How do funders pick award winners?

Successful grant proposals illustrate these key points.

·         Your proposal delivers an important idea relative to the grantor's mission by addressing a significant issue.

·         You show that you understand the grantors mission by providing an innovative approach to that issue.

·         You set reasonable objectives and present a detailed plan, including a budget, to achieve them.

·         You can provide proof to the funder that you are capable of success.

·         You can explain how the project will advance the funder’s mission.

·         You can show that the project is sustainable beyond any support the grantor may provide.

·         You don't apply if you aren't qualified.

Grantors receive from dozens to hundreds or even thousands of proposals when they announce an open application period.

You have to stand out. One of the best ways to do that is to provide documentation of your success in addressing the issues even if it is through a pilot program or another type of program that is still mission-centric.

Sometimes that simply means presenting your program differently.

Homework is the most important part of any grant proposal. You already know about you and your needs. Your assignment is to find out what the funder needs or wants.

Get to know everything you can about the funder. Who have they funded in the past? What type of programs do they fund? Who is on the board? Do they fund the same organizations every year? Is there an opening to present a new twist that those other grantees haven't explored? Don't be afraid to look at those other grant winners and discover their strengths and weaknesses.

 For instance one nonprofit that worked to provide transitional safe housing for domestic violence victims presented their program as "Safer homes mean better educations" and landed a $25,000 grant from a grantor that normally supports early childhood education.

The trend toward online applications that began a few years ago is not your friend. Learn to condense your narratives and program outlines because you may not have several pages to elaborate on your planning and goals.

The last bullet point above is important. Don't apply if you can't qualify. Aside from making you look incompetent, you might very well leave such a bad impression that you hit the funder's blacklist (and yes, virtually every funder has one).

It is rare for a smaller nonprofit to have dozens of potential funder matches. If you can align with a handful each year, you are doing far better than average.

Grantors don't typically fund organizations that have few or no other resources, which is why they almost never fund start-up organizations. New programs are often okay, new organizations, not so much. Grantors are looking for impact potential, and it's hard to have impact if you can't pay the light bill.

On the other hand, if you have managed to grow your organization using financial resources from avenues other than grants, that's a definite plus.

That said, if you have a truly outstanding angle and an ironclad plan of action that offers a new twist on an old problem it might not hurt to try.

Consider these tips and you are likely to connect on more proposals.

Next week – Collaborate and conquer. 

Is your board helping you pay the bills?

Judging from the number of nonprofit founders that tell me they need a grant because they have maxed out their personal ability to support their nonprofit, I'd have to say the answer is a resounding "no".

In my white paper, "Climbing the Ladder to Nonprofit Success" (you can get a copy by requesting one here) I explain why depending on getting grants to start a nonprofit, or even winning grant funding in the first year or two, is not a very wise financial plan.

So where do you get your initial funding after you have put all the personal money you can afford into the mission? Normally, it is going to be from your board, your immediate friends and family, small local events or a combination of all three.

Everyone seems to get the friends and family and the small events part, but they don't want to make fundraising a board duty.

There will probably always be a philosophical discussion about whether to set fundraising goals for each board member. I don't understand why that is even a point for discussion.

Admittedly, many people start nonprofits and  ask people they know to be on the board, just to satisfy the legal requirement that they have a board. It is a good bet that some of the people they pick say something like "OK, but I won't have to do anything, right?"

 

Wrong.

The board should be initially a development group. First and foremost they should care passionately about accomplishing the mission, and believe that they can do it. Right after they affirm their allegiance to that idea, they need to understand that missions need money to succeed. Making the board an integral part of that aspect of being a nonprofit right at the start shouldn't be optional.

If founders would sit down and figure out how much money they need in the first two years, cross grants off the list of possible sources, and then approach perspective board members with a honest inquiry as to whether they can contribute to the organization, or at the very least, be willing to go out individually and raise funds to meet those goals, there would be fewer failing nonprofits.

When someone asks me to write a grant and then says the organization is essentially a one-man or woman show, I know that no matter what I do, the grant thing isn't going to happen. That just isn't a model that grantors can support.

Increasingly, prospective funders are starting to ask for a statement as to how much money the board members contribute personally to the organization. At the very least, they may ask for the amount the board as a whole has personally contributed in the past year.

The reasoning behind that question is first, to judge how committed  the board  is to the organization's survival and whether they are taking personal responsibility to ensure that success. Second, if all they see is zeroes or a few dollars from each board member, it tells them that the organizational strength may not be good enough for them to trust with their money. Third, they want to know that the nonprofit has enough reasonably stable funding to stay in business.

Underlying all of those questions is another big one…if your board doesn't support the nonprofit financially, why should anyone else do so?

Many more funding sources are starting to require proof of matching funds before they will fund a program, or they are making an award into a challenge grant. Very new nonprofits usually have a tough time with that, but if the board is willing and able to gather a few thousand dollars toward that requirement, it can open the door to more funding.

For those that feel that accepting board members on the basis of their ability to contribute monetarily leaves out  some otherwise well-qualified prospects, then consider setting a fundraising goal for those worthy but financially challenged people. If asking them to go out and solicit donations puts them off, they will probably never be fully committed in other areas either.

Like it or not, your organization will always be chasing the next dollar. If your board is so passive that they can ignore that immutable fact, it is probably the wrong board.

Having this conversation with your board can be tricky. You don't want to start off by saying "OK, you lazy pot-lickers, it's time to pony up", even if that's the way you feel. Sometimes all board members need is a firm goal to chase instead of a never-ending whine about how broke you are, and they will amaze you. By setting an attainable goal for board contributions, you maximize the chance that they will put some effort into reaching it.

If you aren't sure how to have this conversation with your existing board, or frame it in a recruiting pitch, drop me a line and I can help you present it in a firm but non-accusatory manner. 

Getting grants - Will your application be successful?

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. 

Successful Nonprofit Fundraising

On a Personal Note

To all the people that requested Climbing the Ladder to Nonprofit Success-Thanks! To the "marketing guru" that emailed me to tell me I was missing "an awesome monetizing opportunity" - I'm not interested.

I'm not exactly stupid when it comes to marketing, internet or otherwise. I know about landing pages, and "free" offers that require me to enter my email just to look at something to see if it I want it. I couldn't even begin to count all the content pieces I've written for that type of campaign. Those marketing/sales techniques do have a place in many industries. If just getting subscribers to view your blog is how you make money, or you have a product that many people use, but lots of competition in the same product line, I get being able to mass email your contact list constantly. I really do understand top-of-mind branding.

That isn't what I intended to do when I wrote Climbing the Ladder to Nonprofit Success. That's why I gave you MY email address. If you are interested in starting a nonprofit the right way, or struggling with one that didn't start with a good business model, I figure you'll contact me. If not, bombarding you with a sales pitch every week isn't going to make you a client. That's when I become known in a negative way. "OMG!  Another email from that pest again!" is not how I want you to remember me.

What does all this have to do with YOUR nonprofit funding plan?

 

Don't be a robo-fundraiser

There are certain organizations that seem to live on seemingly never-ending cycles of email or direct mail appeals, especially around the holidays. We all get them. Every few days there is an email or a fundraising letter in the mail. Pretty soon, the intended recipient simply drops them in file 13 or its electronic equivalent on the way to opening the rest of the mail. Even at nonprofit presort rates, that is expensive. The marketing firm that produces the appeal materials doesn't work for free. And we wonder why their fundraising costs are 50%-plus of their budget?

   

Robo-mailing typifies the way many nonprofits approach fundraising. Nag, nag, nagging for money or shot-gunning your grant applications aren't always viable plans. It can be an ineffective, time-consuming and expensive way to turn off your donors. Purchasing one-size-fits-all mailing lists costs money.

One of my services is researching probable matches between funding sources and a specific nonprofit. Some people email me with a request to "send out up to 100 applications for grant funds". It ain't gonna happen. If I can find 12 good matches, that is a rarity. A half-dozen or so really good prospects per grant cycle is more like it.

Why less really is more

Are there 100 foundations, corporations or government grants that generally support your type of cause?  Maybe…but they aren't all a match. Some are not geographically matched, some are already locked in to supporting specific nonprofits, some require a depth of organizational development that your nonprofit simply can't provide at the time, and some actually don't support your specific mission at all. Just because they say they support youth doesn't make them candidates for a pitch for advanced dress designing classes for girls 8-13. Researching grants takes time and in-depth analysis. Why not spend your money to develop a really targeted campaign?

Spend Wisely

That's why I offer fund raising planning services. That can be a part of a larger strategic plan, or a stand-alone service, but the idea is to focus your time (and money) on developing customized strategies that actually have a chance of succeeding.

Get a focus. Develop a real plan. Know when you will need money and think ahead, not a week or a month, but a year or even five years ahead. For that you'll need a budget, a easily explainable program and verified positive outcomes. Develop these now, not when we're writing the grant, because making it up as you go along is not a strategy. And if you need help, give me a shout. Helping you to succeed is what I do. Just drop me a line at granthelp@ida.net.

Outcome Measurement - How to Do it, and Why

In the past dozen years, the term outcome measurement has become a part of the language of funding. For some reason, nonprofits, particularly local or smaller nonprofits, are having a hard time understanding the difference between documenting outcomes and providing attendance figures. As a grant professional, I see literally dozens of programs that simply don't provide the type of program reporting that grantors expect. I can write the most carefully crafted application in the world, but if your programs don't demonstrate real effectiveness, you are probably not going to be funded.

Outcomes are not measured by how many people you present your program to, they are measured by whether each person improved in some area because they received your services, i.e. the impact of the program. To a large extent, the quality of your outcomes is determined by how carefully you design  your program.

To measure outcomes, you have to have a coherent, measurable goal for your program. For instance, let's say that your nonprofit focuses on improving early childhood learning by getting parents involved. To set up an effective reporting metric, you define the desired end result, and work backwards to define the steps necessary to achieve that goal. For example, if the goal is to teach conversational English, you define what will prove the student learned the language, and what level of proficiency they have attained. Then you develop program steps that produce the desired result.

So, let's apply that to a hypothetical early childhood learning skills program. First you need to define and prove the current state of early childhood learning in your geographic area. Why is your program necessary?  If you don't know what the current state of the problem is, you don't have a baseline from which to measure improvement.

What is the magnitude of the problem? You might use available data, such as government surveys, or maybe you hold a series of meetings with educators, law enforcement, social services workers and other professionals who deal with the effects of poor learning environments. What is the average age of the parents in your target population? What socio-economic conditions seem to produce poor early childhood learning difficulties? What do children entering the school system for the first time lack to make them successful?

 

Don't be lazy here. It isn't enough to say "Everybody knows that poverty causes poor school outcomes." Put a number to it. Say, "Our local research shows that 72% of the children entering first grade in our school system do not know their alphabet, can't count to 100 and don't focus well on tasks. The average age of their parents is 22. 78% of the affected children live in single parent households. 34% of the parents do not have a high school education. 94% of the households receive some type of public assistance." That type of targeted data will require research and documentation of the current problem.

 

What is the goal of the program? Don't say, "we will present our programs to 100 family units annually" That sets your program up to accept attendance as a goal. Say, "We will involve 100 parents of five-year-old children in a comprehensive six-month  program that teaches parents how to teach learning skills to their child. We will assess the current skill levels of each child in the areas of reasoning, self-control,  and problem solving, and measure the improvement in each program area. Our goal is to have every child improve their basic ability to learn. We will follow the children through their first year in school to assess whether the program provided the children with better learning skills and collect data to assess whether parents continue their involvement in the learning process".  Now you have the basis for real measurement of real outcomes

.

To set up measurable goals, you might have program elements that look something like this:

.

1. Parent will spend at least one half-hour hour daily supervising activities that require concentration. (Have the parent keep a log of the time with a description of the activity)

2. Parent will read with their child at least two hours weekly, or if the parent is not reading-proficient, will take their child to the library reading program and stay with them while they participate in the activities. (Have the parent record the times and places where reading is emphasized)

3. Parent will learn techniques to improve the child's ability to sit still and concentrate on a simple task, such as learning to color neatly or count objects. (Measure the length of time the child concentrates now, and evaluate through testing whether those times have improved. Have the parent document the application of the techniques.)

You get the idea. By defining specific "lessons" for the parent, the by-product, i.e. the child's improvement can be measured. By requiring the parent to prove they are actively involved, you minimize the chance that they will just go through the motions, since the child's improvement is a direct result of the parent's involvement.

Each of the theoretical situations above will also require you to develop and document methods to present the initial concepts you are trying to measure. That documentation will provide data that justifies the grantors contribution to your nonprofit. As a by-product, you will find that your costs may actually decrease, since you won't be wasting time and money on unproductive methods.

That's the type of hard data that grantors are looking for you to provide. If your current program doesn't capture this type of data, spending a few hours with your program team and setting up a measurement strategy and implementation schedule will vastly improve your funding success.

If you need help, or would like to have your program grant language reviewed, drop me an email at  granthelp@ida.net. If you have comments or opinions  please enter them in the comment section.