Key Takeaways
- Research consistently shows that 60-90% of strategic plans never fully launch (Harvard Business Review, 2022), a challenge compounded in the social impact sector by inequitable planning processes and structural misalignment
- Board-staff strategic alignment—not funding levels—is the strongest predictor of plan execution success, yet 85% of leadership teams spend less than one hour per month discussing strategy (Harvard Business Review, 2005)
- Most social impact organizations cannot tell whether their programs are working equitably, because their measurement systems are not designed to disaggregate outcomes by demographic group (Urban Institute)
- The GCG Equity Planning Model, developed through a decade of field work with over 100 organizations, provides a five-step framework for centering equity in every phase of strategic planning
The Landscape: Why Strategic Planning Is Failing the Social Impact Sector
Examine the structural and methodological failures embedded in conventional nonprofit strategic planning and establish the evidence base for a fundamentally different approach.
Strategic planning is supposed to be the engine of organizational effectiveness. In theory, it aligns resources with mission, mobilizes stakeholders around shared goals, and creates accountability structures that translate aspiration into measurable impact. In practice, it is failing the social impact sector at scale.
The numbers are striking. While 70% of nonprofits report using strategic planning as a core management tool (Bridgespan Group, 2015), the return on that investment is alarmingly poor. Harvard Business Review estimates that 60-90% of strategic plans never fully launch (2022), and 85% of leadership teams spend less than one hour per month discussing strategy (2005). Through our decade of field work with over 100 mission-driven organizations, we have seen these patterns play out repeatedly: completed strategic plans that fail to achieve their stated outcomes within the designated timeframe.
This is not a problem of insufficient effort. The organizations we have worked with over the past decade were committed. Their leaders were dedicated. Their boards were engaged—or believed they were. The problem is structural. The conventional approach to strategic planning was designed for a different kind of organization operating in a different era, and its core assumptions no longer hold.
"The organizations creating the most transformative impact are not those with the most polished strategic plans—they are those with the deepest alignment between their planning processes and the communities they exist to serve."
Three critical themes have emerged from our field work and the broader research, each pointing to a systemic failure that conventional planning approaches not only ignore but actively reinforce.
Key Finding 1: The Equity Gap in Strategic Planning
Present evidence that conventional strategic planning processes systematically exclude the perspectives of the communities organizations exist to serve, and demonstrate the measurable consequences of this exclusion.
The most consequential failure in social impact strategic planning is also the most predictable: the people most affected by organizational decisions are the least likely to shape them.
BoardSource's Leading with Intent report (2021) reveals the scope of this gap: only 32% of nonprofit boards prioritize knowledge of the community served when recruiting members, and just 28% prioritize actual membership within the community served. In our own field work, we have consistently observed that strategic plans developed without meaningful community participation produce priorities that diverge from community-identified needs.
The demographic dimension compounds this gap. Across the nonprofit sector, 78% of board members are white (BoardSource, 2021), even as 53% of all nonprofit staff identify as BIPOC (Candid, 2024). All-white boards govern 16% of nonprofits whose primary mission is serving people of color. This disconnect is not merely a representation problem—it produces measurably different outcomes. Plans developed without meaningful community participation consistently identify programmatic priorities that diverge from community-identified needs.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Consider a pattern we have observed repeatedly in our consulting work. A youth-serving nonprofit in an urban community conducts its strategic planning retreat at a hotel conference center. The room contains board members, senior staff, and a hired facilitator. The conversation is structured around organizational growth metrics: revenue targets, program expansion, facility needs, staffing plans.
The community the organization serves—families navigating housing instability, young people dealing with food insecurity, parents working multiple jobs—is not represented in the room. Their input, if gathered at all, comes through a survey designed by staff members who may not share their lived experience.
The resulting plan optimizes for organizational growth rather than community-defined impact. Programs expand in directions that attract funding rather than directions that address the most pressing community needs. Success metrics measure organizational outputs—people served, sessions delivered, dollars raised—rather than the outcomes that matter to the community: stability achieved, opportunities accessed, barriers removed.
Before beginning any strategic planning process, organizations must establish structured mechanisms for community participation that go beyond surveys and town halls—including community representation on planning committees, co-design sessions led by community members, and decision-making authority shared with the people most affected by organizational strategy.
Key Finding 2: The Board Alignment Problem
Demonstrate that the gap between board-level strategy and staff-level implementation is the single greatest predictor of strategic plan failure, and identify the specific misalignments that drive this gap.
The second critical theme challenges a widely held assumption in the nonprofit sector: that funding is the primary determinant of strategic plan success. It is not. Board-staff alignment is.
The data is clear: 85% of leadership teams spend less than one hour per month discussing strategy (Harvard Business Review, 2005), and 50% of nonprofit CEOs report dissatisfaction with their board's engagement level (BoardSource). Meanwhile, Palladium's research on high-performing organizations found that 77% of successful companies have established mechanisms to translate strategy into operational terms and evaluate it on a day-to-day basis. The gap between governance and operations is where strategic plans fail.
In our own work, we have seen this pattern repeatedly: board members and executive staff identify different top strategic priorities. The board's number-one priority often does not appear in staff's top five at all.
This misalignment is not about disagreement—it is about disconnection. Board members and staff members operate in different information environments. Board members see the organization through the lens of quarterly reports, annual budgets, and periodic presentations. Staff members see it through the lens of daily operations, client interactions, and programmatic realities. Without structured mechanisms for bridging these perspectives, each group develops a coherent but incomplete picture of organizational reality.
The Cascade of Misalignment
When boards approve strategic plans built on assumptions that staff do not share, implementation falters in predictable ways:
- Staff interpret strategic priorities through the lens of operational reality, often modifying goals to fit existing capacity rather than building new capacity to fit goals
- Resource allocation decisions made at the board level fail to account for the implementation infrastructure required at the staff level
- Progress reporting becomes performative rather than diagnostic, as staff learn to present metrics that satisfy board expectations rather than metrics that reveal operational truth
- Mid-course corrections are delayed because the feedback loop between implementation challenges and strategic oversight operates too slowly
"The distance between a board's strategic vision and a staff's implementation reality is where most nonprofit strategic plans go to die."
- When was the last time your board members and senior staff independently ranked organizational priorities—and compared results?
- Do board members have direct exposure to program operations, or do they rely primarily on executive reports?
- How does your organization surface implementation challenges to the board before they become crises?
- Are strategic plan progress reports designed to inform or to reassure?
Organizations should institute annual alignment assessments where board members and senior staff independently prioritize organizational goals, then convene to reconcile differences. This practice alone—requiring no budget, no consultant, and no restructuring—can dramatically improve plan execution.
Key Finding 3: The Measurement Challenge
Examine why the social impact sector's approach to outcome measurement systematically obscures inequities within program effectiveness and propose an alternative framework grounded in equity-disaggregated metrics.
The third critical theme addresses what may be the sector's most uncomfortable truth: most social impact organizations cannot actually tell you whether their programs are working equitably, because their measurement systems are not designed to answer that question.
The measurement landscape reveals a troubling disconnect. While 90% of nonprofits actively collect data, nearly half are unsure how to use it effectively (Nonprofit Hub). A full 25% of nonprofits lack any system for measuring program impact at all (Stanford Social Innovation Review). And the Urban Institute has documented that most nonprofits cannot disaggregate outcome data by race or ethnicity to assess whether programs work equitably—the infrastructure simply does not exist in most organizations.
This gap is not primarily technical. The tools for disaggregated measurement exist and are accessible. The gap is cultural and incentive-driven. While 81% of nonprofit leaders say funding is increasingly tied to program outcomes, only 18% say their funders actually support evaluation capacity (Bridgespan Group, 2015). Grant reports are structured around aggregate numbers. The measurement infrastructure that organizations build reflects the information that stakeholders demand—and stakeholders are not demanding equity data.
The Aggregate Illusion
Consider what aggregate metrics conceal. A workforce development program reports that 74% of participants secured employment within six months of completing the program. The number sounds strong. The funder is satisfied. The board is pleased.
But disaggregated data might reveal that employment rates for white participants were 86% while rates for Black participants were 58%. It might show that participants with stable housing secured employment at twice the rate of those experiencing housing instability. It might expose that the program's strongest outcomes were concentrated among participants who needed the least support.
Without disaggregation, the organization has no mechanism for identifying these disparities, no basis for adjusting programming, and no accountability for equitable impact. The aggregate number becomes a shield against the uncomfortable questions that drive genuine improvement.
"When we measure in aggregates, we congratulate ourselves on averages that conceal the very inequities our missions compel us to address."
A Framework for Equity-Disaggregated Measurement
Meaningful equity measurement requires three shifts in organizational practice:
Begin with a single program. Identify three outcome metrics that matter most to participants. Disaggregate those metrics by at least two demographic dimensions. Use the results not for external reporting but for internal learning. Build confidence with data before building accountability systems around it.
The GCG Equity Planning Model: A Framework for Transformation
Introduce and detail the GCG Equity Planning Model—a five-step framework developed through a decade of field work that addresses the structural failures identified in the research above.
The themes above paint a challenging picture, but they also point toward clear solutions. The GCG Equity Planning Model synthesizes our decade of field experience with over 100 mission-driven organizations and the published research findings cited in this analysis to provide a structured, replicable approach to strategic planning that centers equity at every stage.
Organizations that have adopted this framework report stronger community relationships, improved board-staff alignment, and higher rates of plan execution—outcomes consistent with the broader research showing that strategy-to-operations alignment is the defining factor in organizational success (Palladium; Gartner).
Phase 1: Community-Grounded Discovery (8-12 weeks)
Establish deep, reciprocal understanding between the organization and the communities it serves before any strategic decisions are made.
The first phase inverts the conventional planning sequence. Rather than beginning with internal assessment and moving outward, the GCG model begins with community and moves inward. This is not merely symbolic. The information gathered in this phase fundamentally shapes every subsequent decision.
Key Activities:
- Conduct community listening circles facilitated by community members, not organizational staff
- Commission or compile community-level data on needs, assets, and priorities
- Map the ecosystem of organizations and resources serving the same community
- Identify community members willing to participate in ongoing planning governance
- Document community-defined success metrics for organizational programs
Allocate a minimum of 8 weeks to this phase. Rushing community engagement to meet planning timelines is the single most common way organizations undermine their own process.
Phase 2: Honest Organizational Assessment (4-6 weeks)
Conduct a rigorous internal assessment that surfaces the gaps between organizational rhetoric and organizational reality.
With community context established, the organization turns its attention inward—but through a lens informed by community voice rather than organizational assumption.
Key Activities:
- Conduct board-staff alignment assessment with independent priority ranking
- Audit program outcomes disaggregated by demographic dimensions
- Review resource allocation against stated equity commitments
- Assess organizational culture through confidential staff surveys and exit interview data
- Map decision-making authority and identify where power concentrates
- Does the organization's budget tell the same story as its mission statement?
- Which programs receive the most resources, and who do those programs primarily serve?
- Where does institutional knowledge concentrate, and what happens if those individuals depart?
- How do staff members from different demographic backgrounds describe their experience of organizational culture?
Assign the organizational assessment to a cross-functional team that includes board members, senior staff, frontline staff, and at least one community representative. Single-perspective assessments reproduce the blind spots they are meant to reveal.
Phase 3: Aligned Strategy Development (6-8 weeks)
Develop strategic priorities through a process that requires board-staff-community alignment before commitments are made.
This phase departs most dramatically from conventional practice. In the GCG model, strategic priorities are not set by leadership and communicated downward. They are developed through structured dialogue among three constituencies—board, staff, and community—and are only adopted when alignment is demonstrated across all three.
Key Activities:
- Convene a planning assembly that includes board, staff, and community representatives
- Use structured prioritization exercises that surface and reconcile different perspectives
- Develop three to five strategic priorities with explicit equity dimensions
- Create theory of change narratives for each priority that specify how the strategy serves equity goals
- Establish shared success metrics that include both organizational outcomes and community-defined outcomes
Limit strategic priorities to five or fewer. Every additional priority dilutes organizational focus and increases the gap between aspiration and execution. The discipline of saying no is as important as the vision behind saying yes.
Phase 4: Equity-Integrated Implementation (Ongoing)
Translate strategic priorities into operational plans with built-in equity accountability and adaptive capacity.
Implementation is where strategic plans survive or die. The GCG model treats implementation not as a phase that follows planning but as a continuous process that requires its own infrastructure.
Key Activities:
- Develop 90-day implementation cycles with clear deliverables, responsible parties, and equity checkpoints
- Establish equity-disaggregated dashboard reporting for all strategic priorities
- Create cross-functional implementation teams that mirror the board-staff-community composition of the planning process
- Build decision protocols for mid-course corrections that preserve strategic direction while adapting to emerging realities
- Institute quarterly community feedback loops that maintain the community voice established in Phase 1
Assign each strategic priority an implementation lead who is accountable not only for execution milestones but also for equity metrics. Without named accountability, equity commitments become the first casualty of implementation pressures.
Phase 5: Accountable Learning and Adaptation (Quarterly cycles)
Create organizational learning systems that use equity-disaggregated data to drive continuous strategic improvement.
The final phase establishes the feedback infrastructure that transforms a strategic plan from a static document into a living system. Conventional planning treats evaluation as a retrospective activity—something done at the end of a planning cycle to assess whether goals were met. The GCG model treats evaluation as a continuous, forward-looking practice that enables real-time strategic adaptation.
Key Activities:
- Conduct quarterly strategic reviews with board, staff, and community participation
- Analyze equity-disaggregated outcome data to identify which populations are benefiting and which are not
- Perform annual recalibration of strategic priorities based on cumulative learning
- Document and share organizational learning—including failures and course corrections—with stakeholders
- Benchmark organizational equity metrics against sector and community standards
Dedicate the first 30 minutes of every board meeting to strategic plan learning—not progress reporting, but genuine examination of what the organization is learning about its impact, its equity gaps, and its capacity for improvement.
Recommendations for Social Impact Leaders
Provide immediately actionable recommendations for organizational leaders, board members, and funders seeking to improve strategic planning outcomes.
For Executive Directors and CEOs
For Board Members
For Funders
Methodology Note
Provide transparency about the research methods underlying this analysis.
This analysis draws on two categories of evidence:
Where we reference specific data points, the source is a published external study. Where we describe patterns and practices, the source is our professional experience.
About the Author
Drew Giddings is the Founder and Principal Consultant of Giddings Consulting Group, a social impact strategy firm that partners with mission-driven organizations to build equitable, sustainable strategic capacity. Over the past decade, Drew has guided more than 100 nonprofits, public agencies, and social enterprises through strategic planning, organizational development, and leadership transitions.
Drew's approach integrates rigorous analytical methodology with deep commitment to community voice and equity. His work spans education, workforce development, public health, housing, and community development—always grounded in the principle that the communities most affected by organizational decisions must participate in shaping those decisions.
Drew holds a Master of Public Administration from Rutgers University-Newark and a Bachelor of Arts from Kean University. He serves as adjunct faculty in nonprofit management and is a frequent speaker at national conferences on equity-centered organizational strategy.
Contact Giddings Consulting Group to discuss how the GCG Equity Planning Model can strengthen your organization's strategic planning process.
About the Author
Drew Giddings
Founder & Principal Consultant
Drew Giddings brings over 15 years of experience working with mission-driven organizations to strengthen their capacity for equity and community impact. His work focuses on helping nonprofits build sustainable strategies that center community voice and create lasting change.
Ready to Transform Your Organization?
Let's discuss how equity-centered strategic planning can strengthen your mission and community impact.
