Real Examples of Good Nonprofit Strategic Plans
Photo by Justyn Warner on Unsplash
Each nonprofit’s strategy is unique.
Still, developing an effective strategic plan can be difficult without reference to what “good” looks like.
Yet it can be hard to find real examples of nonprofit strategic plans, and even harder to know whether they are strong examples—and why.
To help, I’m sharing some public strategic plans from my work with nonprofit clients, including analysis highlighting the features that make each a model of good nonprofit strategy.
What makes a strategic plan “good”?
To answer this question, we first need to consider the bigger picture.
Good nonprofit strategy requires more than a strategic plan. Good strategy results from a broader set of strategic management processes in an organization. In addition to (1) strategic planning, which is about establishing clarity of strategic intent, strategic management also (2) connects that intent to the organizational muscle for action and (3) engages a discipline of reflection, learning, and adaptation. For strategy to be “good” within organizations that care about social justice, it must also (4) embody the values of a more just and equitable world.
Strategic plans are just one (important) component of this broader strategic management system. Strategic plans communicate strategic intent by documenting key strategic decisions and their practical implications for the organization.
Below, I describe the four overall components of good nonprofit strategy and what makes a strategic plan “good” within this bigger picture.
(1) Good strategy establishes clarity of strategic intent
Many approaches to strategy in the nonprofit sector often feature an over-eagerness for planning. As the typical thinking goes, without concrete actions and measurable objectives, we won’t know if we’re making strategic progress. In this way of thinking, planning is an attempt to ensure action via commitments, accountability, and compliance.
Measurable plans might feel good—at least to boards or management teams. They satiate a desire for certainty and control.
But an anxious fixation on action can cause us to rush through the heart of strategy development: the strategic sense-making, problem-solving, and decision making critical to determining what our plans should be.
Indeed, strategic planning should be more about strategic thinking than about planning. It should provide clarity of strategic intent: an assertion of what an organization aims to achieve and by what means, including through which programming, which organizational form, and which business model. Clear intent provides a rubric against which to assess the strategic merit of different options for action.
When approached this way, strategy can serve as a compass, which is a more valuable tool than a rigid prescription of actions—especially in these uncertain times. It enables staff to determine for themselves what decisions or actions are most strategic in any situation, not only those anticipated by a plan. This agency to problem-solve, exercise judgment, and make decisions strategically is foundational to strategy to becoming real in an organization.
An organization can express a clear and concrete strategic intent through a set of interconnected strategic choices connecting a compelling purpose to a strong analysis to a practical organizational response.
Specifically, a good strategic plan establishes clear strategic intent by:
✅ Articulating a clear purpose, notably including the concrete change an organization seeks to bring about in the world.
✅ Developing a sound analysis, including a diagnosis of what stands in the way of its desired change, and a theory for how to overcome the challenge.
✅ Choosing a response, including a vision for the programming, organization, and business model needed to activate the theory of change.
✅ Making real, coherent choices at each of these levels, saying no to otherwise-valid options that aren’t mutually reinforcing with the rest of the decisions.
(2) Good strategy connects intent to the organizational muscles for strategy embodiment and adaptation
To be sure, an organization’s plans should reflect its strategy. But when planning is conflated with strategy development, it becomes disconnected from the normal processes the organization uses to manage its work and resourcing.
When this happens, strategic objectives and implementation plans end up sitting on top of the “real” day-to-day work, feeling more like a burden to staff than a helpful tool. It’s no wonder, when you think about it. “Strategic” plans developed in separate processes from “work” plans suggest that there is “strategy” work and there is “normal” work—when of course all work should be strategic. Similarly, plans developed independently of budgeting processes are ungrounded in financial realities, and often not resourced at all. Because strategy development happens only every few years, plan-focused strategy processes seek to project objectives and actions years into the future—only to find that multi-year predictions quickly become irrelevant.
Instead, separately from the periodic exercise of strategy development, an organization should bring its strategic intent to life through its normal, ongoing management processes. I call this capability strategy embodiment, and its typical core is an organization’s annual processes for setting goals, developing work plans, and budgeting. In this way, planning is much more relevant, timely, and contextualized—shaping all of an organization’s work instead of layering strategy on top.
A good strategic plan helps to connect strategic intent to ongoing management processes by:
✅ Identifying the practical implications of strategic decisions for organizational management and evolution.
✅ Providing a strategic roadmap, as distinct from an implementation plan, describing an organization’s likely journey of evolution from its current state into the organization it aspires to be.
✅ Capturing decisions and concepts that have been sufficiently socialized—where enough shared understanding exists across the organization for staff to interpret and apply them in their day-to-day work.
(3) Good strategy involves a discipline of reflection, learning, and adaptation
Even good strategies can, and should, evolve. An organization’s strategic context changes constantly. Organizations gain better information and learn continuously over time. Nearly always, a strategic plan will include areas of lower specificity, best-guesses, and open questions deserving further examination.
Strategy is, in this sense, one big hypothesis that must be tested and refined over time.
Organizations test and refine their strategies through a capability for strategy adaptation.
This capability involves monitoring the strategic context, further discovery in key areas of inquiry, and gathering data from implementation. It involves analysis and dialog to make collective meaning of the data. It involves identifying implications for strategy development and/or strategy embodiment, and making decisions to adjust course as necessary.
The strategy adaptation capability is where metrics and data collection can be most strategic. Here, metrics are not employed for accountability and control, as in traditional approaches to strategy. Instead, they support a much more valuable organizational muscle: the muscle for reflection, learning, and strategic decision-making over time.
A good strategic plan supports reflection, learning, and adaptation by:
✅ Identifying key assumptions, hypotheses, and areas of further inquiry.
✅ Describing a theory of change that supports the measurement of outcomes rather than activities and outputs.
(4) Good strategy embodies the values of a more just and equitable world
Traditional nonprofit strategic planning approaches originate in the military and private sector. They carry with them embedded assumptions, mental models, and practices of the dominant culture.
For example, decision-making in strategic planning can replicate inequitable power dynamics. Stakeholder engagement can be performative and extractive. Sensitive topics and differences in perspective may not be confronted earnestly and directly—or at all. The common focus on planning and metrics is often motivated by an unexamined desire for control and compliance. Dynamics such as these reinforce the very systems of dominance that many nonprofits seek to dismantle, ultimately weakening both the integrity and effectiveness of their strategies.
To be sure, private-sector methodologies offer important tools and lessons. But our sector must practice strategy according to a different set of values—ones that reflect and actively advance a more just and equitable world. This requires shifts in both our strategy processes and our very conceptions of what strategy is and looks like.
Our strategy processes must pursue genuine co-creation. The people who are most impacted by strategy, including staff, should have appropriate agency to shape it. This requires rebalancing power in decision-making, honoring diverse forms of knowledge and communication, and creating space to surface multiple truths and hold them in principled tension. Genuine co-creation demands that participants engage from a place of real agency. That, in turn, requires a process with enough spaciousness for sense-making, dialogue, and reflection—and enough contextualization in each person’s day-to-day work that they can bring their full wisdom to bear in strategic discussions.
We must also reframe our very conceptions of what strategy is and looks like. Mission statements should avoid saviorism and the notion that a single organization must (or can) achieve systemic change. Strategic analyses should account for power, including how it is shaped by race, gender, class, and other forms of structural inequality. We should avoid equating organizational size and control of resources with mission success. Our programming should account for the intersectionality of people’s challenges and hopes and dreams. We should aim for clarity that enables supportive mutual accountability, not “performance management” and control.
Among other ways, a strategic plan reflects the values of a more just and equitable world when it:
✅ Has been genuinely co-created by the people it impacts.
✅ Accounts for power in its analysis of the problem, theory of change, and programmatic response.
✅ Articulates success in terms of outcomes for people, not organizational size, control of resources, or other self-centered metrics.
✅ Supports action through alignment on shared strategic intent, as opposed to commitment, compliance, and control.
A strategic plan doesn’t have to check all these boxes to be good. Instead, good strategy clarifies what’s most important for an organization during a given strategy cycle.
Some organizations spend a lot of time developing a desired change and theory for how it comes about. Others require dialog to meaningfully align on organizational values. In my experience, most organizations need enough investment at the level of purpose and analysis that it’s unrealistic for them to also complete the full design of their operating model and business model in a single strategic planning process.
It’s better to invest in deep alignment in the specific areas where it’s most needed, rather than to rush to cover all the bases superficially. This investment will pay off strategic clarity.
So, let’s take a look at what this looks like in practice, using real examples of good nonprofit strategic plans.
Examples of good nonprofit strategic plans
What does ”good” look like in practice?
Below, I link to real-world examples of strategic plans from my recent work with re:power and State Innovation Exchange (SiX). Both organizations are building the liberated, multiracial, feminist democracy we desire and deserve. Each is doing so through a uniquely powerful strategy, and they offer helpful examples of what a good strategic plan looks like.
State Innovation Exchange - Good Strategy Highlights
View State Innovation Exchange’s strategic plan - Toward our Irresistible Future: Grounding in Who We Are and Who We Are Becoming (executive summary, full strategic plan)
Mission as outcome vs. mission as activity: SiX’s mission statement (“...to make collaborative governance the dominant practice…” p. 33) defines the organization’s purpose in terms of the change it seeks to bring about in the world. Had SiX instead adopted a more typical activity-based format (for example, “Our mission is to support state legislators in practicing collaborative governance”), its stated purpose would be to perform activities, rather than to make a difference. By contrast, SiX’s outcome-oriented framing lays a stronger foundation for strategy that encourages problem-solving around how to achieve the desired change—rather than presupposing the organization’s activities out of the gate.
Clarity amidst the noise, through a unique diagnosis and theory of change: At first glance, SiX’s mission—to shift how state legislators govern—can seem overwhelmingly broad and complex. But good strategy requires making intentional choices among multiple valid ways of understanding a situation. It’s about focusing attention: deciding what to emphasize, what to set aside, and how to connect ideas into a coherent strategic story. These choices are captured in an organization’s strategic diagnosis and theory of change. Organizations that skip or under-invest in this work risk diluting their impact—either by trying to be everything to everyone or by pursuing a grab-bag of actions that fail to drive meaningful change. SiX avoids these pitfalls by grounding its strategy in a clear, rigorous diagnosis (p. 41) and a thoughtfully constructed theory of change (p. 49) that reduce complexity and sharpen focus.
Practical implications of strategy: SiX goes beyond simply stating its core strategic decisions, such as its vision, mission, and theory of change, to clearly articulate what those decisions mean in practice (p. 35, 59, 77). For example, the plan identifies important directions for program model evolution, outlines implications for measurement, and highlights critical capabilities to prioritize in upcoming operating model work. Strategic plans that stop short of naming these kinds of implications often leave organizations with ambiguity about how strategic intent should guide day-to-day decisions. By contrast, SiX’s approach provides concrete direction for annual goal-setting, planning, and budgeting—helping ensure the strategy is actionable, not abstract.
I partnered with SiX to develop this strategic plan. Learn more about my services here. Learn more about SiX at www.stateinnovation.org.
re:power - Good Strategy Highlights
View re:power’s strategic plan - In Pursuit of Liberatory Organizing: Organizational Strategy of re:power and re:power Fund (link)
Values-forward vision: re:power’s vision statement (“We seek a liberated, multiracial democracy, free from the oppressive systems of white supremacy and patriarchy,” p. 4) clearly and confidently describes the future it is working toward. A more neutral statement (for example, “We seek a stronger, healthier democracy”) leaves stakeholders without a sense of what that future might be like. Stronger how? Healthier for whom? re:power’s vision statement, in contrast, is values-forward—reflecting a well-developed power analysis and an affirmative vision of its desired alternative to the current state—and that’s what makes it so powerful.
Distinctive mission: If an organization’s vision describes the future it seeks to build, its mission should clarify the unique role it plays in bringing that future about. re:power’s mission (“To build a critical mass of social justice movements and their leaders who embody the ideology and practice of liberatory organizing, an organizing practice that is pro-Black and grounded in community, collective action, and abundance,” p. 6) is unambiguous and unapologetic about its distinct contribution. Had re:power articulated a more generic mission (for example, “To improve organizing capacity among social justice movements”) it would be difficult to distinguish from other capacity-building organizations, laying ambiguous strategic foundations. Instead, by clearly defining its unique contribution, re:power lays a foundation of strategic clarity to inform subsequent decision-making.
Strategy nourished by a unique superpower: A nonprofit’s superpower underpins the distinctive value it brings to the world, based on its unique strengths and assets. re:power’s superpower (“We create safe, affirming spaces for Black, Indigenous, Native, Latine, Asian, Arab, Pacific Islander and other women of color and trans and gender-expansive people of color,” p. 10) is not only authentic to who re:power is, but also deeply valued by those it serves. Crucially, re:power’s strategy brings this superpower to life in pursuit of its mission. As one participant in the Women of Color Leadership Cohort put it, “Your work felt like a love letter just to me…”—a powerful expression of what it looks like when strategy is not just stated, but fully embodied.
I partnered with re:power to develop this strategic plan. Learn more about my services here. Learn more about re:power at www.repower.org.
Conclusion
As the examples in this article demonstrate, strategic plans can be powerful tools for setting and bringing good strategy to life in a nonprofit organization—if they play the right role within a broader strategic management capability.
Strong nonprofit strategic plans aren’t really about planning—they’re about clarity of strategic intent. Good strategic plans clarify why an organization exists, what change it seeks to create, and how it will bring that change about.
Strategic plans are part of a broader capability of strategic management, also involving annual goal-setting, planning, and budgeting processes, and a discipline of reflection, learning, and strategy adaptation. As such, good strategic plans don’t sit on top of the “real” work of an organization—they are intimately integrated with normal management processes.
Because strategic plans describe how an organization wants to show up in the world, it’s also important that they embody the values of a more just and equitable world, which requires not only transforming strategic planning processes, but also reframing our very conceptions of what strategy is and looks like.
My hope is that these examples not only inspire, but also serve as practical guides for nonprofit leaders looking to craft strategy that is focused, values-driven, and built for real impact.
These are just two recent examples I’m able to share. And ultimately, as with strategy itself, the perspective I share here is one of many valid ways to describe what good strategy looks like. It’s an offering I contribute to the collective knowledge and wisdom to help build a discipline of strategy we can call our own.
