Case Study: Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance
Navigates Major Organizational Transition,
Unlocking Strategic Clarity
and Renewed Team Confidence

When Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance (IAWA) experienced a series of rapid changes in its organization and the funding landscape in early 2025, the nonprofit found itself at a critical inflection point.

In a short period of time, IAWA faced reduced federal funding, new leadership priorities and a massive reorganization.

Through a focused period of strategic advisory and facilitated sessions over the next 11 months, IAWA rebuilt clarity, strengthened internal alignment, and developed a more focused, efficient approach to partnerships, funding, and decision-making.

With CEO Nate Birt at Silver Maple Strategies serving as a steady, flexible thought partner in the background, the team was able to stabilize, prioritize, and begin moving forward with renewed confidence.

​

​

Before working with Nate/Silver Maple Strategies, what primary challenge(s) or transition(s) were you facing?

JEN: We experienced tremendous organizational change, along with a dramatic reduction in federal funding to support our vision and mission of increasing the pace and scale of farmer-led conservation adoption. At the same time, we had new executive leadership and new focus areas for innovative partnerships. Where we had once had a full team dedicated to business and funding development, that role became a singular resource shared among multiple organizations, demanding a new, more efficient and creative development strategy.

​

What made you decide to bring Nate/Silver Maple Strategies in at that specific moment?

JEN: Because there had been so much change, the team had lost a lot of institutional knowledge and a bit of our momentum. We sought outside thought partnership to help clarify our strategy and focus, while also learning new ways to navigate the tremendously different federal funding landscape.

Can you point to any specific, measurable outcomes, wins, or signs of progress that resulted from our work, even if they are non-financial (e.g., team morale, new product launched, time saved, risks mitigated)?
 

JEN: Team morale was given a huge boost from the three facilitated sessions focused on strategy. Prior to the first session, each team member anonymously identified the “superpowers” of the rest of the team. This was an energy-boosting opener to the session that really had a lasting impact on the team. Not only did it help super-charge morale, but it let every team member see how their unique strengths directly contribute to our success.

Prioritization improved from the development perspective. Time is limited, so we really need to focus on where we can have the largest impact.” Nate also helped us harness the power of technology and AI to broaden our search net for new opportunities.

 

What changed for you or your organization as a result of this partnership?

JEN: I was able to apply the learnings to all aspects of my job. Even if not all of the strategies were applied in practice, this type of experience will carry forward in my career.

 
 

On a scale where 1 = No change and 5 = Significant improvement, how would you rate the increase in your:
 

• Organizational clarity and strategic confidence? 4

• Leadership and team confidence? 5

• Improvement in decision-making stabilization? 5

 
 

What did Nate actually help you do, build, clarify, or move forward?

JEN: Nate was a great sounding board to help the team focus on the most important deliverables. He led and inspired creative thoughts on how to build out a “go/no go” decision framework for funding opportunities. He also helped the team apply new approaches for the preparation ahead of our board meetings, to ensure we provided the right information, at the right time, and with the right amount of detail.
 

He built amazing AI tools that helped the team dramatically increase their efficiency, in both the communications and development spaces. He elevated the executive presence and strategic thinking of the entire team. He introduced the team to novel funding sources—and how to search for them! Discussions around relationship management also really helped the team think differently. We became more strategic and prioritized.

​

 

What was different about Nate's approach compared with other consultants, agencies, or options you considered?

​

JEN: Nate was very organized, process-oriented, and built out a thoughtful draft of where the consulting would go. Nate was also extremely flexible and responsive to adapting the consulting plan to balance between communications, development, and really any new topic that the team wanted to focus on.

Were there any moments where Nate’s flexibility, calm demeanor, or judgment stood out, especially when handling complexity or unexpected situations?

JEN: Nate demonstrated these skills in literally every consulting session! When I knew there was a last minute change or a unique and complex scenario to discuss, I found it useful to give Nate a heads up so we were both fully prepared for the discussion

Regarding the support provided, how valuable was the integration of human-centered expertise with practical artificial intelligence/technology insights?

​

JEN: Very valuable. It ensured the strategy was modern and actionable.

Who would be the best fit for working with Nate?

JEN: Nate was fantastic working with nonprofits who are focused on agriculture and conservation!

 
 

If someone asked whether working with Nate was worth the investment, what would you say?

​

JEN: Working with Nate was definitely worth the investment! Nate became such a trusted and creative thought partner! No matter what topic the team threw at him, he was a tremendous resource that helped us navigate a new path forward that helped us solidify our strategy. He brought new ideas to the team and inspired us to make them even better!