Over the past several months I have been participating in the mentoring program with my local chapter of AFP. The majority of the meetings with my mentee have focused on helping her articulate a case for support and building a philanthropic plan for the organization’s integrated strategic plan.

To extend the value of the work done with my mentee to others looking to improve their strategic planning skills, we will  spend the next several weeks breaking down the parts of a philanthropic plan. The philanthropic plan typically consists of five basic parts. These parts build on one another as your plan progresses to give your strategy clarity. The early sections give detail so that the latter sections can concentrate on providing a concise road-map of actionable items to achieve your development goals.

As with grammar, these parts are listed below to simply to provide structure and a general guideline, but rules are made to be broken (provided you understand the rules and the reason for them). These parts include:

• Organizational Context – mission, vision, history, values
• Philanthropic Environment – fundraising resource audit, SWOT analysis
• Philanthropic Goals – strategic, financial, timetable
• Philanthropic Strategy – cases for support (audience, case, and implementation)
• Benchmarks – staff performance metrics, strategic, financial

Next: Organizational Context

All too often well intentioned staff or board members will come to you, the seasoned fundraising professional asking for help securing funds for a need not originally in the strategic plan and more specifically, the integrated development plan.

These requests are usually for last minute programs, non-budgeted expenses, “silver bullet” fundraising events, and my personal favorite consultant fees… upfront payment for somebody promising to write grant requests.

When these requests come across my desk I’ll typically ask these questions:

Is the (insert urgent need here) worth alienating the donor most likely to fund the request? Not usually. If you have been properly cultivating and stewarding your donors you might have somebody interested in helping with urgent needs. If this is true, be sure to link the funding need to your mission and provide a clear case for support that resonates with your donor’s personal interests.

Why wasn’t this in our original budget? Usually last minute financial needs are not considered in the original budget because they are not essential to your ability to satisfy the organizational mission. If the emerging need is critical for organizational success, ask yourself (and the board) “what can we cut from the planned budget to fund this unplanned item?”

If we pay upfront for somebody to write grant requests, how do we keep them accountable for meeting performance benchmarks? You can’t. Staff performance should be built into the strategic plan and should be reviewed by the board at least quarterly. Adding staff or consultants to the payroll without clear performance expectations, and which are paid irrespective of performance sends a terrible message to the remainder of the organizational staff being held accountable by the strategic plan and proper board governance.

So when I’m asked “how long will it take you to raise the money?” I typically respond that it will take anywhere between four months and a year. This range varies depending on how the specific item relates to organizational mission, strategic plan, integrated development plan, budget priorities, board oversight, and donor linkage, ability and interest.

Just finished listening to the latest podcast from Fundraising is Beautiful entitled Back from the brink: How a sick organization got better. It is over twenty-six minutes, but the first ten is worth it.

In discussing how he addressed the dreaded death spiral of an ineffective fundraising strategy, Chris Doyle, President and CEO of American Leprosy Missions revealed that the problem was their disregard for the fundraising basics.

By “fundraising basics” of of course am referring to the donor cycle. In the interview Doyle states that, for his organization,”the donor cycle was neglected. [...] It was money and people passing through rather than a comprehensive donor plan which included the cultivation of these donor and retention of these donors.”

Don’t marginalize the importance of stewardship and cultivation.

In my experience Doyle is right on target about how organizations behave as they realize they are in a death spiral. “When organizations get into crisis… they run around looking for the silver bullet that’s going to solve all the problems rather than just stopping, stepping back and assessing ‘what are we doing wrong here and how do we fix that?’ rather than looking for some new idea or something that is going to fix things.” I have seen this trend more times than I care as organizations respond to decreased donor interest and support.

It’s not the economy, it’s how you treat donors that invest their philanthropy in your organization. If things are looking bad, focus on the mission. If your fund raising efforts don’t connect directly to the mission, they aren’t sustainable.

The Agitator cites two research studies regarding consumer brand loyalty and positive experience. The studies emphasize the need for an opportunity to directly interact with products.

Tom Belford asks the question “How can you provide a some kind of “touching” and “experiencing” of your organization?”

This goes back to my mantra “people give to the mission.” All elements of your integrated philanthropic plan (e.g. identification to stewardship) should link the donor back to the mission in a personally meaningful way. Are you sending thank you notes? Why not print note cards (blank on the inside) that proudly display the artwork of a staff member/program beneficiary/donor on the front and tell their story on the back?

Nonprofits should always be looking for a way to reengage constituents with the mission.