Evaluation: You won't get far without it

Over the past 20 years, nonprofits, foundations, and government agencies have been steadily ramping up their commitment to objective and specific outcome measures and to quality program evaluation. But push has now come to shove. The recession-induced drop in foundation giving and the volatile uncertainties of government funding are producing an increasing demand for accountability. To get funding to start new initiatives and to sustain existing services, you've got to be able to prove that what your organization does makes a difference.

How can nonprofit administrators make the tough decisions about where to put limited and often decreasing resources? How can they know which of their efforts are producing the most impact? The question is not, "Did we do the work?" The question is, "Did it make a difference?"

And grantmakers face similar dilemmas. How can they know which of their social investments are paying off? How can they decide which organizations to support with their shrinking bank accounts?

From {Centered}: How to avoid common errors in federal grant applications

The competition for federal grants is already fierce, and the pressure to reduce the federal budget overall is almost certain to intensify it. How, then, can you increase your proposal's chances of surviving the review process? In "From a Proposal Reviewer's Perspective" (CharityChannel, August 22, 2012), Ron Flavin, who reviews grant applications for the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, and Health and Human Services, offers practical advice.

Having reflected, with his fellow reviewers, on why only 3% of the applications he has reviewed were recommended for funding, he has concluded that the most common reasons for rejection are:

• You failed to follow the directions in the funding agency guidelines, especially by omitting any information for one of the review criteria.
• You submitted a boiler plate proposal - one you used with other potential funders and that does not respond to the particular proposal requirements and format mandated by the RFP.
• You failed to adequately explain how the project will be sustained after the grant money is gone.
• You didn't bother to fully describe the applicant organization, the community, or the problem being addressed, because - having been funded by the agency previously - you assumed the description was unnecessary. This is dangerous because you're unlikely to get the same set of reviewers every time. 
• Your budget appears to be padded, because it's for exactly the maximum amount available. To avoid this, always develop your budget from the bottom up to total all necessary expenses, even if that total is less than the maximum allowed.

{Centered} September 2012 - Volume 5, Issue 9 
© 2012 The Grantsmanship Center. All rights reserved.
 www.tgci.com

From {Centered}: Four questions to ask before responding to an RFP

When a funder issues a Request for Proposal (RFP), what's the best way to decide whether or not to invest the time required to develop a reponse? In "Beginning With the End in Mind" (Local/State Funding Report, May 28, 2012), Christine Heft recommends asking four questions in the following order:

1. Are the funds offered for a purpose that fits within your organization's mission? If so, move on to Question 2.
2. How many grants will be awarded from the total amount available? If this is a national competition and the number of grants is limited and the total amount to be awarded is relatively small, don't bother to apply. Otherwise, make a judgment about your organization's chances of success; if they seem good, go on to Question 3.
3. What is the application deadline? If you will have enough time to gather data, do any research necessary, and get input from all relevant parties inside and outside your organization, then proceed. Heft estimates that, on average, it takes about four weeks to prepare a federal grant proposal, while a proposal to a state government or to a foundation takes two to three weeks. [See editor's note.]
4. How will the grant impact your organization's budget if you are successful? Does it require a match? If so, of what type? Will it require hiring new staff, increasing office space, or upgrading information technology? Will the total grant amount be more than a third of your total budget? If so, and if grantees will get the funds as reimbursements, rather than up front, how will you front the costs? Don't submit an application unless you know your organization is prepared to accept the financial consequences of receiving the grant. 

Editor's Note: We asked two of The Grantsmanship Center's Competing for Federal Grants trainers to weigh in on the length of time it takes to prepare a federal grant proposal.
Chuck Putney: "I'd say four weeks of work (140-160 hours) spread over eight to ten weeks is close to the mark for federal grants. Or four weeks, uninterrupted by other concerns, maybe - but it takes a collaborative process, conversations, the engagement of program staff, etc."
Barbara Floersch: "I agree with Chuck. It can be done much faster in certain circumstances, but other times it may take longer. It also depends on who's doing the work. Is one person is carrying almost the whole load? Or are other team members making significant contributions?"

Source: {Centered} July 2012 - Volume 5, Issue 7 © 2012 The Grantsmanship Center. All rights reserved. www.tgci.com

From {Centered}: Aim for clarity in your proposals

Before submitting a grant request, you must thoroughly research and understand the needs of the grantmaker, and you must plan the program for which you will seek funds. Then comes the crucial final step--producing a convincing proposal. In "Clear Writing Helps Make the Case for Funding" (Local/State Funding Report, April 30, 2012), Jodi Pearl explains how to achieve the necessary clarity:

1. Do the obvious--follow the grantmaker's guidelines! Read them through twice. Highlight directions on formatting requirements, length restrictions, allowable and non-allowable costs, etc. 
2. Use the conventions of standard English. Put sentences in the active voice. Try to avoid using boldface type, ALL CAPS, underlining, or italics unless the guidelines request them. 
3. Organize the ideas in the proposal appropriately. 
4. Express those ideas so that even a reviewer who is not expert in your field can understand them. If possible, test how well you've done this by having someone outside your organization read the proposal. 
5. Make your argument persuasive enough to stand up against competing proposals. 

Source: {Centered} June 2012 - Volume 5, Issue 6 © 2012 The Grantsmanship Center. All rights reserved. www.tgci.com

From {Centered}: When the foundation grant is less than you asked for

If you submit proposals to several foundations each year, sometimes you get good news and other times bad news. But what happens when you get good news and bad news simultaneously - when you got the grant, but it's for less than you requested?

How you deal with this scenario will have a long-term impact on your relationship with the grantmaker. So let's explore it from the perspective of several foundation executives. What has their experience been, and what do they expect their grantees to do in these circumstances?

I spoke with Kerry Anderson, President, True North Foundation; Dave Beckwith, Executive Director, Needmor Fund; Keith Burwell, President, Toledo Community Foundation; Lois DeBacker, Senior Program Director - Environment, The Kresge Foundation; Jon Jensen, Executive Director, Park Foundation; and Sam Passmore, Program Director - Environment, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Here's what they told me:

Initial stages of the grantmaking process
Four of the six foundations rarely, if ever, make grants for less than was requested in the proposal. This is because they negotiate the amount in advance with the prospective grantee either through a conversation or after a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) has been submitted. During these discussions they may determine whether there are other possible sources of support for the total amount the applicant needs for the project, and they may ask the applicant to lower the amount of the original request.

Some of these four will not bring a proposal to their board for an amount the board won't fund. Others tend to be flexible if they've had a long-term relationship with the applicant and know a great deal about the organization.

The other two foundations nearly always make grants for less than requested - even when they are enthusiastic about a proposal. This is because, although they are open to proposals from new groups, they get more requests each year, while the amount they can give stays static. If they have funded a group previously, they look at the historical precedent with that grantee and try to stay in the same general range.

In all cases, the foundation executives advise you never to ask for more than a foundation says is its maximum if its grant ranges are clear.

When the amount essential for the project is more than the foundation can support
Since none of these six foundations is likely to be the sole supporter of a project or organization for which a proposal is submitted, they will discuss the possible consequences for the applicant and for the project if the total amount needed is not obtained.

In the initial discussion, the foundation may challenge whether the group needs as much as proposed. Or it may ask the applicant to find additional sources of funding. In most cases, the foundation will help the applicant identify those sources. The prospective grantee may also be asked to scale back the goals of the project. If the foundation wants to support an organization or a project, such a discussion is unlikely to result in a decision not to invite the proposal.

One of the funders said that, in these conversations, "foundation staff's job is managing expectations." Even then they rarely ask a group to redraft a proposal, but they do point out the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal.

The funders that negotiate an amount to be requested will not forbid the applicant from asking for more, but they will not make any promises. If the request clearly is for partial support of a larger project, these funders often ask that the foundation's support not be tied to specific line items; instead they ask the applicant what they won't do if they don't get the total amount.

As one foundation executive said, "The grantseeker needs to have a clear, compelling, and reasonable rationale for the amount requested - if they ask for a larger amount assuming it will be reduced, it weakens their case."

After the grant is made 
The foundation executives I spoke with were very clear about what they do and don't want from a grantee organization that gets less than it requested.

What they expect you to do:

• Listen to what foundation staff say and send updates on progress with the project. 
• Develop a relationship with the program officer. 
• Adjust your goals or seek funding from other sources. 
• Show how you will make the project happen, and ask for help if you need it. 
• Inform the foundation if grants expected from other funders don't come through; then discuss how you might change the scope of the project or whether the funder could help you find other foundation support. 
• Do as much as possible with the resources available and seek funds from other sources. 
• Let the foundation know if you need to make significant changes to your project. 

What you should never do:

• Ignore the fact that you got a smaller grant. 
• Say - if the difference is significant - that even with the lesser amount, you can still do everything you had originally planned to do. 
• Kill yourselves trying to produce results with insufficient resources. 
• Wait until the end of the grant period to tell the foundation that you couldn't accomplish the grant purposes for lack of money. (Foundations don't like surprises!) 
• Whine or give up on the project. (Don't blame the foundation for your failure.) 
• Use the grant for other purposes. 

None of the foundations want to set their grantees up to fail. They want the projects they fund to be sustainable, and they're willing to help their grantees find other foundation support. But, without timely and honest communication from you, they can't help you either restructure your project or obtain the other grants you need to fully complete it.

So don't shoot yourself in the foot if you get a foundation grant that's for less than the amount you requested. Instead, use this as an opportunity to build a stronger long-term relationship with the foundation.

Jim Abernathy is a consultant to nonprofit groups and to other organizations on general management, board and staff leadership issues, coalition-building, and grantmaking. He has worked in the field of nonprofit management for over 35 years and was the founding Executive Director of the Environmental Support Center.

Source: {Centered} January 2012 - Volume 5, Issue 1 © 2012 The Grantsmanship Center, Inc. All rights reserved. www.tgci.com

From {Centered}: Proposal rejected? Don't despair.

Even experienced grantseekers get turned down more often than they'd like. But how you handle those disappointments will affect how successful you are in the long run. Rebecca Shawver offers good advice on dealing with grant rejection in "It's Time to Remember that 'No' Doesn't Always Mean 'Never'" (CharityChannel, August 17, 2011). It's crucial, says Shawver, to speak with the funder after your request has been denied to learn the reasons for their decision. Different reasons require different remedies. For instance:

The funder liked your project, but they didn't have enough money.

• Begin planning earlier next time.
• Find out whether collaborating with other groups might increase your chances of success in the future.
• Adopt any recommendations the grantmaker may make in your post-rejection conversation.

The funder doesn't know you very well.

• Meet with them personally.
• Invite them to visit your offices and program sites.

You didn't demonstrate community support in your request.

• Before reapplying gather more letters of support and go after more matching funds and in-kind support.

Your program--or your description of it--needs to be better developed.

• Refine your proposal to include components that describe your program more effectively.
• Make sure your program reflects the latest trends and incorporates the best practices in the field.

The funder's "No" really did mean "Never."

• Look to other sources of funding, there are other fish in the sea!  

Article from The Grantsmanship Center {Centered} October 2011 issue.

The case of fraud, forgery, and false statements: 5 lessons for grantseekers

Reposted from The Grantsmanship Center's August 2011 newsletter {Centered}

Mail Fraud. Guilty. Document Forgery. Guilty. Making False Statements. Guilty.

In June 2011 a California jury returned its verdict in the case of grant proposal writer Jean Cross, an independent contractor. The charges involved a 2007 grant proposal submitted by a community coalition for funding under the 21st Century Community Learning Center grant program.

After the $35 million grant was approved for funding, one of the key partners, the Desert Sands Unified School District, found that the proposal that had been submitted was "materially different" from the copy they had received from the applicant organization, that memos of understanding had been altered, and that district signatures had been forged. The school district blew the whistle, withdrew from the collaboration, and called for an investigation. The grant was returned to the funding source. Ultimately the proposal writer was charged with fraud, forgery, and making false statements.

While this situation was extraordinary, it's worth looking at, since it highlights at least five crucial lessons for grantseekers.

The proposal writer had approached the coalition about submitting a proposal about ten days before the deadline, according to testimony by the head of the coalition.

• Lesson #1: Plan. One of the core principles for people who practice sound grantsmanship is planning. Even a relatively simple proposal requires thoughtful planning. In this case, the proposed programming involved a multitude of schools and community organizations. How can solid program planning be accomplished with so many collaborators in just ten days?

Community surveys and meeting results to determine student and family needs were reported in the proposal but could not be verified. Cross acknowledged she "might have copied and pasted" into the proposal information she had collected from other school districts while working on previous grant proposals.