Reality Grantmaking part 2

As promised, I'm following up my first post on the Reality Grantmaking session I attended last week with a second post about the things I learned from the panel of foundation representatives that I hadn't considered so strongly before.

The first was how much they appreciated having the project budgets included in the documents, and how much detail they liked to see in those budgets. I'm not surprised that they like the budgets, I was just surprised at how important they were even in the extremely short 2-page letter of intent type of format that these mini-proposals were required to use. I've never included a budget in such a short proposal or in an LOI unless it was explicitly required by the funder but I think now I'll start. Now, since all of these mini-proposals did include budgets I assume it was required, but the funders praised the detailed budgets so highly that it now seems like a good idea to include even if the guidelines don't explicitly call for it.

Another thing I noticed was how much the funders, especially the one from the California Endowment, liked to see a brief list of or sentence about specific accomplishments of the organizations submitting requests. I always include any particularly notable or relevant accomplishments in the proposal section dealing with org history, but I thought it was sort of just another equally important but no more significant part of the whole section unless it was a really big national honor of some sort. Now I think that I will look more closely at the histories of the orgs I write for to find some specific accomplishments to really call out, even if the orgs don't usually talk them up that much themselves.

And then there was something in one of the proposals that, as soon as I saw it, I was very curious to hear what the panelists thought of it. Apparently the proposal format called for a discussion of what other funding was being sought, or had been secured, for the project. One org mentioned some of the other foundations approached, and then followed up by saying that whatever funds weren't raised from foundations or other donors would be provided from the operating budget.

I've said this once or twice in proposals, because I thought that funders who asked about other funding were interested in hearing that the project is sustainable and would be able to move forward even if they didn't give the full amount requested. It's not an ideal answer to this kind of question, but I've done it before because I thought that it showed that the project was in fact important to the org, important enough to fund out of their operating budget even if foundations weren't able to fully support it.

Well, I'm not doing this anymore, because these funders HATED it! They said it made it sound like their funding wasn't needed, and if it wasn't needed, why should they give it? By asking for a list of other funders they seemed more interested in just knowing who else was interested in the project, since they do of course know other foundations in their fields. They wanted to know what sort of company they were keeping, and to be assured that they weren't being asked to foot the whole bill for a single project but that the responsibility was shared among other funders they knew. They didn't mention sustainability as the reason for asking the question at all.

I wish I would've thought to ask them about this during the Q & A, but the Q & A was so short that I might not have gotten the opportunity anyhow. I also would have liked to ask about evaluation plans. A lot of foundations require orgs to include an evaluation plan in their proposals, a discussion of "how you will measure success" or something of that nature, but these proposals obviously weren't required to include anything like this. I wanted to hear about how they weigh the evaluation plans when they are included, how crucial they are to the decision-making process, how in-depth they needed to be, what they were looking for in general... Evaluation is a big topic in the field right now, with some controversy over whether nonprofits really have the capacity to do meaningful evaluation for themselves or not. My opinion on this is a whole 'nother topic, so I won't go into it right now, but I would've loved to hear them weigh in on it anyhow.

Tomorrow I'm attending another Foundation Center event, with corporate grantmakers this time. It's another panel discussion, though it's not Reality Grantmaking, just a regular talk. Anyhow if it's useful to me or thought-provoking that's the next thing I'll post about.

Reality Grantmaking part 1

The other day I went to a Foundation Center workshop/event called Reality Grantmaking. It’s a really great series they do every once in a while, where representatives from 3 or 4 different funders review several actual short grant proposals to give us all a glimpse into their process for deciding what projects to fund. The event organizers put out the word ahead of time for interested nonprofits to write and submit the 2-page proposals, and the one that has the highest combined score from the funder representatives at the end of the workshop wins the $1000 grant.

This session was specifically for Health and Human Services orgs, and the funders were The San Francisco Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, The California Endowment, and Pacific Foundation Services which represents 11 family foundations including Bothin and Morris Stulsaft. These are all funders that I often have the opportunity to approach on behalf of clients, so this was a very useful event for me to attend.

I especially appreciated the opportunity to confirm some of the opinions on proposal-writing that I already held. Because we all love affirmation, right? Here are a few of those that especially stood out for me, in no particular order.

1. Formatting, grammar, usage, and spelling will not totally sink a great project idea, but it can make a difference in how kindly—or unkindly—a program officer feels toward the proposal. The rep from Pacific Foundation Services, Mary Gregory, frequently pointed out that she must read so many proposals that it makes her life more difficult if the print is too small, or there are no headings, or the proposal is crammed onto the pages with no empty white space to relieve the eyes. Damon Scott from Kaiser Permanente repeatedly complimented well-organized budget tables in proposals that had them. He also endeared himself to me in particular by pointing out one of my own pet peeves: the misuse of “less” vs. “fewer.” I’m with you on that one Damon, it’s constant and bugs me to no end! I know this makes me picky, and he admitted the same, but I just can’t help it. Dianne Yamashiro-Omi of The California Endowment also referred to the “flow” of a proposal’s wording and thought process, and Mary Gregory further added that grammar problems make more work for her when she is preparing to present proposals to her trustees.

2. Putting a program into emotional terms by telling a story or personalizing an issue grabs the reader’s attention and can help make your proposal’s case. On this point the funders called out some specific wording choices in the proposals. One described the org’s services as “personal and heartfelt caring,” which Mary Gregory liked. Another proposal, which requested funding for adaptive technology to help disabled clients communicate better, quoted a program staff member as saying, “Everybody should be able to communicate,” and told of a client who broke into tears of happiness when given one of the devices. Michele Williams of the San Francisco Foundation loved these touches, saying it made her think, Wow! (yes, she actually said “wow”) This will really affect lives. Damon Scott agreed that something which “tugs on the heart” can make a proposal stand out.

3. Just because you understand what your organization does and what your jargon means doesn’t mean that funders will. One proposal was from a nonprofit dealing with a health condition called Fragile X, and every single person on the panel expressed confusion even after reading the whole document as to what this means and who it affects. Another proposal referred to HIV/STI services… we all know what HIV is, but STI isn’t as widely used as a term. I knew what it was (sexually transmitted infections) because I’ve actually worked in the field, and it wasn’t too hard to figure out from context, but still, the funder reps didn’t all have that knowledge and didn’t want to have to worry that they were assuming the wrong thing when they interpreted it. They shouldn’t have to figure it out or look it up on their own, it’s the proposal writer’s job to make it clear (This is why I advise having at least one person unfamiliar with your org and its work proof your proposal for you to root out jargon and make sure everything is clearly explained).

So those are the top three things that stood out for me, mostly because of the widespread agreement on the panel, and also because they are rules that I already use in my grantwriting and recommend for others.

In my next post (in a couple of days probably) I’ll talk more about the things from the Reality Grantmaking session that surprised me a little, either because they answered questions I had, or seemed more important to the funders than I thought they would, or were just factors I hadn’t really considered in detail before.

Writing a speech

My latest project for a client is to write some speeches for people to deliver at an upcoming event, so I thought I'd throw some tips out here. Most people obviously don't have anyone to write them speeches, they have to do their own thing if they are obligated to introduce someone, or outline a program, or give an award at an event. Here are some ideas if this is you.

1. First of all, actually do write yourself a speech. Don't expect to get up there and improvise. I know a lot of people do this and it turns out okay, but I think it's so much better if you put some thought into it and make some notes, even if your speech is only a few minutes long. Which brings me to my next point, which I actually think is the most important of all....

2. Stick to your time limitations! This is part of the reason for writing a speech and speaking from your script or notes, that way you won't accidentally ramble. But whatever you have to do to stay within the time allotted, please please please, if you want people to enjoy your speech and your event, do it. Don't run over even a little, because if every part of the event runs over just a little it seriously adds up. And don't think that you're just so darned fascinating everyone wants you to go on longer. I mean, maybe you are fascinating, but still, people can only pay attention for so long anyhow so better to leave them wanting more than less, right? Remember, even if 3 minutes seems like forever when you first start deciding what to say, it's actually not very long at all and you probably will not estimate the time correctly when you're actually up there speaking. Practice and time yourself. Everyone will be glad you did.

3. Have a purpose to your speech and make sure that you fulfill that purpose. Your purpose may be to introduce a person. Just do that, don't try to do add in other things unless they relate to that person you are introducing and the reason they are being introduced. Make sure that every part of your speech relates to that purpose, whatever it is. Don't try to make it do too much.

4. Use concise, direct language. Don't add a lot of filler. Especially watch out for any of the bad habits that all of us have, like adding "um" or "like" or whatever it may be. This is another good reason for writing your speech out and speaking from notes. Everyone has some verbal tics, but all you have to do is be aware of yours, and plan ways to overcome them.

5. Try to tell a story, especially if you are making a speech concerning a particular individual or a program of your organization. I think many speakers fall into the trap of just listing things--statistics of people helped by the organization, or honors received by the person they're introducing. You may feel obligated to list some of those things, but get that part over quickly and instead tell a story that exemplifies those statistics or honors. You can say that over 1000 women were helped out of homelessness by your org last year, but it says more to tell one woman's story. You can talk about a donor's generosity to several of your programs, but it means more to tell that she began giving to charities because her mother taught her to put 10 cents out of every dollar allowance aside for UNICEF when she was six.

6. Finally, when your speech is perfectly written, practice practice practice. Even if you're an experienced speaker, it will help you stick to your time limit, include everything you need to say, and you will do it all with the greatest of ease and grace.

The "Good Enough" Proposal Checklist

Note: This blog is so far comprised of entries that I actually wrote on another blogging service from Fall of 2006 up to today. That blogging service made me want to tear my hair out, with all of its formatting issues. So I switched to Blogger, and moved all the entries over today, hence the single date on all of these even though this post refers to a long posting hiatus.

It's been a while since I posted. I think I got a little bit hung up in something that I occasionally have a problem with, which is perfectionism. I had been feeling like I had to have everything perfect on my website, and have perfect topics to post about, before I could really do very much on my blog. There are many problems with this, chief among them: nobody's perfect, and so striving for perfection, while admirable if it leads to good work, can only lead to failure.

The other greatest problem with perfectionism is that it often leads to procrastination. That's the feeling you can get: I can't finish it, it's not perfect! And, I can't get it perfect, so why bother trying? This is perfectionism taken to an extreme, and we all need to watch out for that!

I think the same thing can happen very easily in grantwriting. Have you ever had a proposal that wasn't on a deadline and therefore you could take a great deal of time with, that you just can't get out the door, can't get motivated about? Maybe it's perfectionism holding you back. The proposal doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be good enough. So how do you know if it's good enough?

"Good Enough" Proposal Checklist, in no particular order:

1. It addresses each of the items of information asked for in the funders' guidelines with at least a sentence or two. If they don't specify information, you should at least have an introduction with request, a needs statement, your organizational mission and background, your program description, measurable objectives, and conclusion with contact information.
2. It justifies the need for your program or organization in a separate needs section with at least one or two sentences and a reference to some sort of outside authority. You shouldn't take it for granted that the need for your organization is obvious to everyone, and if you can't find at least one citation on the internet or in some of your previous materials you have a real problem on your hands that a good enough proposal won't fix.
3. It clearly asks for a specific grant amount.
4. It includes your mission statement and contact information. I know, this seems obvious, but sometimes you can get caught up in the rest of it and forget so it needs to be said.
5. It has at least one measurable objective (quantitative or qualitative) for each separate program, activity, or goal described.
6. It has been proofread for grammar and readability by at least one other person. Grammar, spelling, and usage are exceptions to the "good enough" rule: they really should be perfect, and can be, so make sure that they are.

Blogging myself out of a job....?

Some time ago, I was approached by an acquaintance who was looking for a job. She was asking for contacts, ideas, advice, I’m not sure what all, but anyway, the thing I remember is when she asked what I did and I told her I was a grantwriter, she said (cheerfully, and in my opinion, cluelessly) “Oh, a grantwriter, that sounds really easy, I bet anyone could do that!”

OK. I was kind of offended. I shook it off pretty easily, because let’s face it, this woman wasn’t the most socially literate type of person and I knew that from other brief run-ins with her, but still. I’ve thought about it on occasion since then. Because I actually do sometime wonder, can anyone, or at least anyone who can follow funders’ directions and write coherently, be a grantwriter? And if so, do we even really need professional grantwriters like me?

The answer to both questions in my opinion is yes. A qualified yes at least.

Most organizations get by just fine without a dedicated professional grantwriter. Maybe they have a development person who does grantwriting along with everything else, or they have program staff who write occasional proposals to supplement their program budgets, or they don’t go for grants at all but instead rely on other funding sources.

Out of these options, the one that appeals to me the most is not lumping grantwriting in with all the other development, as it is most commonly done, but instead encouraging program staff to write proposals, with oversight from development—or administration if there is not specific development department or director—for quality control and to ensure that the message is consistent and different programs aren’t working at cross-purposes.

Program people are the most in touch with what the organization is actually doing, what the clients really need, what their capacity is for additions or changes, and what measurable outcomes are actually realistic. This is why I always emphasize that they should be involved with the proposal process, even if there is a grantwriter on staff to bring it all together. Too often I feel that development staff are isolated from program staff and this hurts grantwriting especially, and all fundraising in general. I have a lot more to say on that, but I’ll save it for another time.

Of course, program staff have jobs to do besides grantwriting, even if it ends up under their purview just because someone’s got to do it. This is where I believe there is still a use for professional grantwriters even within organizations who can’t afford to have them on staff or retainer all the time.

As a consultant, I can certainly come in and just plain write grants for an organization. I can even manage an entire grants program for an org so that they can take that off their development staff’s hands and free them up to focus on other tasks. But what I really like to do is set up systems (such as submission schedules, filing systems, ticklers, etc.) and leave behind tools (boilerplate source documents, e.g.) accompanied with training to enable the org’s regular staff, preferably either program staff or development staff in close collaboration with program staff, to continue with grantsmanship on their own.

It’s best to do this with occasional ongoing support from the consultant in my opinion, but overall this approach seems to make my annoying jobhunting acquaintance right after all: With a good system, useful tools, and proper support almost anyone really can be a grantwriter.

"Really, it's not you, it's ME" funder style

I just recently joined the Development Executives’ Roundtable and they have a special program called Grantwriters’ Anxiety Support Program (which creates a rather cute and descriptive acronym). I haven’t attended any meetings or events yet, but it got me thinking about the nervewracking qualities of being a grantwriter. For me it’s not so much about whether I’ve done a good enough job at writing a proposal, or even whether or not it will be funded. Although those are very important considerations, they are not the conditions that cause me the most angst overall. What really gets to me is the need to accept a lot of rejection.

If you write wonderful grant proposals about awesome programs, and if you follow all the rules the funders’ set forth, you obviously have a chance at getting the grant. But just as obviously it’s never guaranteed. More often than not your beautifully crafted proposal will be rejected, not through any fault of your own, but simply because there is never enough funding to go around.

I know that. You know that, the funders know that, hopefully your boss and board know that. But it doesn’t always make it feel any better. How often can you be rejected before you feel demoralized, or doubt yourself, or wonder what the point it? These feelings are totally natural and to be expected, but they have to be overcome if you’re going to keep getting out there, and keep enjoying your wonderful work as a grantwriter. So how to overcome them?

For me, just getting back to work on other proposals to other funders helps a lot. But I think lately the thing I’ve noticed helps just as much if not more is really seeking out connections with other grantwriters and fundraisers. Grantwriting in many ways is a solitary activity, at least in the time period after you’ve met with all the program people and before you’ve started getting your editing partners involved.

Which leads me back to the beginning of the post, where I was joining the DER and possibly the GASP subgroup. I’m also networking more online, through sites like Social Edge or various other nonprofit blogs. It’s not easy to find the time for this in the middle of all the planning and writing and reporting and evaluation work I also have to do. But for my own sanity, and for continued motivation in the face of inevitable rejection, it’s a necessary and refreshing task.

The more eyes the better: Proposal editing tip

When you're editing your proposal draft, always try to have at least two people other than yourself read through it. One of these people should be from your organization or program, so that they can help you ensure that you've included all the most important and persuasive aspects of what you do, that your information is accurately stated, and that the objectives are truly realistic and measurable.

That makes plenty of sense, and you probably already do that. I hope so anyhow.

But you should also have at least one person read your proposal who is not part of your organization or program. It can be anyone, a spouse, friend, whoever. Make sure that it is someone who will ask you questions and who is not afraid to admit that he or she doesn't know something.

That fearlessness is especially important in your non-program proofreader, because you want them to help you get rid of jargon in your document. The purpose of jargon specific to particular professions or programs is often to make those who understand it feel "in the know." The flipside of the coin is that it makes those who don't know the jargon feel like they are not as informed or as smart. If you're asking someone for money, you don't want to make them feel dumb, do you? You wouldn't want to give to someone who condescended to you, would you?

Your non-program proofreader will help you eliminate any offputting jargon in your document, make sure that even someone unfamiliar with your organization can understand clearly the benefits of your services, and let you know whether the proposal is too dense or boring to read.

The result is not a dumbed down proposal, but one that is engaging and makes your point clearly and persuasively to people outside of your organization who don't automatically know how awesome your programs already are.