PSGA Ken's Corner

Observations and advice on grant writing from the other side of the desk


1 Comment

The warnings come after the spells

“Yeah, you know, you really should have stolen the whole book because the warnings… The warnings come *after* the spells.” Dr. Strange in the Marvel movie of the same name.

I usually don’t watch movies based upon comic book super heros. But with nothing new on TV for the summer, I came across the Dr. Strange movie during some down time. And at the climactic moment in the movie, the hero utters the words above to the villain…revealing the fatal flaw in the villain’s plans.

The the words, stayed with me because they said something about one of the issues I’ve talked about with grantseekers for many, many years. These thoughts go back to the day when the Foundation Center wasn’t online; it published a book each year that ran to some 2800 pages. Like today’s online listings, they included the funder’s purpose, program areas, and types of support. And after all of that came the limitations.

Sometimes when I read an LOI it seems like the grant writer read just far enough on the grant listing to find one thing their request and the funder guidelines had in common. And with that match in hand, the grant writer started the LOI. What suggests that the writer didn’t read the warnings (limitations) is that while there is a program match, the request runs up against key limitation such as being out of the geographic area.

You can make the limitations work for you if you read them before you start to write. Here’s an example of a typical limitation from a private foundation:

No grants are made to environmental, arts, healthcare-related or political programs, or to religious institutions for religious purposes.

What if your organization sees itself as an environment organization; does that mean you’re completely out of luck with this funder? Okay, you won’t get a grant to help support your annual operating budget. But what if a part of your program provides after-school activities for at-risk youth (however you define that), and you have a goal of expanding the number of youth in that program next year.

If you pay attention to the limitations, you can avoid writing yourself out of a grant by focusing on the commonality and avoiding the limitations. The key is that the limitations can help you understand the funder’s mindset. And you take that mindset into consideration when you write your LOI. As Joseph Williams say in Style: Towards Clarity and Grace “We write a first draft for ourselves; the drafts thereafter increasingly for the reader.” In other words, your first draft gets you thoughts down on paper, and you revise that draft to suit the particular reader (funder) to whom you are writing.

So what can this environmental organization do to possibly get a grant.?

Its primary activity is cleaning river and stream banks, then planting additional native plants to restore the waterway’s ecosystem. In the course of its work the organization has partnered with local groups working with youth. The organization and its partners have seen these activities really benefit many kids who’ve been in trouble with juvenile court or who are seen as headed in that direction. Working in the outdoors and seeing the immediate results of clean river and stream banks and later waterways with lush native plant life has helped many of these youth see beyond today and begin to believe in a future.

The environmental group ran a small test program to see if it could increase the number of such kids it could work with, and now, with encouragement from the youth-serving agencies, wants to greatly increase the number of youth it can involve.

Is there any hope for this environmental group to get funding from a funder with the limitations cited above? Probably not if it the organization approaches this funder in the same way it approaches environmental funders. That doesn’t mean lying about your organization; it’s an environmental organization. But you don’t have to go on and on about that either. If you’ve read the warnings (limitations) perhaps your LOI might start like this:

The Open Rivers Clean-up Crew (ORCC) was formed in 2003 by a group of concerned outdoors organizations and citizens who saw that the streams and rivers in our area were being used as dumping grounds. In 2016 our volunteers cleaned up over 50 tons of discarded paper, appliances, tires, and other items from river and stream banks. Some of these items, such as discarded car batteries, were leaking toxic chemicals.

We are writing the XYZ Foundation to assist us in growing an important program for hard to reach youth in our community. Over the past two years we’ve learned that our activities provide a unique opportunity to help young people who are or have been in the juvenile justice system or who youth-serving agencies see as in danger of getting involved in criminal behavior. This effort began several years ago. A few youth-serving agencies brought groups out to our clean-ups. They reported back to us that the activities seemed to have a surprising effect upon many of the youth they brought out.

As we talked with them, and later some of the youth, we learned that being outdoors and seeing the before and after results of the work impressed many of the young people who some agencies felt were unreachable. We piloted a larger effort last year, which confirmed these results. While we don’t turn any youth away, we’re committed to recruiting youth who haven’t been reached by other programs or activities.

With the growth in the program, we’ve taken responsibility for coordinating transportation, and other services. One immediate benefit is that by word of mouth, the youths we recruited asked if friends could join in. This widened our influence far beyond what we or the youth-serving agencies expected. And the youth-serving agencies have reported back to us that they see the program having an even greater effect upon the youths who participate than under the old approach.

How do you feel after reading this? Is this a youth program or an environmental program?

I can’t guarantee that every funder with similar restrictions would be willing to read past the first paragraph, or even if they do that they’d see this as a worthwhile youth effort. But what if that second paragraph had launched into a longer discussion of the group’s environmental goals or a rationale about why cleaning river and stream banks is critical to the health of those waters, only to delve into the actual youth program in a fourth or fifth paragraph?

Remember, and LOI can’t answer all of a funder’s questions…so don’t try to. The purpose is to create interest and stimulate curiosity. By reading the warnings (limitations) you know what aspects of your request can generate interest and what aspects will generate a definite “No.”

Advertisements


Leave a comment

How and Why or Why and How

I’m finishing Yuval Noah Harari’s book, Sapiens, that I learned about from Bill Gates’ Gates Notes. Bill Gates’ review of the book is titled “How Did Humans Smart.”
One paragraph in the book caught my attention:

“What is the difference between describing ‘how’ and explaining ‘why’? To describe ‘how’ means to reconstruct the series of specific events that led from one point to another. To explain ‘why’ means to find the causal connections that account for the occurrence of this particular series of events to the exclusion of all others.”

As a person who reads grant requests every working day, I’m always looking for the ‘Why’ in the request. That’s the information that is both interesting and compelling to the decision-makers at a funder. And even though program officers read your LOIs and grant narratives first, they judge those requests based upon how interesting and compelling they think the request will be to the decision-makers.

Explaining ‘Why’ also builds the case for the specific steps you want to take, the ‘How’. I’ll paraphrase the paragraph in the context that applies to a grantwriter.

“Describing ‘how’ means describing the series of specific events that your organization plans to take to move from one point to another. Explaining ‘why’ means explaining the causal connections motivating your organization to pursue that particular series of events rather than other options.”

Which approach has the potential to be the most compelling? Think about it this way. Describing what you plan to do with a grant often raises the question why in the reader’s mind. For example, a line or two in your request for an after-school program describes how there will be food served each afternoon. A reader who doesn’t already know your community or who isn’t familiar with after-school programs wonder: “Food; why do they need to feed the kids?”

But if you explain your community, the challenges young people face, you show the reader (funder) how an after-school snack gets some of those kids who are iffy about coming to your program in the door. And then, how once a kid comes through the door, how you engage them and turn that engagement into after-school homework help.

Your goal when writing an LOI or the narrative of a grant request is to explain the ‘Why’ so that the ‘How’ seems inevitable. Yes, grant money often buys the ‘How’, but the reason most funders make grants is because they understand and care about changing the ‘Why’.


Leave a comment

Crafting a development program

Whether you are new to grantwriting, an experienced grantwriter working for a new organization, or looking for a new job with another organization, there are some basic things you should make sure you know. Also, if you’re hiring a grantwriting consultant, these are things that you can put together as an organization rather than paying a consultant to help you. These are all good steps to ensure that you’ll keep your whole organization involved in grantwriting, a key to consistent success.

First, be clear about the organization’s tax status and what it’s telling others about itself. Go online (GuideStar) and look at the past few years of 990 forms. If the organization files a 990-EZ or a Postcard N I’d know that the organization is pretty small. That would make me look hard at the organization’s business plan. Are they looking for grants just to keep the doors open? And if they are, I’d be looking at what stories they have to tell that makes them special. In this case, special may mean just showing that the organization serves an area that isn’t served now or that the service is different than other organizations that provide similar services such as working with people who’ve fallen through the cracks of other service systems.

If it’s a larger organization with a full 990, I’d look at the 990 for the following things, which tell you something about the organization’s condition:

  • How does the organization describe its mission on Page 1 and 2, and how does the organization describe its various programs on Page2? Are these compelling descriptions or just rote repetitions? Also, are they overwritten? Often I’ve seen organizations try to describe all their work in one paragraph on page 2, cramming so much in that it’s unreadable.
  • On page 1, how does the income/expense look for the tax year and the previous year? Is it consistently running a surplus or deficit? If the organization has been running a deficit, be sure to ask if the organization is looking at grants as a way to make up those revenues.
  • On page 9 you can gain some insight with how the organization brings in its income. The form outlines donated income, with a little information about the kind of donations, and where earned income comes from.
  • Page 10 tells you how the organization spends its money, along with a breakdown how it is spent between program, management & general, and fundraising.
  • On page 11 you’ll find a balance sheet. Does the organization have a positive fund balance? Where is it—is there cash, receivables, or is a large amount of it tied up in a building? Also, is there debt such as a mortgage?

Next, I’d learn about and write down the history and mission of the organization. Is there something about the organization’s history that might be the core of an interesting story, a story that could really say something about the current projects. A good example is community action programs. As a group, CAPs were created as a result of the War on Poverty so that the federal government could give grants directly to a community. They were created because the federal government didn’t trust the existing process that sent dollars to programs through state and local governments. A key feature of CAPs is that they have service recipients on their boards. While funding patterns have changed, those features are still a part of the DNA of CAP programs.

In support of the stories that might come out of the history and mission, I’d also want to look at service data. How does the organization count people served—individuals, families, households—and how does it count services—by appointments, bags of groceries, units of housing or visits? And how easy is it to dig into that data? Can you find the stories in the data? A food bank might have an average of five visits per year for the thousand households it serves each year. But looking deeper into the data, you might see three groups emerge: elderly, working poor, and emergency needs. Many of the elderly clients visit every month and have special diet needs or preferences. The working poor are mostly families with children and also visit monthly. The emergency needs are individuals and families that visit a few times and then aren’t seen again. Those are the seeds of three great stories. But you only know where to look if the organization has kept that data and has a way for you to look at more than just annual counts and averages.

In addition, I’d want to see a couple of years of operating budgets, and then I’d sit down with key people to see how they understand those budgets. Grants are an organizational endeavor. Carrying out programs requires the whole organization’s commitment. Too often organizations look at grants to supplement the work they already want to do. That works if your day to day work is wholly aligned with a funder’s vision for its work. But many times, the grants that are available ask you do something a little different or a little more than you already do.

Finally, I’d look at every piece of information the organization has on past funders. What did the funders fund, how many times, and how long ago was the last grant or gift was given. I’d look for lapsed donors, groups that had given several years ago, but not in the past year or two I’d also look at the total amount given by each entity. I’d take that information and sit down with key people in the organization to get their understanding of the how and why of those grants. I’d also use that list to set an agenda for my first few months of work. I’d call each funder, in order of importance, to set up a get to know you meeting with each funder. The point of these meetings is to get to know why the funder supported my organization and how they felt the organization did with the grants.

Grantwriting is an organizational endeavor, not just the responsibility of someone toiling in isolation.


1 Comment

Things I’d do now for 2017

It’s mid-November and New Year’s Day 2017 is less than two months away.

While end-of-year-end targets still loom, there are key tasks for the coming year. You may not get all of them done now, but at least you’ll have them on a to-do list if you get organized now. And all of these items can help you write better proposals in the coming year and make writing them easier.

Also, all of these are things you need to make look at whenever you begin writing grants for a new organization, no matter what time of year you start your new job.

So what would my list be? Here’s a few item, and if you think of others, please add them as comments.

  • Update any boilerplate you plug into grant requests such as history, mission, and an outline of programs.

Have things changed since the last time these items were written. Is there a change in the clients you serve, the numbers served each year, or other key information? Is there a way to make what you have more compelling? For example, did you learn something in the last year about why and how your organization was founded that adds a dimension to what you’ve been sharing? And, to the extent this is an elevator speech, can you make it shorter and thus, more compelling.

  • Get an updated copy of the current year’s budget, actual expenditures, and next year’s proposed budget.

Many applications ask for an organization’s operating budget in addition to a program or project budget specific to the grant application. Always have current documents available so you don’t have to search them out later.

  • Get an updated board list for the next year and check the resumes you have on file for key people. Are there changes, either recently or coming up in the near future?

It’s also a good idea to see if you can shorten long resumes when appropriate.

  • Talk to people who deliver program, staff and/or volunteers, and ask what changes they’ve seen in the past year.

Program people, whether volunteers or staff, are the ones who see changes first in who is asking for services and how services are delivered. And if the executive director spends time delivering services, ask that person how they see the balance between services and the executive director role.

  • Look at your past year’s grants and check the schedule for grant reports. Have you missed a report or is one coming up during the busy holiday season?

If you’re late with a report the holidays are a great time to submit a late report and ask for forgiveness.

  • Update service data

While numbers don’t tell the whole story, they’re still important. Make sure you have the updated number for the end of the year, both in units of service and in unduplicated client count. Also, make sure you have a good grasp of the demographics and the geography that programs serve.

You can also ask key people about plans for the upcoming year. Even if there are no firm targets or goals, people still may have a sense of how many people will be served and how many units of service are likely—as well as how many more could be served if there were more resources.

  • Review the past, current, and future plans for income streams. Have they changed or are there changes in the works?

Does the organization earn any income through fees, sales, or other means? Are there government grants or other key sources for the organization as a whole or particular programs? And finally, what role do private grants and individual fundraising play in the organization? Even if the money you raise through those sources isn’t large, it still may play a critical role in programs.

  • Review your computer filing system.

This is one that has personally affected me in the several years. Software programs are often set up to save documents to a folder unique to the program. For example, Word files go into a Word folder, Excel documents into an Excel folder, and so on. But more and more projects contain word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and PDF files. This means having to remember what program generated a document so that you open the right file location.

If you don’t already, set up folders for files by project. No matter what software you use, the file goes in that project folder (or subfolder as needed). Then use Windows Explorer or a similar file system to look for files by project. You get to see all of the files and clicking on the file name automatically launches the right software for that file. Now you don’t have to remember what program created what document.


Leave a comment

Using statistics

I just returned from a trip to the most dangerous city in the nation, Tukwila. That is, it’s dangerous if you believe the latest rankings done by Safewise®, a firm that sells home security system. A lot of local media ran the story that Tukwila as the nation’s most dangerous city, and it even made the banner on some national news services.

Most of the local coverage was tongue-in-cheek. Locals who know the area had a hard time believing that Tukwila is a dangerous place. And a quick look at the study’s website reveals major flaw in the study; the statistics mixed property crimes and major crimes—a shoplifting incident is counted the same as an assault. Then the study simply divided the number of crime reports by the city’s population.

Even if you didn’t know about Tukwila, you might question the way the report was put together. But if you know that Tukwila includes SouthCenter Westgate Mall and the retail areas around it, you understand why Tukwila ended up high on this list. Every day thousands of staff and shoppers come to area. And most of the crime reports, such as minor property crimes, are among the daily visitors and not Tukwila residents.

This report reminded me of an LOI I read a few years ago. A housing group wanted to expand its work to a neighboring county. Beyond stating that desire to expand, the LOI didn’t say why those services were needed in the neighboring county. I looked up easily available census statistics and found that the homeownership rate in the new county was actually a few percentage points higher in the new area than in the county the organization currently served.

How are they related? Both misused statistics, even the housing group that didn’t cite any. Failing to mention an easily available and seemingly relevant statistic raises many questions. Did the organization omit the statistic or was it even aware of it?
And statistic aside, why did they think they needed to expand to the new county? Was this about the agency wanting to get bigger or about meeting a real need? What if the organization had begun its LOI with something like this?

We have many people who travel thirty or forty miles one way from our neighboring county for our counseling services or attending classes we offer. While that area’s homeownership rate is slightly higher than the area we currently serve, that rate isn’t the whole story. The people who come to us need our help because they own homes that are older. Curious about that, we looked at census statistics and found that more than 25% of the homes in that area were built before 1960. And in rural communities older homes usually represent an even a larger share of the affordable housing. As a result, many low-income homeowners need our key services such as credit counseling, education about home maintenance, and access to financing. We believe that opening a new office in this area will allow us to serve even more families that need our services.

As you read that passage, what moves you—the statistics or the story about why the homeownership program is needed? In my experience, the story will capture most people’s attention, including funders. It illustrates two key principles for using statistics. First, it doesn’t ignore a basic statistic that appears to counter to what you are advocating; instead it neutralizes it. Second, it uses a supporting statistic to expand upon the premise. The idea that low-income homeowners come to you for services is given more validity with the statistic that over 25% of the new county’s housing stock is old.

The key is balancing story with statistics. Know the relevant statistics, and use them in a way that supports your story. Don’t throw out a statistic and expect that a reader—funder—will jump to the same conclusion you do. Lead with your observations and assertions.


1 Comment

PSGA Spring Funders Forum

The spring PSGA Funders Forum is coming up soon. It’s on Friday, May 13th, and there’s still time to register.

Funder Forums are important even if you don’t have a project on your desk right now. Since it can take from three to nine months for a proposal to navigate the process at some larger funders, what you hear at the May Forum may be important to ideas you’ll be working on for late 2016 and on into 2017.

I just did a funders forum in southern Oregon and it reminded me about the questions grant seekers tend to ask. Here are a few examples:

  • Will you fund salaries?
  • Do you make grants to capital campaigns?
  • Will you make a grant for a vehicle?

While many funders fund buildings or salaries or vehicles, they fund them because they believe in what an organization promises to achieve with that tool. In fact, when you ask funders if they will fund a new building, you may be asked, “Why do you need a new building?”

Your answer might be something like, “We need more room to serve more people.” In that case, you might make a stronger case by not asking about building grants, but starting instead with a question like, “Our community needs more after-school activities for middle school youth; would you support a building campaign to help us do that?”

And if you listen for the right things, you may find that you get the answer to your questions before you even ask them. Here’s some ideas about what to listen for when funders make their presentations or when they respond to questions from other grant seekers.

  • Why does the funder make grants?
  • What are the funder’s priorities?
    • Geography
    • Type of program
    • Type of grant
      • Operating support
      • Capacity-building
      • Capital grants
      • Project grants
    • What’s the process for an initial approach?
    • Deadlines, if any
    • Range of grant amounts
    • Frequency of grants

Also, I encourage people to sit at one table that may not be directly related to their current work. Why?

  • The more funders you hear from the better idea you have about how funders work in general
  • Your organization may have a project in the future that is relevant to that funder
  • You may change jobs, and this funder might be important to your work in the future

Finally, just being there as the face of your organization can be helpful in the future when a funder becomes relevant to your work.


1 Comment

Capturing Stories

In the past few years we’ve heard a lot about storytelling as a tool for grantwriters. Telling stories involves characters, and who are those characters but the people an organization helps? Yet, hand in hand with that idea is a concern for the dignity and privacy of the people our organizations assist.

This isn’t a new issue. Newly on the fundraising staff of United Way in Seattle in 1978, I had a long discussion with the director of a sheltered workshop about United Way tours. It was common to try to take people from employee groups to United Way agencies during the campaign. This director characterized the tours as a form of “handicapism.” The tours, to his thinking, did nothing but put the people working in the sheltered workshop on display. Frankly, I had to agree that there was an element of that behind the idea of taking people on tours of United Way agencies. But tours were also a way of helping people see and understand programs in the community that they might otherwise know existed.

That discussion has stayed with me, and I’ve keep it in mind whenever I make a site visit now as a funder with a private foundation. Grantwriters, and their organizations, have to balance the dignity and privacy of the people they work with and the need to talk about their work. But there are also times when the people they work with want, and need, to step forward and be heard. And helping someone do that can mean just as much to dignity and growth as privacy. Along that line, I received the following from Gayle Tice, a freelance writer who attended the recent PSGA Annual Conference, with thoughts on that topic. With her permission, I’d like to share her thoughts.

Beyond Impact

by Gayle Tice

As someone who has been served by the work of a wonderful nonprofit organization, and attributes much of her current success and self-esteem to it, I want to say that the biggest capital “I” Impact that organization had on me came from asking me to speak on its behalf. As staff in the nonprofit sector you may feel that you should not inconvenience those you serve by asking them to help you. Their lives are hard enough, you might think. You may even be concerned about offending them, making them think that you want to hold their sensitive situation out to the world for your gain.

But isn’t it also possible that it could be their gain? No matter what your mission may be, you are likely serving populations that do not have much social or economic power. Your clients probably would not be asked to make keynote addresses. They probably do not often hear: “I think you have a valuable perspective and I would like your permission to share it.”

As a high school student, when I was first asked to speak on behalf of my school’s branch of Communities In Schools, I was terrified. I tended to view myself as a bundle of problems that could not possibly have the authority to speak. But I was also intrigued. So I said yes. They kept asking, which told me I must have done something right. And I spoke on their behalf for years. I spoke in front of grant panels, and I spoke to representatives in government. I even got a quote published on their website, a personal favorite since I like seeing my name in print.

Instead of calling me a bundle of problems, a potential statistic, a low grade, or a list of missing assignments, they called my perspective valuable. Instead of simply lowering a hand in my direction to help me out of a tough position, they did that and then asked me to walk beside them. They asked me to help define and communicate their value. And inside that framework I found mine.

If I were to sum up the mission of most nonprofits into a single phrase, it would be the pursuit of human dignity and the respect of life. Why not let those you serve help you define where you fall within that phrase? Who can better communicate what your impact is than the people you impact? Communities In Schools never put me out by asking me to speak on their behalf. They simply made me their equal.

They empowered me in the best way possible, making me see that I did not have to suffer in silence, making me see that I could act on my concerns for this world. They turned a bundle of problems into a partner. They made an impact that will never leave me. They made me consider how I can move that impact outward.

When I think about what I want to do with my life, I start there. I think about what they did for me every day.

Gayle Tice, a graduate of The Evergreen State College, is a freelance writer living in Seattle. She is also a prospect researcher with Deacon Consulting. She can be contacted at https://www.linkedin.com/in/gayletice