Recently a nonprofit contacted me to "fix" their
grant boilerplate because an application was denied. I am not a fan of
cut-and-paste grant language. Still, as boilerplate goes this organization had
a pretty good pitch.
Luckily for them the grantor had sent the grant back with
the comment, "results not quantified". That really threw the nonprofit
for a loop. To put it simply, they were offended by the comment. They had shown
how many people they had served in the past three years, documented the number
of repeat versus new clients to show continuing need and included a number of
testimonials from clients. That's the way they've always done it. That approach
had previously gotten them a fair amount of funding, so why didn't it work this
time?
As foundations and even individual donors operate in the
current cash-strapped environment and confront possible adverse changes in the
tax code, they are beginning to act more like used car buyers and less like the
tooth fairy.
If you have ever shopped for a used car you probably started
out with a subjective list. For your new ride maybe you want a black car with a
high-performance option package and it needs to look cool. You may find a dozen
or so candidates that fit that list. Then your selection criteria becomes more
objective. You want it to be in a certain price range. How many miles on the
odometer? How much tread on the
tires? How good is the paint? Has it got
good service records? How much extra equipment do you get for comparably priced
models? Has it ever been wrecked?
No one thinks there is anything wrong with that scenario. Everybody
pretty much shops for used cars that way. You demand a lot of information so that you can make the best decision about how to most wisely
spend your money.
That's pretty much the same mindset that is driving the
current donor trend toward seemingly hard-nosed approaches to handing out grant
money or even major gifts. Donors want to award funding to the best vehicle for
their funds. Even those nonprofits that seem to have a continuing relationship
with certain foundations or donors are suddenly being held to a higher
standard.
The trend in nonprofit funding is to place a measurable value
on every mission. The pitfalls of this approach by grantors are obvious when
considered from the viewpoint of smaller or more local nonprofit missions.
Suppose that you offer free 6-week art classes to inner-city youth. Is it
possible to quantify improvements in painting skills, improved compositional
awareness or any of the intangibles that are specific to that genre? Are you supposed to follow the participants
to see how many became professional artists?
How do you quantify creativity? Is there any place in the world of
philanthropy for local charity or is everything going to be focused on some
massive global program with clear metrics?
At first glance some programs just don't seem to lend
themselves easily to numerical measurement or financial representations. There
is a justifiable perception in the nonprofit community that by reducing every
mission to a formula the real spirit of the nonprofit mission is dulled, and even worse, this type of
mission may not receive enough funding to survive.
Does that mean you should ignore or repudiate the trend?
Only if you really don't need grant money. This is the current wave, and you
can either ride it or let it roll over you. History shows that to survive
everything has to adapt, so how do you adapt to this new reality?
You could consider defining or stating the program/mission
goals differently. Instead of a program goal program being "to offer fun and
challenging physical activities to improve childhood health" you might state it as "to provide physical activities that
produce improved long-term positive behavioral and physical attitudes toward
controlling obesity". The latter statement provides focus and definition
for data collection and conditions the grantor for the data to follow. It also
places your agency under a more stringent standard for service delivery. Once
you define the program in terms of desired results, you can prove that it is
effective or alternatively, that the funds you are requesting will make it
effective in achieving the desired results.
Taking the art class example above, you could define the
program as a way to reduce participation in gang activities, or as a way to encourage
children to move away from video games to more creative forms of
self-expression. That would give a starting point to include hard statistics
and follow-up reporting. You can provide some form of numerical reporting for
almost any type of program or mission. That will make the program more credible
to funding sources instead of just a feel-good exercise.
Supporters for your mission still exist, but there are a lot
of organizations competing for the same dollars, just as there are lots of used muscle cars for
sale. Those supporters want to kick the tires a little more now. That shouldn't
offend you; it should make you proud to show them you've got the best ride out
there for them.
