What to put in an action plan

I am helping a local organisation with their business planning and we got onto what should go into the action plan. I know this organisation reasonably well and know that they are continually developing new initiatives - they are fairly new and there's quite a bit of energy around both from staff and from volunteers. So my advice was to see what they have been doing in the past six months. The manager produces a weekly report so I suggested that she should cut from all her reports the details of the new activities e.g. meetings with potential new customers or partners, and paste them into another document. Then print out this document and then cut it up so that each activity is on a separate small piece of paper.  Then sit on the floor or in front of a large table and group activities together so that you have categories. She should then have the beginnings of her action plan - she would have the categories and know what she's already done - the actions are then how to develop that work.


The problem with many action plans is that people think it's about doing lots of new stuff.  But whether we are paid staff or volunteers most of our time is spent doing what needs to be done to keep our organisations running smoothly. There is usually a bit of development and this needs to recognised as such. Sometimes a development can be to do the same things but to do them differently. If we are doing nothing new then perhaps its time to sit down with our fellow trustees/committee members and ask ourselves 'What is stopping us for doing new things?'


The business plan (before the action plan) should provide the history and the background and the reasons why we are doing whatever it is we are doing.  If there is not a consistent narrative say from our values and the outcomes that we want to achieve to our actions then that's when we need to change something.  We may have to change our values - but that should be a last resort.  We may have to change our desired outcomes - that would be a shame but may reflect lessons learnt in the real world. We may need to change what we do or how we do it - which is often easier to say than to do.  However we do need to ensure that what we are trying to achieve (our outcomes) and how we achieve these (our values) should logically lead us to what we are actually doing.


The are some (many?) people who hate the idea of doing this sort of thing.  My experience is that it can be very illuminating both in telling us will the good work that we do and also what work we think we are doing but aren't.

Business planning

Some people automatically twitch when they see the term business planning for charities.  I have blogged on this in the past. And yet at the moment I am reminded of how important it is - in some cases it is vital. I am currently helping two organisations with their business plans, have recently commented on another and have had email correspondence with someone who has been made redundant because there was sufficient timely planning by their employer. 


Whilst most of us plan for our own futures we do this more in an unconscious manner than by writing a personal plan. Although I do know at least one person who does write down a personal plan. So how do we go about writing a business plan for a Unitarian congregation/local community?


Here is one suggested contents list for a business plan 

1. Executive Summary  
2. Introduction
3. Background
4. Vision, mission, aims and values
5. Organisational description
6. The building(s) and any land
7. Risk assessment
8. Strategic challenges    
9. Outcomes for the next three to five years with targets and milestones
10. Action plan
11. Three year financial projections
12. Monitoring

This seems like a lot but it is worth considering all sections. Sections 3,4 and 5 will probably change little between business plans so it's worth working on this over time to give a context to your plans. Section 6 may also be unchanging unless the next few years will see major refurbishment and renovation. However you can write some historic stuff.  You don't have to write reams and if you think that reams might be useful put the majority of this in appendices.


Having a risk assessment (Section 7) is a good discipline to get into. Here are two blog posts on risk management - one & two. Risks can be about anything - the building, about our finances or even about our spiritual lives. It's just thinking what could go wrong, how much impact that would have on the community, how likely is that risk going to occur (earthquakes in the UK low, raining off the summer fundraiser probably fairly high!) and thinking of how you might reduce the (a) likelihood of the risk actually occurring and (b) reducing the impact if the risk does occur. These contingency plans must go into Section 10 which is your action plan.


Strategic challenges (Section 8) are about the big issues facing the community. These will emerge through discussion and perhaps a more formal assessment of the organisation.  The challenges may include

• How to find finance;
• How to make people more aware of the local Unitarian community;
• How to develop new approaches to worship or provide spirituality workshops;
• How to move from one stage of development to the next.

You may wish to think of them under a set of headings for example

• People: Governance; Ministry; Volunteers; Community Members; Youth; Visitors
• Other Resources: Finance; the Building; Skills and Expertise of Community Members
• Developments: Worship; Quality Standards; Knowledge and Skills; Community’s Profile; Communication; and Partnerships.

You will need to discuss how to prioritise these challenges.  It is often fairly obvious but not always. Some people may be more interested in one area of work rather than another. The reasons why the priorities have been chosen need to be clearly described.

Taking all the foregoing into consideration you then need to decide what changes the community wants to see - these are the Outcomes (Section 9). There is a fine balance between being realistic in what can be achieved and not stretching ourselves to achieve more. It will be a learning exercise - monitoring the plan will enable outcomes to be tweaked and reset. The blog post gives more information on how to measure change.

Then you get to do the good part - the Action Planning (Section 10). I have a previous blog post on this. I think that what you have to do with action planning is be realistic about timescales. If the committee only meets quarterly and there are some big decisions to be made, then either you are going to have to have more meetings or recognise that the decision making process will take much longer than if you were meeting every week.

You always have to match you action plan with an income and expenditure profile Section 11) and then you have to build in some monitoring (Section 12) to ensure that you are on track or so that you can change your targets so that you actually achieve what you say you are going to.

Business planning is not difficult but it does require commitment - the first time is always the worst!

                                                                                

Useful websites

A couple of useful resources 


A property helpline for charities plus resources about property issues 


A guide about sustainable funding

That's all folks!

Consistent priorities

I have been waiting for inspiration - sometimes it's a long wait.


Having been at a Unitarian district meeting on Wednesday and heard people expressing dismay at the significant focus and financial investment that the Executive Committee is giving to establishing new Unitarian congregations I was nudged into looking again at the strategic priorities presentation given at last year's (2011) annual meetings.  Nowhere in this document, which was the sum total of the General Assembly's strategic priorities, was there any mention of starting new congregations.


Let's look first at this presentation - it starts with


Economics and Ideals

• The Annual Meetings in 2009 proposed developments which proved unaffordable

• The EC referred the difficulty back to the Annual Meetings in 2010 through the

‘Difficult Choices’ presentation

• UK Unitarians and Free Christians were able to prioritise our needs for the future

These proposed developments in 2009 were (from two separate motions) to have two workers focusing on information and social justice. Certainly if they were part-time workers it would have cost about £50,000 or perhaps a little less.

We were also told in the 2011 presentation that the General Assembly would 

... ensure that all Unitarian congregations can have access to professional Ministerial or recognised lay leadership and support.

Now we are being told that we will be having a 2020 Congregational DevelopmentProgramme.  This has come out of the blue and has no business plan to support its prioritisation. This is what this programme will do.

The 2020 Congregational Development Programme was given the go-ahead along with the establishment of a 2020 Board. It includes a range of possible models with lots of room for creativity locally; new planting, restart, side-by-side (parallel congregation in the same location to existing one), satellites and spin-offs and social responsibility starts. 

The report on finances was considered which looked at the likely costs and possible funding opportunities to start and grow the programme. The financial modelling indicated that to establish a total of seventeen new congregations the net cost would be approximately £1.3million. There were several options outlined for raising this considerable sum. The programme would work alongside current initiatives such as the Future Ministry pilot in Scotland. 

It was also recognised that in the eleven year time period it is likely that some current congregations may close and that the support to the General Assembly from the Bowland Trust will then be at an end. This was therefore a "window of opportunity" to promote growth to arrest the serious numerical decline of the Unitarian Movement.

We are also told that from a £45,000 legacy, matched with Bowland Trust monies bringing the amount to £90,000, the Executive Committee agreed to allocate  £50,000 to the Congregational Development Programme (as start-up grant).  It just so happens that this amount matches what it would have cost to implement the motion that was passed in 2009. This latter was actually agreed by us, the former has not been.


What are we to make of this?  First we are told there is no money to support the implementation of motions which were adopted democratically; we are then told that following consultation these are the GA's priorities; we are told that existing congregations will be prioritised so that they will have access to professional Ministerial or recognised lay leadership and support; and then not twelve month's later we have something not identified in the priorities being allocated significant amounts of money - seemingly given much more significance over those priorities which were presented to us in April 2011.


I am not sure what to think but fundamentally this feels all wrong.

The General Assembly

Not sure where this post goes but it is something that I have been musing and I think it fits best under governance.  Recently postings on the UK Unitarians Facebook group have provoked my thoughts. There have been some describing the General Assembly (GA) as the national centre and about the GA trustees (EC) wanting to influence congregations.

The GA is the national Unitarian organisation  for congregations, fellowships, societies and ministers and perhaps those who choose to be Associate Members.  However there is a difference between being the national organisation and being the centre. There have also been comments about how there are (may be?) many congregations that do not relate to/are unaffected by what the GA does.  If this is the case then can the GA actually be described as a centre, at least for these congregations?


Congregations are made up of individual people and they do not belong to the GA so perhaps there is also a problem with connections between the GA and individual Unitarians.


So is the role of the GA to be the national centre? The GA's constitution states the purpose of the GA in its Object


To promote a free and inquiring religion through the worship of God and the celebration of life; the service of humanity and respect for all creation; and the upholding of the liberal Christian tradition. 


To this end, the Assembly may: 


1. Encourage and unite in fellowship bodies which uphold the religious liberty of their members, unconstrained by the imposition of creeds; 


2. Affirm the liberal religious heritage and learn from the spiritual, cultural and intellectual insights of all humanity; 


3. Act where necessary as the successor to the British and Foreign Unitarian Association (including the formation and assistance of Congregations; the publication and circulation of biblical, theological, scientific and literary knowledge related to Unitarian Christianity; ....) and National Conference of Unitarian, Liberal Christian, Free Christian, Presbyterian and other Non-Subscribing or Kindred Congregations (To consult, and when considered advisable to take action, on matters affecting the well-being and interests of the Congregations and Societies on the Roll of the Conference, as by directing attention, suggesting plans, organising expressions of opinion, raising funds to carry out the foregoing objects) ... 


4. Do all other such lawful things as are incidental to the attainment of the above Object. 


I have added in the bits in brackets to say what these roles are.


(Incidentally the EC's November meeting notes say, 'Constitutional Review Group. A report was received from the group. No constitutional changes were recommended.'  Which seems a real shame because I don't think that the Object is at all clear; I don't think it covers everything that the GA does or that it aspires to do; and it does not identify clearly who the charity's beneficiaries are.)


It seems to me that reading this the GA's main roles are to speak to the outside world and to act as a service organisation for local congregations.  These roles may be seen as central roles but they are not the same as a national body which controls its local, affiliated bodies like some national charities. This is a different model and therefore different approaches and attitudes are needed. Another concern, as I have written before, is that the new priorities are very inward looking. For the first time in my memory (in Unitarian terms this is relatively short) there is no priority around social action.


The second point is about whether the GA should be influencing congregations and fellowships.  As a service organisation it should be providing advice and guidance.  It should be organising events to identify and promote good practice.  They also have a significant input into the selection and training of ministers which might be seen to be a significant influence. So the GA can and does influence. 


What further ability to influence would they seek? And who wants to do this?  The item prompting this posting came from an EC member - so is it the EC which seeks to have more influence of local congregations and fellowships or just one EC member?  As an active member of a local congregation there are plenty of people trying to influence things locally, which is all well and good because they are within our community.  I guess we would say that we do not want the GA influencing what we do rather we would like them to support us in making our choices and taking actions.


I think that there may be some significant mismatches - between the GA's Object and what they do; and between what they think their role is and what we locally think their role is. My view is that it is better to reduce such mismatches so that there is greater clarity and everyone has a similar understanding about what the GA does.  

Glass half-full or glass half-empty

At the beginning of the Facebook discussion as described two posts ago the EC member wrote - in corrected form

Essentially, we've tried to focus our very limited numbers of people and funds on the few top priorities ...

If I read the accounts correctly the General Assembly's income for the year 2009/10 was over £650,00. There are some 11 staff - not all full-time.  When I did a count a year or two ago of the number of volunteers in the commissions and panels I counted over 100.  These are people with expertise in spiritual matters as well as business matters such as finance, fundraising, PR, marketing, strategic development, governance, report writing, communications, web-design, etc.  There are other skills there too such as artistic, educational, social policy and working with young people. This is only those people directly volunteering for the General Assembly and does not include those involved with national societies let alone the districts or local congregations and fellowships.

In my world we are resource rich. What a wealth of resources - human and otherwise.  What we also have is an enormous amount of good will from most Unitarians in the UK and elsewhere in the world. 

But if we keep getting told that we are poor and have limited resources we will begin to believe it. Perhaps if you think you are resource poor then there is no expectation that much can be achieved.  I would dearly love someone on the EC to invite us to celebrate how rich we are as a faith community and then to expect great things. 

Public benefit

All charities need to pass the public benefit test. Here's what the Charity Commission says about the needs to report on public benefit


For smaller charities, below the audit threshold**, trustees are required to include a brief summary in their Trustees’ Annual Report of the main activities undertaken in order to carry out the charity’s aims for the public benefit. Trustees can, of course, provide fuller public benefit statements if they wish.


For larger charities, above the audit threshold**, trustees are required to provide a fuller explanation in their Trustees’ Annual Report of the significant activities undertaken in order to carry out the charity’s aims for the public benefit, as well as their aims and strategies. They are required to explain the charity’s achievements, measured by reference to the charity’s aims and to the objectives set by the trustees. It is up to the charity’s trustees to decide how much detail they want to provide to clearly illustrate what their charity has done in the reporting year to meet the requirement; the Commission will not be prescriptive about the number of words or pages needed. But a charity that said nothing on public benefit in its Trustees’ Annual Report, or produced only the briefest statement with no detail, would be in breach of the public benefit reporting requirement.


**For charities with accounting periods ending on or after 1 April 2009, an audit is required when a charity’s gross income in the year exceeds £500,000, or where income exceeds £250,000 and the aggregate value of its assets exceeds £3.26 million.


It is interesting times for we Unitarians as we now have three basic priorities - (1) local leadership; (2) ministry; and (3) visibility. It all seems a bit too much about us and no-one else.  The fact that our faith and social action work comes under visibility gives very much the wrong impression - we are doing it to make ourselves visible rather than because it is intrinsically right.


I know that the Quakers are significantly bigger than us but I was looking longingly at their annual report for last year - their objectives are around these areas

• Strengthening our spiritual roots 
• Speaking out in the world 
• Peace 
• Sustainability 
• Strengthening local communities 
• Crime, community and justice 
• Using our resources well

It seems so outward looking compared to ours and it has an objective around the use of resources which fills my heart with joy!  I have long argued that it is a spiritual imperative to make the best use of all our resources.

Our new priorities do not serve us well.  I think that if we just focus on these issues then we will find it difficult to answer in more than a few words what benefit we provide to the public.  Let's hope that what we actually do is more impressive than what we say we are going to do.