As a grant and proposal writer, I find myself asking that
question a lot, and too often the answer is no.
Oh sure, there may be someone assigned to answer questions
or provide data, but no one seems to be able to make a firm decision. In fact,
it happens so often that it has become one of my top questions when qualifying
a client…what is your approval process for accepting a grant application or LOI
deliverable? The least desirable answer is that it will be "reviewed by the
staff and/or board".
The bane of any grant writer's existence is the serial
editing process. That means you submit a proposal or LOI for review and it
makes the rounds throughout the organization not once but many times.
You know you are in trouble when you get back multiple edit
requests signed by six different people and they target six different goals.
What you have then is six different people all defending
their piece of the turf. That doesn't move the process forward, and it may
indicate to the grantor that your planning process is not effective as a means
to provide long-lasting outcomes.
Understand, I don't have a problem with the people or the
input. It's the lack of coherent planning that serial editing represents.
With rare exception, grantors focus on supporting a proposal
that targets one of their must-have results. Let's say they are into acquiring housing for the
homeless. They are looking for ways to assist you in putting that roof over
someone's head.
While many conditions contribute to homelessness, the grantor's
ultimate goal is reducing the number of homeless people. However, in your
organizations serial editing process, one person wants to include funding for substance
abuse counseling, another wants to provide job training, another wants to
address domestic violence, while someone else is focused on acquiring
properties for temporary housing.
Only the last will meet the goal of this specific grantor. That
doesn't mean the other three are not worthy of funding, or couldn't be presented as individual programs or phases, but they don't provide the physical roof.
Someone needs to be in charge of maintaining a focus and
assigning a priority to the specific needs that align with both the grantor and
grantee's mission.
In the example above, the physical building meets the
grantors guidelines. All of the other peripheral elements can be targeted once
the person is safely housed. That might require writing more grants and
applying to several grantors.
It very seldom happens that one grantor will support every
facet or nuance of fulfilling your over-arching mission. As a grant writer or
adviser, it isn't up to me to prioritize your needs. The best I can do is
make suggestions that will strengthen your chances of winning funding.
The decision on whose interests or needs are
most important within your organization at any given point in time needs to
made before you approach a funding prospect. Then, when you review an RFP or a proposal one
person should be able to make a decision and evaluate the proposal or grantor on
that basis.
That saves you time and money by allowing me to provide you
with a quality targeted proposal or assist you in finding appropriate grantor
prospects to approach, and more importantly, it maximizes your chances of
winning funding.
Make a plan and put someone in charge of it. It will make both of our jobs easier and more productive.
No comments:
Post a Comment