The spring grant cycle is opening. Like athletes in the
starting block, nonprofits are all out there seeking that one magical grant
that will sustain or even rescue their organizations. Can your organization win
the race? More to the point, are you even competitive?
Charitable institutions form to address a problem and
that problem, or rather the solution to it, defines their mission. Remedying
lack of access to food, shelter, housing, education, safety, and healthcare are
all worthy goals, and they usually have access to some sort of non-governmental
funding. Unfortunately, there are far more organizations needing money than
there are grantors to supply it. Some get the financial backing they need and a
great many more do not. Ever wonder why your proposal was turned down?
I asked grantors just that question. The following is a
typical reply to an informal survey I sent out in 2011 to 24 foundations
requesting information on why they might deny funding to smaller charities,
which I defined as NPO's with from $25K to $1M in annual revenue.
"Thank you for
contacting us. Our four (4) main reasons for denying a request are:
1. Poor or no
financial reporting and/or financial controls.
2. Lack of effective
organizational or management structure.
3. Insufficient
ability to provide meaningful results, or no proof of impact.
4. Not sufficiently
related to our mission.
Comment:
We require evidence
that there is an effective management team in place, and that the organization
is run in a professional manner. Since we require a minimum $50K in revenue and a determination letter,
this means that we are normally dealing with organizations that have been in
existence for 4 years and up. Size doesn't seem
to necessarily dictate a well-run organization. We have denied nonprofits with
over a million dollars in revenue, simply because they had poor or
unprofessional business practices. This seems to go hand-in-hand with
relatively poor program design, lackluster or undocumented results and poor fiscal
management."
Twenty-one out of the original 24 foundations contacted
replied to the survey. They ranged from foundations with less than fifty
thousand dollars in annual grants to four that awarded more than five million
dollars annually. The number one complaint was that the applicants were not
"professionally managed". I didn't get a single reply that indicated
the mission was unworthy or unrealistic.
The argument that charities can't or won't adopt
for-profit business management practices will probably rage on for as long as
there are nonprofit organizations. For some reason, there seems to be a misconception about what constitutes running a nonprofit like a business, and whether that is a
good or bad thing. Many nonprofits are very angry that "it's all about the
money, not the mission".
In what way does being accountable for the way in which someone
else's money is used conflict with mission accomplishment? Is it fear of being
judged, a fear of being held accountable for the funds, or a resistance to
oversight, i.e. a loss of control? Why
do boards adamantly declare that they don't need anything from the for-profit
world and then ask for funding that was probably at least originally based in
that same for-profit world? What
standards would they like to have applied to receive funds?
There is a finite amount of money available for the
support of all the charities in the world. It seems somewhat reasonable that
the grantors would want to see that money used to provide maximum results for
each of the dollars they provide. The methodology for determining that
effectiveness isn't a for-profit or a nonprofit method. It is just a method. X
dollars provides Y result, or it doesn't. Proving and accomplishing that
maximum effectiveness requires the same management procedures that turning a
profit in a company does. The procedures are simply tools used to arrive at
your desired result.
If your goal is mission accomplishment, wouldn't it make
sense to put yourself in the best position to achieve that goal? Running your nonprofit in a business-like
manner isn't about becoming an unfeeling and uncaring robot. It's about putting
yourself in a position to win the backing you need to accomplish the mission
you love.
No comments:
Post a Comment