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.
No comments:
Post a Comment