Planning for Fundraising: Unbundling and Recombining*
William M. Weber, President

Changing Planning Models

A new kind of nonprofit planning (strategic, comprehensive, or otherwise) has recently emerged in the wake of well intentioned, but relatively inflexible, traditional planning.

As the nonprofit sector is in the midst of a transformation of planning modes, there are no generally agreed upon key terms but, for purpose of this article, we can call the emerging model “unbundled and recombined” planning.

It all began about a generation ago, with the widespread and hopeful idea that nonprofits could benefit from a written strategic plan that incorporates vision, market research, internal assessment, rigorous goals setting, and a commitment to implementation that results in robust fundraising outcomes and is revised every three to five years. But this was fool's gold.

Fact is, an immediate opportunity or threat spurred every one of those strategic planning efforts. A change in leadership, budget shortfall, competitive threats, succession planning, dysfunctional staffing, or a possible capital campaign have been the impetus for almost every “comprehensive” planning effort.

What's more, these “precipitating events” then spawned a limited, focused, and circumscribed planning effort. As a result, what may have been termed as strategic or comprehensive was, more often than not, a visioning retreat, market research (e.g. feasibility study), or internal audit, often minimizing implementation and evaluation components.

Further, the then dominant model greatly diminished the planning already in place. Of course, small and large non profits already engage in not only multiple, but also simultaneous, planning processes with different degrees of rigor and impact. These processes include annual budgeting, accreditation, program development, technology and facilities planning, etc. As a consequence, anyone planning for fundraising must acknowledge that substantial resources (time and money) have already been allocated and could support or inhibit any new initiative.

In addition, this mechanistic approach led participants to expect a single plan, with a fully integrated beginning and end… and they were sorely disappointed to find their plans were rarely successfully implemented.

Unbundling and Recombining

By necessity, enterprising nonprofits began to “unbundle and recombine” planning components. Case in point: the top-performer in its peer group features a “strategic planning” committee which is actually its facilities committee, now co-chaired by the development committee leadership. Each component's leadership is fully aware of the others, but each has a separate budget and timeline. Indeed, unbundling differs greatly past strategic planning models. Although this may not be “the way planning is supposed to work,” it works amazingly well for this institution.

Why? Because the process itself is bigger than what's in writing; i.e., the plan. (Understood is that certain issues may need to be addressed at a later time):

• Multiple planning documents will have been issued at different times (a “strategic plan” might really only be a board vision statement, but the unbundled plan might also include a branding study, and staff self-assessment of programs, all with different deadlines).

• Recombining the components is contextual. For example, a fundraising-driven plan would focus first on prospects, and move to the case for support and leadership. Infrastructure, including staffing, technology and communications, would logically follow suit.

Another nonprofit's strategic plan is, in effect, a two or three paragraph “board vision statement” (used for public circulation). What one might think of as the core of a management plan (used by staff), are their one- and three-year budgeting processes… coupled with a loosely related self-standing technology and branding audit.

Note that bundled planning begins with a vision and proceeds to market research, internal assessment, etc. with one comprehensive plan, schedule, and budget. Conversely, an unbundled approach would first identify the precipitating issue and then design the planning approach to effectively respond to it. Then it would consider recombining the precipitating issue with one or more of the remaining components, including ad hoc activities.

In this context, practitioners of unbundled planning have no trouble acknowledging the multiple methods of planning already in place. Wisely, they cull from the best of the methods; ignoring them or sweeping them aside has a heavy cost. No optimum starting point or time to start exists; you can start anytime and in any way (for example, you can start with a self-assessment before addressing vision).

Multiple calendars and budget require a deft conductors' hand, with ready access to relevant data and the ability to influence outcomes, e.g. updating the campaign case statement because of unexpected impact of an IT study. In this context, this unbundled approach provides a language and perspective from which “fundraising planning” takes a lesson from “strategic planning” and vice versa. For example, most traditional planning efforts don't see funding as a way to get donor input or buy in; instead fundraising is often seen as a way to balance the budget.

Conversely, fundraising plans often minimize or fail to acknowledge the impact of fundraising on the rest of management and governance. For instance, a hospital board may need to put out certain financial fires, and delay the campaign for good reason, much to the mystification and consternation of their goal-oriented fundraiser.

Only through substantial effort can you recombine an unbundled plan. It requires the ability to balance long- and or short-term priorities, motivate and communicate with distinct and audiences, and understand that no one way will work. But doesn't that in and of itself strike you as an indispensable planning goal?

 

* Published by Association of Fundraising Professionals, Massachusetts Chapter ( www.afpmass.org ) in their newsletter, “News and Views” of Summer 2008.