Dani Robbins

Posts Tagged ‘grant writing’

How to Write a Grant

In Leadership, Organizational Development, Resource Development on May 17, 2016 at 12:08 pm

I taught myself how to write grants. At the time, grant writing was a big secret. It seemed like a skill that would be useful so, like many other things that no one seemed willing to teach me, I figured it out. I’d love to tell you that my case was an anomaly but grant writing still seems to be one of those things that our field seems to require people to learn for themselves. I think that’s silly so here goes:

The most important thing to know about grant writing is this: read and follow the directions. If you learn nothing else from this piece, this one simple rule will serve you well. I can’t tell you the number of people I know, myself included, who have had to drop everything and run somewhere at the last minute to get a signature, a document or a letter of support that they (we) could have had three weeks earlier if they (we) had only read the directions.

Directions are included in what’s commonly referred to as an RFP, which stands for Requests for Proposals.  Many grant officers will tell you that we all use the term wrong and in fact, we write proposals and they issue grants. They’re right, but since they have not been successful in changing the lexicon as of yet, we all still call it grant writing.

There are a variety of types of grants available including government, corporate, and foundation. Government grants are almost exclusively field specific. I recommended if you are writing a government grant for the first time, you team up with someone who has done it before, especially if you are also new to the field. For our purposes, we’re going to focus on foundation grants. Corporate grants often follow a similar process.

Grants are awarded for a variety of things- general operating, specific projects, capital and endowment.

General Operating is the least available and the most needed. General operating support is defined as anything you need that supports the operations of your organization. It may also be called unrestricted funding. If you need to match another grant; if you need to pay the utility bill; if you need toilet paper, general operating dollars can be used for all that and more. Plus, it has the added benefit of not having to be tracked. Unrestricted money goes into your general fund, and poof you can spend it on whatever the budget allows. Most of us love general operating grants. If it’s an option, take it.

Project specific grants are most widely available, and are defined as money awarded to support a specific program, project or purchase. These dollars have to be tracked to insure you spent them on what you promised to. This funding may also be called restricted funding.

Capital grants are for a large expense: a new building, roof, van, etc. They are almost as ubiquitous as project grants, sometimes more so since they are usually one time gifts. Capital gifts are also considered restricted funding and must be tracked accordingly.

Endowment grants are the most difficult to find and the hardest to get. They are essentially the transfer of funds into your endowment account, which cannot be spent but does generate dividends in perpetuity.

Grant writing starts long before you sit down to read the directions and write your proposal. It starts with the funding priorities of the granting institution. If their priorities are not aligned with the work your agency does, don’t bother. If their priorities are aligned with your mission, call the program officer and confirm that what you are thinking is something they’d be interested in funding.  If it’s not – and they’ll tell you if it’s not – don’t bother. Life is too short, and you have too much work to do to waste time writing proposals that are never going to be funded.

Assuming you have gotten a go ahead from the program officer and are ready to roll, most grants start with an executive summary.  Just because they want to read it first doesn’t mean you’ll want to write it first. Do this last. Your grant will evolve as your draft it and if you write the summary first you’ll have to keep changing it.  Do yourself a favor and hold this piece until the end. When you do finally write it, hit the highlights of the body of the grant. Do not add anything that isn’t elsewhere.

The first part of the actual grant is usually History or Agency Information. This is where you tell the story of your organization’s origin, its mission and your aspirations. Describes your agency’s qualifications, target population, history, programs, and successes. If you are the only program providing your service in the area, say it.

Next is usually the Problem or Needs Statement. This is not referring to what your agency needs. In fact, unless it is a capacity building grant, no one cares what your agency needs. Your donors do not give to your agency. Your donors give to impact your mission through your agency. They care about the needs in your community. Tell them about that. (This is actually a good thing to remember about all donors.)  Discuss the problem your project will address and for which you are applying for funding. Make sure you tie the program back to the mission of your organization, and include statistics, if possible.

Objectives are asking what you will do to impact this issue. Objectives are specific, measurable and time limited and include who, what (reduce, increase, decrease, maintain), how many and when. For example: If the problem is that teens have nowhere to be and nothing to do in the hours after school this greatly increases their chances of becoming statistics themselves. The objectives might be to reduce the number of teens who commit or become victims of a crime by 20% in the hours directly after school from September 2017 to June 2018.

The Activities are what you will do to meet the objectives. It should include information on clients and staff, be clear, justifiable and reasonable. Explain why you think this activity will accomplish your objective, and provide evidence. For example, “to provide 3 sessions of 6 weeks each of self-esteem building programming for girls ages 12-14. Self-esteem building sessions for teen girls have been proven (cite research) to be impactful on their ability to avoid destructive behaviors and make informed decisions.”

The Evaluation is your agency’s plan for judging if the program you are offering is achieving its intended impact. This section maybe be called Evaluation, Impact or Outcomes. Outcomes are different than outputs. Outcomes describe impact.  Outputs are numbers. The section is where you describe your plan for judging the project’s success. It is objectives met plus activities implemented resulting in change. You may be using pre/post tests, reverse surveys, evaluations and/or an independently verified assessment. Whatever you are using, describe it and explain why it is your measurement tool of choice.

Future funding is the section that is the most difficult for new grant writers because it’s the squishiest. Many of us would like this section to go away. I totally get why this section is important for funders. I just wish we had the sustainability to answer it well. If we did, we probably wouldn’t need to be seeking new money, but since we are… the answer is usually some version of: we will continue to seek funding, possibly introduce a social enterprise, offer one signature event that raises 10% or more of our annual budget, build our coffers and steward donors in an effort to continue to provide the life altering programming that we do until we meet our mission and change our corner of the world. Like I said, squishy.

That usually takes care of the narrative portion of the proposal. Before I move on to the budget portion, I want to offer a plea on behalf of all of the readers of these grants many of whom will not work in your field. They will be Board members or volunteers. Make it easy for them to recommend you for funding. Don’t guilt, don’t use jargon they don’t know and don’t exaggerate. Paint an engaging picture, follow the directions and engage them in your quest for world change!

On to the Budget: other than general operating, most grants require both an agency budget and a project budget. The agency budget should be (have already been) Board approved. The project budget will be the expenses and income related to the project for which you are requesting funding. It should roll up under the agency budget.

Do not seek funding from more than one source for the full cost of the project. (What would you do if you got both?) It is perfectly reasonable to seek funding for part of the project from multiple sources.  If you are, include the other sources of potential funding in the project budget with a note on what is pending and what is awarded. If you have the opportunity to include a budget narrative do so and explain anything that isn’t immediately obvious.

When possible, I encourage you to include a cover letter with your proposal.  Address it to the program officer with whom you spoke or whomever is listed in the instructions. Make sure you spell their name correctly. Explain why you are applying and for how much. Explain how your program ties to their funding priorities. If you are the only program providing your service in the area, say it again. Thank them for their consideration. Have your CEO and/or Board President sign the letter.

Before your mail or upload your grant: Have someone read it and then have someone else read it. Check your math. Check your proposal against the RFP. Check your signatures. Submit the right amount of copies and originals – check those copies. Make a hard copy for the file and an electronic copy for the future.

If your proposal got funded, you will receive a letter or a phone call informing you of your award. I encourage you to write thank you note and continue to keep in touch with the funding institution. I also encourage you to reach out via phone and also in writing if you need a budget modification or if something comes up that is unexpected, both good and bad.

If you didn’t get funded, I encourage you to call the program officer and ask why. They’ll tell you. Try very hard to be gracious when they do.

The first grant I ever wrote was denied. Now I know you know that I taught myself how to write grants so it easily could have been denied because the grant was poorly written.  I’m happy to tell you that was not the case! The program officer told me it was well written. (Hooray!) It was denied because my agency didn’t need the money. (No, I have never had that happen since.) I was serving as a program coordinator of a small agency with the board serving as the executive director.  The agency ran a bingo hall which brought in tons of money. Perhaps the Board didn’t know how grants work when they told me to write this grant and signed off on its submission? It’s a good lesson.

How did you learn how to write grants?  Was your first grant funded?  Any advice to share? As always, I welcome your insight, feedback and experience. Please offer your ideas or suggestions for blog topics and consider hitting the follow button to enter your email. A rising tide raises all boats.

Advertisements

Events, Grants and Individual Giving

In Leadership, Non Profit Boards, Resource Development on October 23, 2013 at 9:08 am

I was having breakfast this week with a friend and fellow consultant and we were discussing resource development efforts, including events and grants.  As I’m sure you are well aware by now, I’m not a huge fan of organizations hosting multiple events.  Events are expensive, labor intensive and don’t usually generate a lot of income.

I can hear you out there saying “No Dani, they’re fun!”  And they are, at least some of them are.

One signature event a year is a wonderful way to engage new donors, connect with current donors and showcase your programs while raising significant money. Even signature events that don’t raise significant money may still be a good use of your resources.  However, more than one signature event a year is too much.

More than one event (two, if you must) may be a sign that your leadership, board or executive, is reluctant to raise money in other ways.

Leadership that doesn’t want to embark on an annual appeal or a major donor campaign will often advocate more grants be written or additional events be introduced.  Not only will more events not raise more money, more events will cannibalize your signature event and may yield less income for more work.  Any process that doesn’t get you to your goal is a bad process.

“The Executive Director is the Chief Development Officer” of any non profit that seeks contributed income. (Erik Anderson Donor Dreams blog) Whether they want to or not; whether they’re good at it or not; whether they have a development director whose job it is or not, the Exec is still responsible for fund raising and one of the responsibilities of a governing board is to raise money. Neither is a role that can be abdicated.

Events are often 5-15% of an agency’s budget and generally net 50% of what they cost, sometimes less. Most attendees would be appalled to know that, but it’s true. It’s too high! I recommend events net 75% of what they cost. There are other, better, avenues to raise money.

Grants, which are often 30-50% of an agency’s budget, more if they receive United Way funding, are one way.  Yet, they too come with a cost. Most agencies get somewhere between 50-80% of the grants they submit. That means that the time spent on writing the 20-50% of the grants that don’t get funded is time lost.  For the grants that are secured, there are reports to be written, dollars to be tracked, objectives to reach and programming to introduce. All of which is as it should be, and none of which is without cost.

As I mentioned in the Culture of Philanthropy or Fund Raising post, according to “Fund-Raising: Evaluating and Managing the Fund Development Process” (1999) individual giving offers the highest rate of return for the lowest cost (5-10%) to the organization.  It is also the largest pot of money given in this country and usually only reflective of the percentage of special event income in most agencies’ budgets.  In other words, 80% of the philanthropic dollars in this country are given by individuals yet 10-15% of most agencies budgets are received from individuals. Like the post says, “opportunity is knocking. Get the door!”

Your board, staff and major donors will be the foundation of any individual giving program and the program should be introduced in just that order: Board giving should come first with the Board setting and then meeting a giving goal. Staff should then be asked and then major donors. Individual giving is about one on one relationships that are cultivated – and later, stewarded – and require intentional asks for specific dollar amounts.

Once those asks are made, as mentioned in the Sustainability by Descending Order of Love post, “if you have the time and the volunteers, consider asking your larger mid level donors and prospects in person. Those with the potential to become major donors should also be asked in person as should anyone who is committed to your organization.  While we follow the path of descending order of love in planning, we love all of our donors equally.  If someone would like to see you in person, even if it will be a small gift, go.  It is fun to thank someone in person and is worth keeping a committed donor engaged. When that is not practical, the next best thing is a phone bank or phone calls.”

There are a lot of ways to raise money and some will generate more money in less time than others.  Nonprofit leaders are busy.  Get the best bang for your buck and get on the individual giving path.  It will be scary, and also worth it!

What have you done to increase individual giving?  As always, I welcome your insight, feedback and experience.  Please share your ideas or suggestions for blog topics and consider hitting the follow button to enter your email.  A rising tide raises all boats.

Playing Nicely in the Proposal Sandbox

In Leadership, Resource Development on August 24, 2013 at 8:03 am

The topic of this month’s nonprofit blog carnival is playing nicely with others, which I thought would be a great opportunity to talk about the intersection between grant writers and program staff.  As you’re probably aware, the two departments don’t generally play well in the sandbox, or really … even talk. When they do talk, they don’t talk enough or about the right things.  One department writes the grants, the other implements the grants.  Yet, and again, they don’t generally talk, which as you might imagine doesn’t generate the best process or the best grants.

Allow me a minute for a direct request:

Grant writers, please do not write (and later submit) grant proposals promising something the program staff can’t deliver. Talk to them! See what they need.  See if what they need matches the grant request on your desk. Maybe you can create magic! If you can, great!  If you can’t, please do not submit something the program staff cannot implement.  I know it’s frustrating that when you ask them what they need, they don’t get back to you.  Please keep trying …and maybe try a different way.  If you must submit something before you have spoken with them, try to align your proposal with current programs and the mission of your organization. Speak to the financial staff too and make sure they can spend down what you are proposing.

Program staff, please do not ignore the grant writer’s request for program needs. As you might have gathered, or learned the hard way, in the absence of you communicating your needs, the grant writers will assume what you need.  And when they do, if what they’ve assumed gets funded, and your CEO accepts the contract and signs the grant award (and they will) you’ll have to implement whatever it is they promised –  whether it makes sense or not; whether you want it or not; whether it’s a good use of your time or resources or whatever.  I know you’re busy implementing programming and moving the mission forward, but still…please save us all the trouble and just tell them what you realistically need to better serve your clients.

To both program staff and grant staff, please talk more; play nicer; collaborate and coordinate and work together to move your organization forward.

What I’m really advocating for – in addition to improved team work – is a grant coordination plan: the senior staff of the Finance, Operations and Development Departments could meet monthly to determine the priority of funding needs.  Prior to the development staff applying for any funding, the program staff can keep an updated list of programming needs and the finance staff can confirm the financial need and ability to spend the money the program staff is seeking.  When they do, the development staff can write the grants to secure funds.

Once funding is secured – and we all know that funding is far more likely to be secured when there is a good plan – the senior staff can review and assign reporting requirements and deadlines.

Voila!  We have just eliminated the need to scramble after realizing there is a proposal – or report – due for a grant the program staff didn’t even know about, let alone weigh in on.  We have just eliminated the need for the development staff to guess at what the program staff needs and what the financial staff can spend. We have created a smoother way to manage grants and for everyone to play nicer. It’s like I tell my kids: “You are far more likely to get what you need when you communicate what you need.”  Otherwise, you’ll be frustrated and we’ll (all) be guessing.

Lest you think I am exaggerating, go ask any program staff you know about how many times they have had to write a report for a grant they didn’t know was awarded for a program they weren’t exactly implementing.  Or talk to a grant writer about a time they missed a deadline because the program staff wouldn’t answer their questions. Or worse, go outside the organization you know best and talk to a foundation program officer about missed opportunities, monies not spent and organizations not renewed for funding.

We can all play better in the sandbox. Most of us, myself included, have a tendency to avoid what we don’t want to deal with, yet that is precisely when we have to go the other way.  Anytime you feel like you want to cut off contact is exactly the time to initiate contact – to reach out and talk more.  Get together monthly and review your current proposals, the opportunities you are expecting, the reports that are coming due and the needs you have.  Create some boundaries, ensure your needs are aligned with your mission and get to it!

While you’re planning, I encourage you to adopt a process that creates a grant file for every grant submission including a copy of the RFP and initial proposal, the grant agreement, if awarded – or the denial letter if not- and any and all related correspondence, including the website and log in information, a copy of the reports submitted and budgets modified. Anyone who has worked in nonprofits long enough has had to (re)create a grant file to ensure an organization was in compliance, but if we all talked (and planned) more it would happen less.  I promise the people who are standing in your shoes in the future – and each of your funders – will greatly appreciate it!

What do you think?  As always, I welcome your feedback, experience and insight.

Forks and Funding Streams

In Resource Development on February 23, 2013 at 10:16 am

I once heard a local Executive Director say that fund raising in a non profit was like a new restaurant looking for investors by asking people to pay for forks. That’s exactly right!  It’s illogical, yet it’s exactly right.

Nonprofits raise money through a myriad of sources, often one part of a program, project or piece of equipment a time.  Then once a year, or more often, we submit reports on the use of those funds.

Grants, which used to fund general operating, are now far more often restricted to the priorities areas of the funding institution.  Major donors fund in a similar way, with fewer restrictions usually, but still often to support a specific program or project and for a specific purpose.

It’s how it’s done, both on the side of the giving, and also on the side of the asking.

Granting intuitions – which for the purpose of this post includes corporate, community and family foundations as well as government awards – fund portions (and occasionally all) of projects, programs and staff; some fund only supplies, capital expenses or materials.

Donors and funding institutions absolutely and unequivocally have the right to support whatever they want in whatever method they choose.

It’s the nonprofit leader’s role to decline to accept funding that doesn’t meet their mission or make sense for their agency.  The caveat to all this, of course, is that those restrictions are not just that one foundation; they’re most foundations and other funding sources too.

Everyone funds like that and we all fund raise like that too- to support forks.  Forks – or in the nonprofit world, programs, projects or things – are important, and so are utilities, rent, staff, and programming.

Please let me be clear -this post is not intended to insult or be in any way disrespectful of the many, many institutions and people that support local organizations.  We are grateful to you!

This post is intended to question the efficacy of the status quo.

I am not naïve; I’ve been in this field for 20 years. I know that part of how we got here was a lack of accountability.  There was a lot of good feeling and a minimal amount of impact. I know there are still nonprofits out there not tracking their programs, not measuring outcomes and spinning their wheels but not advancing their missions.

I also know there are many more non profits that are running good programs, measuring the impact of those programs and being excellent stewards of the community’s resources.  They’re also spending a lot of time and energy to raise money and report on that money; time and energy that is taken away from programs.

When I ran the Boys & Girl Clubs of the Western Reserve, we wrote and usually received (and reported on) around 50 grants a year, we asked many more donors each year for financial support; we received money from the United Way, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the Ohio Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs; we had events and we had an endowment.  A large portion of the money we received was restricted.  We tracked every restricted dollar to ensure we spent it the way the donor intended.  We were transparent in our business practices and followed best practices for finical management.  That is good financial stewardship.  It’s also expensive and time consuming.  It is critically important, and it is not free.

Someone has to track, coordinate and manage all the pots and agencies can usually only charge a percentage of such costs to the grant.  It’s labor intensive.  It’s expensive.  It’s how it’s done. The current nonprofit funding model works. It’s not unacceptable but it is illogical.

I can’t imagine anyone planned it to be like this.  There is no version of a past that I will believe that has donors, foundation, corporate and government leaders sitting around a table envisioning a funding system that has one program being supported by three different grants each paying for a different percentage of the program staff salaries, and a much smaller percentage of the program leadership’s salary, with yet another grant paying for the materials and special event income making up the difference.

There’s got to be a better way.  The nonprofit service delivery system has been greatly improved through technology, professional and leadership development opportunities, improved tracking and a lens that is focused on impact.  Income generating efforts have similarly evolved, with the introduction of social enterprise, expanded efforts to embrace major donors and mergers when appropriate.

It’s time to re-imagine the funding model.  What else is out there?  How else can we ensure financial stewardship, maintain donor confidence and demonstrate our impact?  What else can we do to ensure the nonprofits in our communities have the resources they need to impact their corner of the world?

Let’s come up with a new plan: I’d rather do that than raise money for forks any day of the week.

As always, I welcome your experience, insight and ideas.

%d bloggers like this: