As a Grant-Seeker and the nominated Grant writer for our non-profit, I have been searching for how to get more grant money. It occurred to me that I needed to understand the perspective of those with the grant money. Exploring this was easier than I thought, but am I right? I will save the verification for another day.
Foundations have “x” dollars each year to give away and they can fund “x” organizations; let’s say 20. A Foundation may receive 100, 200 or maybe 1,000 Grant proposals for the possible 20 Grants. They come in every form; glitzy, handwritten, thick, short and probably all them are syrupy.
In the worst case, the Foundation must throw out 49 proposals for every Grant. The situation sounds just like looking through job resumes for interview candidates. You have 1,000 resumes and one job opening. You are willing to interview 4-10 for the job. I know how I and my old colleagues approached the task. You make 2 piles; 1) Toss and 2) Review. My selection criteria for the first pile “Toss” was simple; incomplete, sloppy, no experience in the subject and they want way too much money. I think this first cut for Grant proposals might be similar. How else are they going to get down to a reasonable number that you want to actually read?
One question occurs to me about my resume criteria, “way too much money”. If a well deserving Grant-Seeker asks for $20,000 and the average Grant given is $1,000; do the Grant Reviewers “toss it”?
Hopefully after the 1st cut, the number of proposals is down to 100 or less. Continuing with my resume example, you take the 2nd pile and you quickly “glance” through each one and grade them 1 – 5. In this review, some just stand out and they get a 5; some just do not meet your criteria and get a 1. Others are somewhere in between and you may or may not look at them again. The ones with a 1 go into the “Toss” pile. If those graded with a “5” is greater than the 20 possible Grants to be given; the first part of selection process is done. If there are less than 20, additional ones are selected with a grade of “4”. The goal is to spend a minimal amount of time on the first 2 cuts, so you can spend your bulk of your time reviewing the “real” candidates. Of course, all of the above is my own supposition; I have only met one Foundation person and she was very tight-lipped. I also doubt that many Foundations would admit that a Grant proposal was rejected after a 10 second review.
Given my scenario, many well deserving non-profits with limited knowledge about Grant writing will not receive a Grant. They will fall out in the first cut or “not rise to the top like cream” in the second cut. This seems unfair, but I would bet money that it is true.
So next the Foundation must actually review the remaining proposals. If I were reviewing, I would be looking to make Grants that;
- make a “real” impact
- money will not be wasted
- results are measurable
- have a proven track record
With so many non-profits wanting money; you would want some assurance that their money will have a real or permanent impact. You would not want the money wasted or to be used to pay for over-paid staff, fundraising or overly high administrative expenses. And you want some way to measure the outcome, so you know you did not waste your money. To reduce your risk another criteria might be to only consider non-profits with experience or a proven track record or history. After a review of a few Foundations and their Grants, I believe that some Foundations only make Grants to those “well known” non-profits; it safe and easy. You do not need to look through the 1,000 Grant proposals. Other criteria may include innovative or to increase self sufficiency. Hints on other criteria would probably be found in the Grant Guidelines and will probably vary between Foundations. I have ignored Foundations that only make Grants to organization for which they have a personal relationship.
Other possible criteria:
- innovative
- self-sufficiency
If you think about the first four criteria, it leads to Grants only being given to Projects or Special Programs and not to operating expenses or salaries. General operating expenses are not “measurable”. Salaries that keep the organization running can not be “measured”. The Manager that manages the operations and staff, looks for ways to save money, creates new ways to better serve the goals are considered “overhead”, even though they make it all happen.
My only experience is with animal shelters. There is no Grant money for operating expenses or capital items/buildings. If the ultimate goal is to eliminate the homeless pet problem, then building more housing space or paying staff to feed the animals is counter to the goal. Grants are available for Spay/Neuter; the current “thinking” for eliminating the pet over-population problem and it is measurable.
So Grant seekers like me are grinding their teeth conjuring up Projects out of existing activities, so they can cover some of the expenses necessary to run the organization. To add a new Project with new expenses is counter-productive to the existing organization, because a new Project increases management, overhead expenses and paperwork.
So I have stood in the shoes of a Foundation and I think I understand their perspective. I will try to find a couple of books on the subject to verify my thoughts, although I doubt that any will be bold enough to tell it like it really is. I know that I will try to make any future Grant proposals very professional, concise and somehow make them “stand out”, but not glitzy. Why not glitzy? I always put glitzy job resumes in the “Toss” pile.