• It enables an organization to consider the immediate financial impact of down markets, tight credit, frozen funds and other factors that may reduce operating revenues; assess probabilities of varying magnitudes of impact in the short- and longerterm; and figure out possible alternative programmatic, administrative and financial responses. Immediate corrective action may be appropriate —but then again, any significant negative impact on the institution may not occur until six or nine months down the road, at which time the financial markets may be quite different.
• Contingency planning can help organizations more carefully assess both likely moves by competitors and new competitive pressures; decide whether to proceed with capital plans; determine how best to conserve balance sheet strength and limit additional debt; consider more collaborative activities with other organizations; and, overall, tighten their belts sensibly.
• Determining possible alternative responses enables the organization’s leadership to create a handful of potential cards to play and then to decide if and when to put them on the table. Such preparedness can ensure thoughtful consideration of alternative courses of action and their implications. It can also provide time to think through the interrelationship of different possible actions, craft appropriate messages and advise key parties (including donors and prospects, public officials and major internal and external constituents).
• Turmoil always creates opportunities, and nonprofits often have more possibilities than they realize. Down markets may increase the number of professionals seeking part- or full-time higher education; organizations may improve how they utilize their space; the Internet may strengthen branding and access in other countries; differential pricing may attract new demographics; and the like. Thoughtful internal planning is bound to generate a host of ideas that, when filtered through careful analysis and shrewd consideration, may yield a set of highly attractive new approaches.
• Perhaps most importantly, contingency planning will temper an inclination for immediate response. By stepping back and carefully surveying present understandings of the current situation, leaders can see the larger whole more clearly, make balanced decisions and take advantage of unanticipated new possibilities.

• Nonprofits with strategic plans are more likely to stay on track, spot opportunities and make thoughtful operational and tactical corrections. Turbulent markets and the credit crunch are testing all organizations, but those with strategic plans in place have a better chance of understanding the implications of financial pressures, focusing on what is most important and sustaining higher morale and commitment among their constituencies.
• Thoughtful organizations engaged in strategic planning are more likely to remain faithful to core principles and achieve key objectives during periods of financial uncertainty. They are better able to make tough decisions thoughtfully; distinguish between the essential and the less central; take advantage of unanticipated opportunities; and, overall, emerge stronger when the economy picks up again.
• In an environment of diminished resources, big, clear and compelling ideas—which ultimately are what strategic planning is all about—have the best chance of yielding a larger slice of a smaller pie. Institutions that can clearly and persuasively articulate how they can contribute to improving the economy, better meet pressing social needs and help solve significant endemic social, community or sector challenges, as well as measure their results, have the best chance of attracting major public and private support.
• By engaging in the process of strategic planning, and by establishing means of monitoring action based on the plan, an institution builds up both the intellectual “muscles” and the “tool kit” it will need for clear thinking in turbulent times. Through regular cycles of strategic planning, an organization instills in its personnel skills of inquiry and analysis that they can bring to bear on sudden and unforeseen problems. In addition, the metrics an organization develops to measure progress against the plan are then available quickly. These tools are useful for both determining the potential impact of new problems and tracking the effectiveness of the solutions the organization devises to meet such challenges.
• Successful strategic planning energizes its participants and builds morale among the organization’s staff, as they see the ideas and thinking they contributed turned into effective initiatives and a more focused institution. Proud of their organization’s success, employees and volunteers are eager to continue this trend and anxious that the organization not lose ground. In such an environment, they are more likely to understand and make sacrifices during crises and economic downturns, believing such sacrifices will enable the organization to return to the path they helped define.

Nonprofits that already have strategic plans should revisit them in light of the current uncertain situation.

Reaffirming the mission, vision and core values is essential during a time of uncertainty and major shifts in the external environment—as is confirming key strategic goals. While it is likely that none will require modification, reviewing them in a thoughtful way provides an opportunity to ensure the organization is clear about and remains committed to its central purposes, identity and aspirations.

• Revisiting a strategic plan gives confidence to internal and external stakeholders simply by showing that the organization is reexamining its strategy in difficult times and not plunging ahead without considering how the changed environment will affect it. When an organization reconvenes its planning team to consider the effect of a turbulent economy or other crisis, that team can identify explicitly the stakeholders they need to address and the messages they need to convey to ensure their continued support.Revisiting a strategic plan permits an organization to make sensible mid-course corrections: it may be wise to delay or scale back a certain initiative while moving another forward; it may be time to rethink certain aspects of governance or the relationship between governance and executive leadership; it may be appropriate to design and pilot a new program. An organization can then thoughtfully incorporate such adjustments into its ongoing implementation and longer-range financial planning.

Nonprofits without strategic plans should promptly undertake a thoughtful planning process, for they otherwise run a substantial risk of letting external pressures and internal anxieties define their futures. But nonprofits without strategic plans are sometimes loathe to commit the resources they believe planning will require in terms of time, patience, communications, funding and, especially, opportunity costs.

• “Given the number and magnitude of our problems,” leaders of these organizations may say to themselves, “how can I justify (to faculty, clients, our board, etc.) the time and money we’d need to spend on a planning process?”
• Although the root of an organization’s most immediate and pressing problems are often found in its lack of planning in the past (and therefore the absence of a set of goals and principles to guide it in the future), the immediacy of the financial or other threats to the organization often “crowd out” its ability to focus on strategic planning. “There’s always some fire to put out,” such organizations think, “Spending time on planning instead will send the whole house up in flames.”