nonprofit organizations. Enter conceptual and practical disconnect.

Quick story. I was once talking with a nonprofit board about program accountability and evaluation. At one point in the conversation, a board member sitting back with his arms crossed asked, “is there any reason to think our funders have a problem without performance?” The response was “no, our funders are happy.” The second question of the board member was, “Does the agency staff think we’re doing what we need to be doing?” The response to this question was definitive, “Yeah, we’re doing great work.” The third question began to sound like the case was being built question by question, “So, is anyone asking us for greater program accountability and evaluation?” The third answer was more tentative, “um, no, we aren’t being asked for anything new.” With an air of pronouncement came the board members final rhetorical thought. “So why are we having this conversation about program accountability and evaluation?” Needless to say, program evaluation got little traction that evening.

When we turn to the literature, we fare no better. For example,  a series of articles published by smart academic  Joanne G. Carman and her colleagues, support the notion that the practice of program accountability and evaluation varies tremendously among nonprofits. Abstracting one statement from the studies illustrates the theme of her and her colleagues work.

“The picture that emerges is one that is decidedly mixed, illustrating a range of behaviors that challenges the current perception that most, if not all, funders are asking nonprofit organizations for more evaluation and performance measurement data.”(1) - emphasis mine

Even more recently, The Center for Effective Philanthropy published a report titled, “Grantees Report Back: Helpful Reporting and Evaluation Processes” that concluded, “On average, grantees do not find current reporting and evaluation processes to be very helpful in strengthening their organizations and programs.” In differentiating the use of evaluation and reporting, the study concluded that “Grantees who report discussing their report or evaluation with their funder perceive the reporting or evaluation process to be more helpful — yet nearly half of grantees say no discussion occurred.” -emphasis mine.

The conceptual and practical disconnect between program accountability and evaluation and the perceived usefulness of such efforts is clear. While we talk about nonprofit accountability and evaluation, the practice of such efforts is uneven and inconsistent. If this is the state of field practice, the next logical question we need to ask is “what are the barriers that get in the way of program evaluation?”

First is the wall. Money –or more appropriately the lack of it. Many will say that the disconnect between evaluation talk and practice is directly connected to the lack of resources. “We can’t afford to do evaluation.” is the typical response to the lack program accountability and evaluation data. However, I suggest that you can’t afford not to. I personally believe that the day is rapidly approaching when funding agencies and donors begin to say, “The emperor has no clothes.” I have written before that, at the organizational level, transparency and accountability are becoming increasingly important. Without supporting program level accountability and evaluation data, I also believe that nonprofit organizations will come under greater and greater skepticism. So while at face value the barrier of “no money” may be true, the wall must come down and every organization must make it a priority to dismantle this barrier. A final thought is that the wall of “no money” actually hides the real barriers to program accountability and evaluation, of which, I believe there are three:

Skills, Support, Confidence & Value: I believe that a significant barrier that prevents many organizations from seriously addressing program accountability and evaluation is found in the alchemy of “lacking skills” in evaluation and “lacking the support” to conduct evaluation. Too often the leadership of organizations fails to invest in developing the organizational skills and support to conduct evaluation. Skill development and support does not have to be costly. There are a variety of online resources that are a Google search away. Relationships can be built with local colleges and universities or seek out a qualified consultant.  Finally, if you need money, then raise it. Enough of the excuses.

The second part of this barrier is the lack of confidence and values. Some have labeled these two variables as core motivation. If one understands the value of a task and has confidence that they can do the task then there a greater likelihood that the task will become a priority. Putting these pieces together, to overcome this barrier, an organization should develop an approach to understanding and resourcing evaluation that builds confidence and create a culture and an organizational value that supports evaluation and the use of the resulting data.

Missing or Misaligned Incentives Another barrier to program evaluation and accountability is found in the area of incentives.  To start, ask yourself some inquiry questions such as

  • When was the last time that your organization celebrated a data report that demonstrated program effectiveness?
  • When was the last time you presented program evaluation results in a public venue?
  • When was the last time that your major funder provided you with adequate resources to conduct an evaluation?
  • Have you ever been penalized for having or not having evaluation and accountability results?
  • Has anyone ever asked for your program accountability and evaluation results?

These are a just a sample of questions that can be used to probe where the incentives for evaluation are (and are not) for your organization. Exploring the incentives, lack of incentives, or misalignment of incentives is another way to, not only identify an evaluation barrier, but to dismantle it. As a result of this inquiry, an agency should clearly be able to identify positive incentives for program evaluation and, if they can’t be identified, they should be created.

Fear that We are the Emperor: Perhaps the largest barrier to program accountability and transparency is the fear that evaluation outcomes would reveal that we are the proverbial emperor. “What if we measure and the results are negative?” can be a paralyzing specter if our mindset is one of fear. However if we want to develop ourselves into a socially innovative nonprofit organization we must dismantle fear and embrace inquiry. We need to understand that program accountability and evaluation is the source of power and empowerment. Without evaluation how can we improve or measure progress? Program evaluation is the stuff that makes program giants, changes things, and disrupts unmet needs.   Conversely the lack of data simply perpetuates the myth of nonprofits as nice organizations doing good in the community.

What I am arguing for this is post is the need for nonprofit organizations to consider their relationship to program accountability and evaluation. The literature and practice might suggest that the field of the social-citizen sector talks about accountability and evaluation but at the same time, also suggests that we have been less than successful at operationalizing that talk with any consistency. However, I would argue that this is case where field practice does not matter. I believe that socially innovative nonprofit organizations are those that invest in the development and implementation of a solid plan for program accountability and evaluation. As illustrated by the Venn diagram, organizational strength and impact is more durable in the presence of a solid evaluation and accountability approach that is connected to strategic and resource planning.

Program accountability and evaluation strengthens internal practice as a focus of continuous improvement and serves as an external benchmark to proclaim an organizational commitment to excellence. As nonprofit agencies continue to look for ways to innovate in a resource-constrained environment, building and implementing strong strategic plans, resource plans, and evaluation plans will position agencies well to effectively meet compelling community needs.

A always, your thoughts are welcome.

(1) Carman, JG. (2009). Nonprofits, Funders, and Evaluation Program Accountability in Action. The American Review of Public Administration 39: 374-390.


Social Ecology as a Model for Change

On By

I started my social-citizen sector career over 20 years ago in California with freshly printed Masters Degree in Public Health. I graduated about the same time that California passed Proposition 99, a tax on tobacco products that generated over $100 million a year for tobacco control in schools, communities, in counties and at the state level. I found my first professional position in Orange County Health Care Agency helping to launch a multifaceted program to reduce tobacco use across the county. It was nothing short of a thriving sandbox of innovation that allowed us to implement multiple strategies of direct service programs, media messaging, and public policy change. We worked with schools, neighborhoods, community agencies, and even private worksites. In graduate school we called this approach a socio-ecological approach. In the field we called it taking on the tobacco industry. The result of this approach was a sea-change in the health of the public. Smoking among adults was slashed by 35% in less than 10 years and per capita cigarette consumption decreased by 60% (see reference). California became a model for the nation and I was fortunate to have spent over 5 years working in the program not only in Orange County but at the regional and state level as well.

My experience cemented in my practice, the relationship between the system (or ecology) and social change. As illustrated in the figure (see reference), the socio-ecological model is used by academics and theorists to describe the complexity of social change. In short, the model suggests that there are a number of concentric circles of intervention required to create social change. I like this representation of the socio-ecological model because it evokes the imagery of a pebble being dropped in a body of still water creating larger and larger ripples of change.

Starting with the core of the individual, and rippling through social relationships, families, institutions and community, a socio-ecological approach to change ultimately creates a new understanding of community norms and social policy. In my work with nonprofits, philanthropy, and government, I often see organizations excel in one, or perhaps two, circles of the model but rare is the organization that thinks about its programs and services across the entire socio-ecological system.

At the same time, the word performance continues to gain momentum among nonprofits, philanthropy and government agencies. The performance trend is moving at an accelerated speed and suggests that attention will increasingly focus on impact and outcomes across nonprofits, philanthropy, and government organizations. The democratization of data coupled with the proliferation of options to invest philanthropic resources will force the social-citizen sector to become savvy about tying their need for capital to the outcomes that they produce. So theory of change and performance collide. Organizations that can lead from a position of articulating a theory of change that is based on social ecology will be better positioned to approach donors for resources. Rather than asking for funds to “keep the doors open” a nonprofit can approach donors as investors, inviting them to invest in the nonprofits programs and services that will create social impact at the community level.

So the question that emerges is, “how does one think about creating a socio-ecological change?” I believe that there are several strategic domains of action that an agency should explore to build a social systems – social ecology approach.

Create an Audacious Goal: Jim Collins in his infamous books and articles related to the “Good to Great” research, popularized the concept of the Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG). In short a BHAG “is clear and compelling, serves as a unifying focal point of effort, and acts as a catalyst for team spirit. It has a clear finish line, so the organization can know when it has achieved the goal; people like to shoot for finish lines. A BHAG engages people – it reaches out and grabs them. It is tangible, energizing, highly focused. People get it right away; it takes little or no explanation.” (see reference) The social-citizen sector is in desperate need of nonprofit leading willing to embrace BHAGs and, I believe that it is only when an agency embraces a BHAG does a social systems – social ecology approach become compelling.

Create a Clear Social Impact Model: Elsewhere I have fully described several approaches to developing a social impact model (here, here, & here). In this post it is important to simply reiterate that an intentional model of social impact is one of the core organizing documents for every nonprofit. Whether you use a logic model, social impact framework, pathway model or some hybrid approach, any external funding agency, donor, or social investor should be able to see your model of impact.

Create a Network: When considering the concentric circles of the socio-ecological model it can be intimidating, if not overwhelming to think about. I have had nonprofit leaders say, “there is no way our agency can embrace such an ambitious change agenda.” My response is to agree with the premise that socio-ecological change is beyond the reach of many individual agencies but that organizations as a network have tremendous power. In fact, creating a socio-ecological network holds tremendous potential to address compelling community needs. When a network of agencies are committed to the core processes of communication, coordination, and collaboration the network effects magnify individual contributions of the network members.

Create Accountability: With a goal, model, and network in place, the next strategic domain to consider is describing how the agency will be accountable to the goal. The three standard measures are process (did we deliver what we said we would deliver?), quality (how well did we deliver what we said we would deliver?) and outcome (did what we deliver make a difference?). Evaluation, is essential to s socio-ecological approach because without evaluation, there can be no confidence in the program impact. Stories and anecdotes are increasingly ineffective in justifying the support for social-citizen sector programs. Evidence matters.

Communicate the Results: Finally, completing an organizational focus on the social ecology, it is important to build effective methods to help others understand what you are doing. Communications planning should begin early and continue as an ongoing story. The better the community understands how your mission, vision, programs, services and outcomes connect with a systemic model of change, the more successful you will be in building lasting support for your organization.

Placing these action areas together, the contours of a strategic process become clearer. Without a robust and organizing theory of change, many nonprofits string together related programs and services as opportunities emerge. While in the past, a patchwork strategy may have served the social-citizen sector, such a strategy is less sustainable and durable in today’s increasingly performance-based context. By focusing myopically on a the social ecology and systems-change, nonprofits have the opportunity to strengthen its internal mission, vision, programs and services as well as strengthen the community that supports it.

As always, your comments are welcome.

References
California Tobacco ControlUpdate 2009
Image Adapted from: Centre for Addictions Research of BC
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building Your Company’s Vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 65-77.


Nonprofit Ratings, Accountability & Transparency

On By

Like many community-engaged citizens during the last few days of December, I thinking about end-of-year giving to nonprofit organizations (okay it is not all altruistic, I’m also thinking a little about taxes).  During the rest of the year, I work formally and informally with many nonprofits helping them think strategically about capacity, strategy and resource planning.  This post occurs at the intersection of my dual roles of engaged-citizen and nonprofit-consultant and is spurred by two articles that I read recently.  The first article was a simple list of Oregon’s 20 Worst Charities – 2010 operating in Oregon that was published by the Oregon Attorney General’s Office.  In the list of charities (none of which are Oregon-based), the ratio of program costs to administrative costs was the single measure used to determine effectiveness.  The article referenced the Better Business Bureau’s charity standard in support the idea that effective nonprofit budget must divide with no more (and preferably much less) than 35% administrative costs with the balance of 65% or more devoted to program costs. In follow up to the report, the Willamette Week used the “single ratio” concept and banged out an article titled Flabby Charities. In short, the article profiled ten local charities failed the ratio test and quoting someone from another nonprofit rating firm Charity Navigator implied, that the ten nonprofits are “underperforming according to industry standards.”   Is it really that black and white?  Now don’t get me wrong, a nonprofit that only devotes 3%, 6% or 10% of its revenues to programs and the rest to administrative costs is likely a predatory agency that is well deserving of the attribution of “worst.”  In all fairness to the Better Business Bureau and Charity Navigator, neither of their rating models are based on a single ratio as represented in the simplified writings of the articles.  Indeed, there is a growing chorus of voices that question the wisdom of basing an assessment of a nonprofit on narrow fiscal criterion.  Such an over simplistic view of nonprofit effectiveness borders on mythology that is disingenuous and does a disservice to both the public and nonprofit agencies.

The reality is that while finances are important evaluation criteria for nonprofit effectiveness, the impact of the agency on the social need and the organization’s strategy matters much more, when judging the relative worthiness of nonprofit agencies. Indeed, it is puzzling to me that the Charity Navigator expert quoted in the Willamette Week article would perpetuate the mythology of the “program to administrative cost ratio” when just this year, Charity Navigator began a revamping process to its rating system where the new rating weights include Effectiveness and Results as 50% of the score, Financial indicators as 33% of the score (overhead 10% and working capital 23%) and Accountability/ Transparency as the remaining 17% (source: external link).   Further, judging the relative merit of a nonprofit solely on quantifiable data, removes the “nonprofit narrative” from the assessment process.  The human story is part of organizational effectiveness. On this latter point, a relatively new organization, Great Nonprofits is building a rating system based on the narrative of crowds telling the story of nonprofits. Putting these pieces together, the point becomes clear.  It is a terrible oversimplification that says a “program to administrative cost ratio” determines the merit of a nonprofit.

So, the question that remains is if nonprofit worth is not about a single ratio then what contributes to building an unassailable reputation and rating?  I would like to suggest several components that nonprofits might pursue to pass the highest scrutiny of a due diligence process.

Build on the Existing tools: While the Better Business Bureau’s charity standards and Charity Navigator are still imperfect, their methodologies and vetting processes are worth understanding and, if feasible, even participating in.  In addition to these rating systems, I would also encourage nonprofits to participate in Great Nonprofits which presents a very intriguing community building potential as well as register their agencies with Guidestar.  Finally, I would learn about nonprofit rating system of newcomer GiveWell.

Build a Strategic Budget:  While nonprofits need to create annual operating budget within the constraints of projected revenues, it is also important that that a nonprofit also builds a strategic budget that recognizes the true cost of operations and capacity. I outlined the concept of strategic budgets in more detail in another post (here) so I will simply reiterate that a clear understanding of true operating and administrative costs is an essential strategy for resource development.

Build a Strategic Budget and Strategic Plan Context:  I assert that the cost of operations and capacity is only relevant in the context of strategy.  What many fail to understand is that some operating and administrative costs are relatively fixed.  For example, hiring an experienced executive director to grow a small nonprofit or hiring a development director to develop a comprehensive fundraising strategy come at market rate and there are limited degrees of freedom in salary range. A smaller nonprofit making such an expensive hire will see, in the short-term, their administrative and operating costs spike beyond 35% of total revenue.  But if the investment in such a hire can be placed in the context of a 3-5 year strategic plan that doubles the size of the agency then the high administrative and operating cost become understandable and proportionally will decrease over time.  In short, cost in context matters.

Build Fearless Transparency and Accountability:  When in doubt make it public.  I believe that nonprofits benefit when they put out as much data in the open as they can.  At minimum a nonprofit agency needs to be public about: its strategic plan; who is on its board of directors and advisory committees; its IRS Form 990s & IRS Letter of Determination (they are available online already); its audits or fiscal reviews; its annual report; and its program evaluation data. Other steps that can enhance transparency might include a monthly blog by an agency’s executive director; and periodic summaries of board activity and major board decision (maybe as part of blog posts).  In an age of increasing accountability a nonprofit’s transparency matters.

Build an Honest Profile of Program Impact: While arguably the hardest component to do well; having compelling data and story about your agency’s impact is perhaps your best defense to criticism that you spend too much money on administrative costs and overhead.  Many agencies track services delivered yet fail to communicate this data on a routine basis.  Far fewer are the agencies that communicate clear and demonstrative program outcome data.  At the end of the day, the worthiness of a nonprofit agency needs to be judged on outcome data supported by story.  Increasingly donors will ask that that nonprofits demonstrate that they are meeting its mission and, as a foundation representative I was talking to recently, succinctly stated it, “no data – no confidence.”

While I believe that the two articles I referenced at the opening of this post were simplified stories to a much larger and more complex reality, they serve as a wake-up call, not only to the agencies named in the stories, but to all nonprofits.  Are we documenting our story in a way that is open and transparent enough to endure scrutiny and oversimplified accusations?  Can we readily point media, donors and citizens to internal or external rating systems that help the public have confidence enough to invest in us?  Nonprofits that invest resources and work proactively to be on the leading edge of demonstrating effectiveness, transparency, and accountability will be able to answer yes to these questions.  For the rest, what are you waiting for?

 

Facilitating for Sustainability: Thinking Beyond Fundraising

On By

In my consulting business I get calls from people who say, “I found your name through a search for fundraising consultants. Could you tell me your experience with managing a special event, capital campaign, or ________ (fill in the blank).”  At which time I get to distinguish the concept of sustainability planning from the concept of fundraising planning.   With such potential clients, I try to cut to the chase, saying something like “If you are looking for someone to help you tactically pull off a silent auction or help you move 100 “prospects” up the ladder of engagement, let me refer you to one or two of my colleagues.  However, if you are looking for someone to help you think more deeply about organizational sustainability and resource development planning, then let’s talk a little more.”  While I have written a few other posts on this topic, specifically here, here, and arguably here, in this post I want to help nonprofits to think beyond fundraising and to consider sustainability planning as a potentially more powerful management tool.

As we get started, I want to be up front and provide my working definition of sustainability.  “Sustainability is the systemic and systematic development of program and agency capacity that produces measurable outcomes, successfully navigates change, and demonstrates rational growth over time.” Sustainability planning therefore is based on four cornerstone concepts:

Systemic and Systematic Development: Sustainability planning is inherently based on a systems view of the nonprofit agency and the local “ecosystem” in which the agency operates.  Most effective when intentional and thematic, sustainability planning must address the development of the whole organizational ecology. In other words, the external ecology (i.e., local economy, grant-maker funding patterns, the political landscape) and the internal ecology (i.e., employee compensation, technology infrastructure and marketing/communications) directly effect an agency’s ability to design strategies that ensure financial resources needed for program success.

Measurable Outcomes: A basic premise of sustainability is that the agency and its programs must produce outcomes that are documented, quantifiable, and worth continuing.  Social impact matters and impact alone is the basis for sustainability.  If an agency can’t measure and demonstrate the worth of its programs and services, then it is directly or indirectly violating the trust of these investing in your programs and services.

Navigating Change:  The pace of change in this new economic “normal” demands that nonprofit agencies’ have the agility to navigate change both in response to and in anticipation of the ongoing and rapid realignment of community resources.  “Demand is up and revenues are stretched taunt” will remain the dominate reality for some time to come. Flexibility and adaptation build on the foundation of strategy is a critical component of sustainability.  Rather than “locking down” a static revenue development strategy, an organization needs to strategically understand  its larger funding model and, within that model, invest in rapid cycle testing (external link) of new resource development strategies.

Demonstrating Rational Growth: Sustainability is only tenable when the pace of growth can be assimilated by the organization.  Growing too fast or conversely too slow can be detrimental to the health of a nonprofit.  Finding a growth pattern that can be managed in the context and culture of the organization is also important to sustainability.

In other words,  these four principles that define sustainability move an agency beyond mapping out fundraising activities for the coming year. Sustainability planning is the larger strategic conversation that considers not only revenue projections but also the underlying framework and strategy for maintaining and managing organizational growth.    Unfortunately many nonprofit organizations uncouple organizational strategic planning and fundraising planning –facilitating a separate process for each.  However, it is increasingly less tenable to think about revenues apart from strategy.  Nonprofit leaders must excel at systems thinking and integration.  This challenges the traditional thinking that there are three separate but related processes: strategic planning, operational planning and fundraising calendar development.  Strategic, operational and fundraising planning need to fuse into a single hybrid planning process.  This process sets a clear vision that is supported by integrated outcome driven strategies for program and service delivery; capacity development; and revenue development (fundraising).  Such a plan must be intentional about opportunity management and create the necessary degrees of freedom required for adapting to the changing economic and programmatic landscape.

In the context of sustainability planning, the facilitation and process leadership that is required is led by a strategy focus and is supported and complemented by tactical fundraising skills. Planning for events, building donor databases, and writing grants are important  fundraising strategies but fundraising strategies should not be confused with sustainability planning.  Rather than such formula-driven metrics as donor conversion or event “return on investment,” a facilitation process for sustainability planning is strategy driven and anchored to the longterm success of the agency. Forward thinking nonprofit agencies are increasingly investing their limited time and resources thinking beyond fundraising to models of sustainability.

Using a Strategic Plan for Capacity Development

On By

.

This post is one of a continuing series on strategic planning and is based on my work facilitating strategic planning with nonprofit agencies. In strategic planning one of my initial conversations with an agency executive director will invariably include a discussion about the use of the strategic plan following its development.  The savvy executive director will describe the concrete ways in which the plan will be used to support agency governance.  S/he will describe the use of performance measures connected to the plan goals and strategies and the specific tools that help the board and staff manage their progress on implementing the plan.  More common however, the the executive director that laments how the exercise of strategic planning rarely impacts the agency in a deep and substantive way.  In this scenario, I am often asked, “how can this strategic planning process be different?”  In this post, I wanted to review the fundamentals of how use the process of strategic planning to increase organizational capacity.

.

The obvious direct impact of strategic planning is the written strategy that is created.  At its most basic level in creation of a strategic plan is the DNA of capacity development.  Done well, a strategic plan offers a roadmap for the growth and  development of an organization. With intentional effort to keep the plan present and alive using simple performance monitoring tools, (like a dashboard or scorecard) an agency directly benefits from its investment in strategic planning.  However, I believe the face value of a strategic plan is only the beginning of the use of a strategic plan. Some other layers of using strategic planning to build capacity include the following:

.

Board, Staff and Stakeholder Development: While textbook strategic planning can be a very pedestrian process of assessing the current internal and external environment, developing priorities and strategies, and writing a document, I believe the potential of strategic planning is to use the process to develop the energy, passion, skills and knowledge of board, staff and stakeholders.   Strategic planning is about engagement and focus of people and not just about data.  In planning a strategic planning effort, one of the framing questions should be “at the end of this process, how will out staff, board and stakeholders be different?” If this question is pursued intentionally then strategic planning offers and agency to develop the understanding, passion, and commitment of board, staff and stakeholders.  In this context, the planning process can and should include empowerment and learning community approaches. Indeed, a strategic planning process is successful to the degree that it creates a deeper understanding of the role and function of the agency in solving compelling social needs.

.

Strategic Dialogue:  Having facilitated the development of numerous strategic plans, I find some of the greatest energy in the process comes as I work with an organization to gather “outside” perspectives.  While not commonly done, I am a strong believer that  organizations benefit from seeking advice and perspective from outside of the agency.  Insights coming from other agencies working on the same issue, from funders, donors, community partners and even agency clients, yield not only valuable strategic planning insights but often begins the process of dialogue.  Once the strategic plan is developed, I encourage agencies to continue the conversation with their funders, donors, community partners, and clients by sharing the strategic directions of the plan.  Some agencies bristle at the concept of sharing such sensitive, internal knowledge and reference the for profit sector’s contention that strategy is proprietary and needs to be guarded. I would counter that being transparent about strategy is actually strategic in the social sector.  Sharing knowledge about strategy makes explicit the position, direction and focus of an agency and can be used to define a larger community or regional agenda.  Engaging in such a dialogue with partners, funders, donors, clients and the community at large fosters collaboration and increases the potential of creating a network of strategies that can improve the collective social impact of all stakeholders.

.

Field Building: Paired with the concept of strategic dialogue, a third use of a strategic plan is that it holds the potential to improve the field of practice.  Strategic Planning offers a unique and compressed exercise in evaluation, innovation and system design.  When strategic planning is resourced, well-designed and not simply a rote exercise it is a laboratory experience that has both internal and external dimensions.  Too often a strategic planning process is myopically inward content with asking the question, “how do we succeed in fulfilling our mission?”  While there is no denying that strategic planning is designed to create an organizational future, strategic planning also influences the collective future of the field of practice in which the agency operates.  In addition to how does the organizational “we” succeed there is also a dimension of how does the collective “we” succeed.  One outcome of strategic planning could be the free sharing of lessons learned.  By giving away your knowledge, you enable the the social sector to collectively enhance the knowledge base and field of practice.

.

Taken together, strategic planning becomes a layered process of developing capacity.  Clearly and unequivocally the foundation of strategic planning is the creation of an organizational pathway to the future.  However, if layers of “human capital” development, strategic dialogue, and field building are added to the foundation of strategy, a strategic plan becomes a powerful tool to expand agency capacity. Facilitating a strategic planning process is more than following one of any number of strategic planning textbooks.  Strategic planning is large, shaping and capacity-building and it is the responsibility of facilitators to “bring life” to a strategic planning process.  I believe, it is only through this larger lens of capacity development do nonprofits build meaningful strategic plans.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

← Previous Entries Next Entries →