My community has many needs. Sometimes as executive director I hear about new grant programs that would serve my community well, but the type of service is well outside what my organization does. I cannot just tweak. Should I go after the money?
Your organization has made decisions in the past about what services and programs to offer, and no individual has the right to change those. If you think the new service or program would be worthwhile, you have a number of options.
The first is to consult the strategic plan. Would the new program be a fit with your mission? Would it help create the kind of community your board envisioned?
If yes, then the program has to be considered against the strategic priorities. Where would it rank, and would the efforts to seek the monies and implement the program affect something more important? If you think it worthwhile against the other priorities, then you could ask the board to reopen the strategic plan in that light. It would be their decision, but it might be decided within a normal board meeting.
If the program would not be a fit with the mission, then there would need to be a new round of strategic planning, with a thorough review and consideration of a new mission statement. In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate and unethical to apply for or accept monies for something outside your mission. If that means lost opportunities, so be it. Plans can be reopened at any time, but not lightly.
If there is no strategic plan, then you as executive director have much LESS authority to act on a new initiative. Without an approved framework for decision-making, every change needs to go to the board.
If it is a genuine community need, but not a ready fit for you, maybe another nonprofit has a more closely related mission. You could tell them about the new source of potential funding and write a letter of support for their application.
Perhaps there are five organizations with related missions but none that are a really good fit. Maybe a consortium could be formed so that a new joint initiative could apply. One of the organizations might have a close enough mission to house and sponsor the joint program, or there might be an umbrella organization that nurtures emerging services.
There is excellent value in bringing such organizations together for such a discussion. They can identify the most important community needs, and cooperate to reduce any gaps and any duplications. They might plan together in terms of each having a role (explained in each mission statement) in striving to create the best possible community. Some grantmakers would respond very positively to funding initiatives arising from the joint planning. Each could remain independent, or might decide that shared services or even a merger would allow resources to flow more effectively to the community.
Sometimes these new funding sources arise from changes in political power or a preference on the part of the head of a family foundation rather than a real shift in community needs. In those circumstances, nonprofits should stand fast.
Real shifts in community needs should have been noticed by service providers sooner than by grantmakers; you are closer to the clients. In that case, regular environmental scanning and constant review of changes against the strategic plan, at the board level, could have avoided the situation you describe. This is called continuous planning, and the strategic plan might have been amended before the funding became available.
By the way, if you decide not to apply after being in contact with the grantmaker, explain your reasoning. They may be impressed with your integrity, and be more willing to give you future funds for programs that are a better fit.
Some readers are wondering by now why I have not talked about what strengths the organization has in the new area. Certainly, if a local organization has staff skills, facilities and other resources appropriate to the new program, they should be supported by the other nonprofits as the logical choice for managing the program if the grant is made available.
But if no organization has the right skills and other resources, can an important community need be ignored? Some organization has to step up and train their staff, hire different people, recruit different volunteers or whatever it takes. This will delay implementation, and again the delay might have been avoided through continuous planning. But there is no point continuing to be the best provider of buggy whips if your community needs rapid public transit. Nonprofits must be flexible and responsive.
By the way, the initial situation is sometimes described as following the money (as opposed to following your values). It is also called mission creep, or mission yank if abrupt. Note these are all negative terms! Be sure to change the mission BEFORE taking funds that were not a match.
To my dismay, some funders sometimes seek out recipient organizations for programs outside their mission, because that organization has given them good results before. They entice and cajole organizations to leave their values and mission behind for programs that are clearly less important to the community than the potential new one, or just inappropriate for that organization.
Values-based decision-making will help your board decide whether to change to meet emerging needs, confirm their current priorities and mission, or choose some creative and eclectic approach.
Since 1992, Jane Garthson has dedicated her consulting and training business to creating better futures for our communities and organizations through values-based leadership. She is a respected international voice on governance, strategic thinking and ethics. Jane can be reached at jane@garthsonleadership.ca.
To submit a dilemma for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Jane directly.
Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.