Framing Needs and Establishing Priorities

This guide is not intended to provide a blueprint for strategic planning. The following Web site provides that kind of information.

Instead, this section focuses on presenting the needs of students and potential students, and the needs of the organization or program as a whole. The more detailed your needs analysis, the more easily you can make the case for funding. The need as described must be realistic, but it must be presented in balance with available resources. Potential funders must feel that their contribution can make a serious difference and not be just a drop of funding in a huge ocean-sized problem.  Below are some suggestions.

Click on the topic of your interest to navigate to the topic or scroll down the page to view all topics.

  1. Student/Potential Student Needs
  2. Reviewing Organizational Capacity SWOT Analysis
  3. The Organizations's Position: A MacMillan Matrix

A. Student/Potential Student Needs

When presenting the results of a needs analysis (which drives the need for new or continued funding), you must think about how to frame the work. Although letters of inquiry or grant proposals are not dissertations, funders are still interested in knowing the methodology of needs analyses. How do you know what it is you claim to know beyond the anecdotal level? It is not enough simply to state the needs of the community; you need to be able to make a case that this is a high priority from potential clients’ (students’) perspectives.  

Three common types of needs analysis are interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires or surveys. For each approach, you should be able to answer the following questions, because it is possible that a potential funder might ask about the nature of the data and the methods for collecting it. Answers to all of these questions may only be a few sentences, but they are important. 

Interviews
  • Who was interviewed?
  • How many people? 
  • How long was the interview? 
  • How did you select who would be interviewed? 
  • What kinds of questions did you ask them?
  • Where did interviews take place?
Focus Groups
  • What was the structure of the focus group? 
  • Who participated? 
  • Who facilitated? 
  • Where did the focus groups take place? 
Questionnaire
  • What types of questions were on the questionnaire? 
  • How were they distributed? 
  • Who was selected to receive the questionnaire? 

You also can conduct needs analysis by using previously collected data such as Census figures, school reports, and surveys conducted by human service agencies.  

Another potential question relates to the connection between your organization and the clients you serve. They want to know how you can speak with certainty on behalf of a certain population, or how you are in contact with the student or potential student population. One way to respond is to provide information about your geographic location, the demographics of your staff, or the ways in which students participate in the functioning of the organization.

Finally, when many clients and communities have multiple needs, organizations must be able to justify to funders why a certain need was given priority. This explanation should support any suggestion that your organization is uniquely (or strongly) positioned to take care of the need.

B. Reviewing Organizational Capacity – A SWOT Analysis

Organizations conduct ongoing assessments of teachers, programs, and initiatives. Before writing a grant, however, you will find it useful to have a document that boils down different assessment results into an accessible format. One way of doing this is to use a Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis. This type of analysis is typically done in the private sector, but it can also be useful for non-profits.

A SWOT looks at both the internal and external conditions facing an organization. The internal aspects are referred to as strengths and weaknesses, while external factors are captured by the concepts of opportunities and threats. As an example of the internal factors, a program might note that having highly qualified teachers is one of its strengths, but the large degree of teacher turnover is a weakness. Although it is possible to list a specific program as a strength or weakness, it is more productive to be specific about what makes the program less effective or more effective (e.g., a limited number of program hours). As an example of external factors, an organization might see changes in demographics as a new opportunity to expand services or worry that shifts in public perceptions may change funding availability.

As part of a SWOT, ask these types of questions of your organization:

  1. Has there been a substantial change in a funding source? For example, is there government funding that has been dramatically cut?
  2. Have new funding opportunities become available? For example, is there a new Board member with strong contacts to the philanthropic community?
  3. Have local or world events changed the funding climate? For example, the events of September 11, 2001, made it more difficult for some nonprofits to secure funding because corporations allocated greater funding to the relief effort.
  4. Has an issue that your organization focuses on received more (or less) attention lately?
  5. Has your organization received more (or less) attention lately? For example, are more people aware of your organization?

A SWOT is designed to help an organization capitalize on strengths and take advantage of opportunities, while addressing weaknesses and dealing with threats. It helps answer the question, “What should we be doing to achieve our vision statement?” At the same time, completing a SWOT analysis should help in the drafting of letters of inquiry and grant proposals. Strengths and opportunities identified should be written into the proposal. For a sample, refer to the El Poder Learning Center SWOT Analysis below.

Sample SWOT Analysis - El Poder Learning Center

Strengths
(Internal)

Weaknesses
(Internal)

Opportunities
(External)

Threats
(External)

Strategic location to reach client base

Limited space

Storefront space available

Neighborhood has high crime rate. Space has limited security.

Effective educational software

Old computers

Lots of funding for equipment

Computer viruses

Well-funded ESL program

High drop-out rate

New interactive beginning ESL computer software

Overtime at factory, students are working late and missing class

English literacy curriculum

Difficulty recruiting English literacy students

Many local churches to conduct outreach

Lack of funding for English literacy

High turnout for after-school program

No developed assessment

Existing partnership with local university – possible source of volunteers or assistance with assessment

Competition from after-school program focusing on athletics

In any proposal, El Poder Learning Center would want to include its strategic location and the high turnout for its after-school program. It would also want to include the fact that it has existing partnerships with local churches (for increased outreach) and local universities (for a steady flow of volunteers). Taking the time to complete a SWOT can help the organization note things that it often takes for granted. Following is a template for a SWOT analysis.

SWOT Analysis 

Strengths
(Internal)

Weaknesses
(Internal)

Opportunities
(External)

Threats
(External)

Example: Comprehensive literacy tutor training

Lack of tutors to meet demand

New company nearby - possible source of tutors

After-school program recruiting volunteers – possible competition

1.

 

 

 

2.

 

 

 

3.

 

 

 

4.

 

 

 

5.

 

 

 

6.

 

 

 

C. The Organization’s Position: A MacMillan Matrix

In the beginning stages of writing a proposal or looking for funding, the details and scope of a proposed program can be overwhelming. If it seems there is a lot to do, it is because there is a lot to do. Before committing to looking for funding to offer a project independently, take time to complete a MacMillan Matrix.

In this type of analysis, the focus is on the position of your organization in a larger field, and your organization can ask itself these four questions (among many others): 

  1. Are we the best organization to provide this service?  
  2. Is competing for funding good for our clients?
  3. Are we spreading ourselves too thin, without the capacity to sustain ourselves?
  4. Should we work cooperatively with another organization to provide services?

Go to the Alliance for Non-profit Management Web Site for Frequently Asked Questions about Strategic Planning at http://www.allianceonline.org/FAQ/strategic_planning/
how_can_we_do_competitive.faq

A key feature of this approach is that it is not a given that your organization should pursue a given grant or funding opportunity. Whereas the SWOT deals with competition, a MacMillan Matrix might point your organization toward collaboration as the most appropriate strategy. It could even help you conclude that some other group is in a better position to service a need on its own. Each program or service of your organization can be put through this same analytical framework.

MacMillan Matrix
  High Program Attractiveness:
"Easy" Program		 Low Program Attractiveness:
"Difficult" Program
Fit

 

Competitive Position		 Alternative Coverage
High 		Alternative Coverage
Low		 Alternative Coverage
High		 Alternative Coverage
Low
GOOD FIT Strong Competitive Position 1. Aggressive Competition 2. Aggressive Growth 5. Build up the Best Competitor 6. "Soul of the Agency"
Weak Competitive Position 3. Aggressive Divestment 4. Build Strength or Get Out 7. Orderly Divestment 8. "Foreign Aid" or Joint Venture
POOR FIT

9. Aggressive Divestment 10. Orderly Divestment

“Alternative coverage” means the degree to which other agencies or organizations provide the same or similar service. If there is “high” alternative coverage, clients (in this case, students) have many options for service, while low alternative coverage leaves them with few. In a situation where there is low alternate coverage and your organization is in a strong competitive position, the organization should aggressively attempt to grow (cell 2). Where there is high alternative coverage and your organization is in a weak competitive position, your organization should actively disengage itself from attempting to provide the service. This does not mean that organizations should always cut and run. There may be difficult-to-run programs that your organization and few others offer (cell 6 – the “soul of the agency”), and these should not be abandoned. After all, with changes in funding, these programs may become a priority for funders, and your organization would be in a good position. 

This type of analysis is coolly rational, but it is designed to serve the greater good. Small non-profits should not spend all their time fighting over the same small source of funding. Rather than going after every grant opportunity that comes on the radar, your organization must ask itself if the proposed programs are in keeping with its vision or mission statements. Looking for funding for programs that are a good fit for your organization should be a priority when the organization has a strong competitive position, especially when the service is not offered by other organizations.

When your organization is in a weaker competitive position, it should consider collaborations or yielding to other organizations to provide the service. Again, the goal of an organization is to achieve what is set out in its mission and vision statements, not to expand for the sake of expansion. Fundraising should never be a goal in itself. Why fight to provide a certain kind of service if it is not a strength of the organization and if another organization is already providing the service? A MacMillan Matrix may be helpful in determining your priority funding needs.

NOTE: Even if your organization believes it is in a good competitive position, a substantial budgetary increase from the previous year (more than 25 percent) may be an unrealistic goal, putting pressure on staff to spend more of its already limited time raising funds. New programs should be launched gradually and represent no more than 20 percent of the overall budget, except in the first year.

Back to Top