With the upcoming December meeting, the current Board will (likely) vote to approve the 2024-2028 Strategic Plan. If you want to read the draft plan (not yet approved), you can find it in the December 2023 Board Meeting Agenda (Appendix L).
The last three months, we’ve been hard at work putting this together, and it’s been a hugely collaborative effort between the board, national office, and critical stakeholder groups across USA Fencing (more on that below).
I want you to care about this plan. I want you to get excited about it. And most importantly, I want your feedback/volunteering to take it from concept to reality in the next quadrennial! Before I dive into the details of the plan, I wanted to share with you a little bit about what a strategic plan is, what it isn’t, and why it’s so important for USA Fencing.
What a Strategic Plan Is:
A strategic plan is the staple of any capable and competent organization. In short, it is the compass for an organization that sets priorities for the next (typically) 4-5 years.
The contents of a strategic plan often determine an organization’s financial and human capital resourcing, operational plans (in other words, how to take the vision of the plan and make it a reality), and they set tangible and measurable goals and metrics that hold both the Board and CEO accountable for outcomes.
The strategic plan is owned by the Board (governance), whereas the CEO is responsible for executing the plan (operations).
What a Strategic Plan Isn’t:
If you open a strategic plan and expect a blueprint with answers, you’re going to be disappointed. It is after all, a four-year document that will take numerous committees, task forces, and members of the national office staff to execute upon with oversight from the Board.
It simply sets the vision and direction. “The devil’s in the details,” as they say, and the details are going to be built out with the help of the community over the next four years.
How the Plan was Formed:
In September, 2023, the Board held a multi-day retreat in Denver that had the sole focus of soliciting input for the 2024-2028 strategic plan. That retreat included members from numerous critical stakeholder groups, including:
- The entire Board of Directors
- The CEO and numerous members of his staff
- Able-bodied athletes and representatives
- Para athletes and representatives
- Members of the Veterans Committee
- Coaches
- Members of the Board of Trustees
- USA representatives to the FIE
- Medical experts/doctors
In all the strategic planning sessions I’ve done (enough to put a man to sleep), it was the largest group I’ve been a part of, and it was a truly representative swath of the community. It allowed us to create a plan not in a vacuum, but with a good chunk of USA Fencing’s membership weighing in.
And for the first time in strategic planning, we sent out a membership survey for input, much of which was used to inform our goals!
Goal 1: Brand Awareness and Growth
Objective: Increase visibility to drive brand value, drive new Fencers to clubs and grow revenue in order to support programs and build financial stability.
Why I’m Excited About this Goal:
As members, we have a shared interest in wanting the media value of the sport of Fencing to grow. In doing so, we drum up more interest for the sport, thereby increasing new member acquisition in our fencing clubs.
As our media value grows, it will also open the door for new corporate/media sponsorships, allowing USA Fencing to more broadly diversity its revenue streams and add to our revenue potential.
The Brand Awareness and Growth goal isn’t just about media value though: we explicitly set metrics to grow our membership to 70,000 members and 700+ clubs by the end of the LA2028 quadrennial. And of equal importance—we’ve set aggressive revenue growth goals from non-member sources.
By the end of 2028, Fencing will be a top 8 sport in media value, our membership will continue to grow, and we’ll be one of the most popular sports in the Olympic movement. Count it.
Goal 2: Sports Excellence
Objective: “Advance fencing through competitive excellence on the field of play delivered through outstanding experiences for athletes, coaches, referees, armorers, families, cadre and spectators.”
Why I’m Excited About This Goal: You can ask my colleagues on the Board, but this is the goal I was perhaps the most aggressive about weighing in with feedback on.
Let’s face it: local events are on life support. I’m of the opinion that we need more recreational, grassroots opportunities in our sport, and that the sense of community in Fencing begins at the divisional level. So here’s what you need to know: by the end of the 2028 quadrennial, you will see a 30% increase in local event sanctioning and local event participation. That was a metric I was boldly aggressive in insisting we put into the plan, and one that I was glad to see was welcomed by my colleagues with open arms.
From a high performance/elite athlete perspective, we set the most aggressive targets in the history of our strategic planning: we will be a top 4 nation in medal count across FIE events, and we will get at least one medal per weapon in World Championships and Olympic Games. That includes Epee, where we have not mustered an individual Olympic medal since 1924. We have the athletes capable of it in all three weapons. We have the coaches capable of bringing us there. It will absolutely, 100% be achieved.
But wait, there’s more. A lot more to this goal.
Let’s talk about referee development. I’m of the opinion that we need to re-think our referee development program to promote gender equity, allow for more fair, objective pathways for our refs, and look at the long-term growth of our referees (as opposed to evaluating on an annualized basis). Educational opportunities are an absolute must, as rules and conventions are constantly changing, and we as refs have an obligation to the fencers to stay on top of current trends so that our athletes have a consistent experience from local events all the way through the FIE level.
Now the toughest part of this goal to tackle will be evaluating our athlete rating and tournament structures. We are a sport that sometimes holds onto the mentality of “we’ve always done it this way” a little bit too much. Perhaps, 20 years ago, our A-U rating system was sufficient in providing a general indication of an athlete’s ability. Perhaps, 20 years ago, allowing C’s and above to compete in Division I made sense when Division 1 events had 150 athletes on a good day. And perhaps, when we now can get 400+ entries in a Division I event, maybe we need to re-think if that’s a little bit too big for what are supposed to be elite events. There will be changes to fencing as we know it in the next four years. What those changes are and how they’ll be implemented is going to be a multi-year process requiring expert coaches, athletes, committees, and Board members coming together to solve for. But it’s an absolute priority for our organization.
There’s one thing I want to call out that isn’t a part of this goal. Take a look at the “Member Pathways” sub-objective. Note the word “optional” next to coach-related training. In the next quadrennial, there will be no mandatory coaching training requirements unless imposed by a regulatory authority such as the USOPC or the US Center for SafeSport. Byeeeeee.
Goal 3: Parafencing Advancement
Objective: “Invest resources and implement best practices to elevate Parafencing and foster belonging across the community.”
Why I’m Excited About this Goal: A couple of months ago, I attended the IWAS World Cup in Leesburg, Virginia, my first international para tournament. I was blown away by a few things that stood out:
- The point control, accuracy, and precision required
- The highlight reel touches and backflicks that would make Max Heinzer proud
- The diversity of tactics the athletes use is absolutely nutty
- The tightness of the international community itself. Para athletes treated one another as family, and with a deeper mutual respect than anything I’ve seen in able-bodied.
- The difficulty of refereeing and the attention to detail required there
- The Brits are churning out para-athletes with gusto
When it comes to the sporting world, one thing I will never let my American ego accept is falling behind the British. But the fact is: we have only had one para medalist in the history of Para: Scott Rodgers in 2004. I believe that para deserves the same attention and urgency in high performance as able-bodied.
So what this goal focuses on is aggressive growth of the para pipeline. We will increase our para-athletes by 100%. We will increase our coaching and refereeing pipeline, and we will have so many gold medals in para you will mistake our para-athletes for Fort Knox thieves.
Plain and simple: we cannot be contenders in international para fencing without increasing our pipeline of athletes and coaches, and that’s why this needs to be its own priority separate from the able-bodied high performance goal.
One thing that I’ve always found interesting about Para: I’ve been a member of USA Fencing for nearly 30 years and been a member of dozens of clubs. Not once, and I mean, literally not once have I had a para fencer enter a single club I’ve ever been a part of. And it turns out, we really don’t have a big para pipeline. When I asked Phil how many para-athletes we had, he said about 65. I don’t remember the exact figure of para coaches we had, but it is also shockingly low. Part of this goal will be to aggressively market para-fencing to those with disabilities and ensure that we’re getting more para-athletes and coaches in the doors of our clubs.
My personal commitment to achieving this goal: I will become a certified Maitre D’Epee in para by the end of the LA quadrennial and begin developing my own pipeline of para athletes.
Kudos to my colleague Lauryn Delucca, our Board para-athlete rep who passionately advocated for Para being its own distinct goal in the strategic plan. Because of her representation, I’m fully on board!
Goal 4: Sports Growth
Objective: Increase participation and impact to drive lifelong engagement through the sport.
Why I’m Excited About This Goal: For better and for worse, NCAA Fencing is the catalyst for much of our sport’s growth (I say for worse, because I believe some parents place inordinate pressure on their children to perform in Fencing to get into college instead of allowing them to simply enjoy the sport).
Much of this goal is NCAA-focused for that reason, but there’s more to this than NCAA alone. I’ll start with the NCAA focus: to Phil’s credit, he’s been on the phone speaking to any Athletic Directors willing to jump on a call with him. We’ve already seen a number of NCAA programs added in Phil’s tenure. By the end of this quadrennial, we will have added at least five more programs. With kudos to Vickie Miller for the idea, I pounded the table to ensure that we would add in at least one Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s) NCAA program and that was included in the plan.
There’s a gender equity component to the NCAA objectives too. As you may know, NCAA Team Champions are determined by combined victories in Men’s and Women’s. There’s just one problem: when you have schools like Tufts, Wellesley, Northwestern, Temple, Cornell, etc. that only have women’s programs and can only send a maximum of 6 fencers, it’s inherently an inequitable championship. Let me provide a telling example as to why: In the 2021 NCAA Championships, Northwestern amassed 75 wins, giving them a 10th overall finish. The thing is, if there was a separate women’s championship, Northwestern would have finished 3rd overall! The championship needs to go back to men’s and women’s titles. It’s only fair. And for those worried about separating the championships and the impact it will have on NCAA Fencing: we will not proceed with any proposals to the NCAA that will threaten the livelihood of collegiate fencing. Period.
I’m also excited for the Sports Growth goal because of its DEIB growth targets even outside of NCAA. Easiest to lay out some of those in a table, but the end result will be growth in our female athletes/coaches, and fencers of color as well:
| Stakeholder Group | Current State | Where We’ll be by the end of LA2028 |
| Female Athletes | 38% | 50% |
| Female Coaches | 22% | 30% |
| Fencers of Color | Unknown | “Increase %…to reflect societal average.” |
One other aspect of this goal worth calling out: reducing NCAA athlete attrition. I showed this graph in my last Boring Board Blog post, but take a look at USA Fencing members by age:
Notice the steep dropoff in renewals when athletes turn 18? Yeah. We’ve got to fix that and figure out why athletes leave and give them an incentive to stay members/find ways to continue in the sport in fulfilling ways. The strategic plan seeks to reduce NCAA attrition by 10%, so by the time you turn 37 (like me), you won’t have to say “THERE ARE LITERALLY DOZENS OF US!”
Goal 5: Organizational Effectiveness
Objective: Improve organizational capabilities to foster responsible growth, build trust with stakeholders and achieve the mission of USA Fencing.
Why I’m Excited About This Goal: This goal is about taking what the organization already does well and making it even better. It’s about financial responsibility and growth. It’s about implementing data into decision-making to become a savvier NGB. And finally, after beating this dead horse for years, we’re going to make Organizational Change Management a central part of our processes and procedures!
Let’s talk financials first: ten years ago, we were more than seven figures in debt. That’s a place we cannot and should not ever be in again. So, we’ve set targets here to run at a 4-year surplus while reducing expenses by 5% (adjusted for inflation). We’re going to make sure our cost budget variances do not exceed 10% and ensure that we stay on course for what we budget for.
The member safety targets in this goal are another thing I’m excited about. We’re targeting a more aggressive adjudication timeline of 90 days (average) so that those who have been victims of misconduct that falls under FenceSafe’s jurisdiction will be resolved in a timely manner. We’re also setting a target of <10% overturned decisions. These kind of metrics are important so that the confidence in FenceSafe’s judicial processes will be high (when the Center itself keeps failing all of us).
Now on the subject of Organizational Change Management: we need this. We need it badly. I believe that a huge part of recent disconnects between the Board and membership has to do with gaps in organizational change management processes. The more we can engage our members end-to-end when major changes are implemented, the more stakeholder support and buy-in we’ll get on major initiatives.
Thoughts? Feedback? Sound off in the comments. Please contact me at damien@thefencingcoach.com if you would like to get involved in implementing the plan over the next four years!
You must be logged in to post a comment.