​FUNDERS ROUNDTABLE III

THE “PET PEEVES” ROUNDTABLE

BEFORE GOING ON to the components of a grant proposal with our panelists, we asked them to respond as holistically as possible to a full proposal. We asked what three things a proposal writer could do to get their attention and make them want to give the grant (and we asked which single thing was most important). Then we asked about pet peeves. Their responses are scattered throughout the roundtables, but first let us share with you an insight from one of our panelists: “The key is for the person doing the proposal writing to have passion for the organization. Everything else can be taught.”

What Did the Grantmakers Really Like?

The roundtable for Part I should have given you a good idea of the panelists’ likes. Nearly every grantmaker said that what they like to see is that you’ve done your homework, read the guidelines, and understand the foundation or government program priorities. Almost all of them said they looked for a good idea, a good program, and clarity—and brevity—in the expression of the idea. Government funders were more concerned than most foundations about a formal statement of objectives and outcome measurement (although, ​as we’ve mentioned before, the foundations too are increasingly interested in outcomes or impact).

And What Were Their Pet Peeves?

Laziness. Perhaps you can guess what the most common pet peeve was. As should be clear from the earlier roundtables, nearly every grantmaker talked about applicants who didn’t do their homework. Foundation representatives were annoyed by applicants who didn’t know what the foundation did, hadn’t read the guidelines, and didn’t even know who the current program officer or foundation director was. “Scattershot,” “shotgun,” and “over the transom” were some of the disparaging terms they used about proposals that apparently had been sent out at random and with no thought.

Incoherence. The other major complaint was about proposals in which the applicants hadn’t made it clear what they wanted to do, how they were going to do it, or how the budget had been arrived at. “I sometimes read a proposal and can’t see where it’s going,” was an annoyance expressed by one grantmaker, who could have been speaking for all of her colleagues. “If a proposal is a real mess, it’s a reflection of a lack of coherence in the program.”

But they might forgive some errors. The panelists were less hard on some aspects of the proposal that we thought might be poorly received. Spelling errors, poor writing (as long as the concepts are clear), and other stylistic problems are not necessarily held against the applicant—but they are noticed. We thought maybe we shouldn’t even mention this fact to you, though. In more recent interviews, funders were clear that they could not take poorly written proposals to their boards. A few foundation officers said that in the past they might have helped with rewrites for small grassroots organizations or new immigrant groups who were just learning the grants process—and perhaps the English language. But they now find they don’t have the time for this kind of help. So unless you know the specific person who will review your proposal and that person’s likes and dislikes, you just can’t risk submitting a sloppily written proposal.

​How Should the Need Be Shown in the Proposal, and How Important Is It Really?

“Beginning grant writers tend to base their proposals on their ideas rather than on a real need,” said a funder. “To show need is very important… yet there’s an amazing lack of statistics included in proposals—and when they are included, they are often dated and out of context.”

Another funder suggested that “you use a commonsense approach to identifying need.” Unlike her colleague, she doesn’t want to see a lot of data because she is fully aware of which communities have the greatest need in the geographical area funded by her foundation. But do tell her about new needs in your community that require attention. “We know the territory pretty well,” agreed a panelist. “We don’t want to see proposals overladen with demographic proof. Be smart. More is not necessarily better. But we want to be sure that a grant applicant understands the community it [the organization] represents.”

You see—more is better when it comes to reading and studying guidelines, but it is not better if you haphazardly adorn your proposal with statistics that are overwhelming and irrelevant. Clearly you have to find a balance between failing to describe a problem and throwing in the statistical kitchen sink. One way to deal with this may be to include (brief) compelling stories that demonstrate the need. “I like to see some anecdotal data about how a program touched the lives of people, along with some relevant hard data and statistics,” said a government funder. “I prefer a bigger picture view showing the organization’s understanding of its role in making positive things happen,” explained a foundation grantmaker, “rather than, ‘our community has the worst so-and-so.’”

Most panelists suggest that your needs statement will be different if your proposal is being sent to your local bank (which knows the neighborhood as well as you do), a small foundation in your community (which also knows the terrain), or to a large national foundation ​or federal government agency (both of which may be unfamiliar with your neighborhood or community). As one of our panelists said, “Be smart about it (which is always easier said than done). And be clear (which is also easier said than done).”

“Applicants usually understand their needs,” said a government grantmaker, “but being clear about them is another story.” In other words, whatever information you include to make the case for a need, be sure you organize it well, state it clearly, and show how it is relevant to the program you want to implement.

Do Grants Always Go to the Communities with the Greatest Need?

The answer to this question surprised us a bit. Communities with the direst need aren’t always the ones that get the grant. Most funders want to be sure the money will be well spent, so they look for strong organizations doing important things, wherever they are located. When pressed on the subject of need, they admitted that, as much as they may want to, it is very difficult to give grants to organizations that aren’t likely to be able to implement and sustain the program, no matter how compelling the problem and how underserved the community.

“We fund underserved communities first and foremost,” said one foundation panelist. But, another explained, “we don’t give money just to spur community involvement—even if it is a very low-income community. We only give money to a community that can already demonstrate a commitment to making things better.”

Another funder said that her foundation gets an idea about something that it thinks should happen and then searches for a “fertile community where it is likely to happen—meaning one with key leadership in place, a track record, and a desire to extend good work that is already going on.” Still another said, “We give money to the strongest people and the strongest program—not necessarily the one that is in the lowest-income areas.”

On the other hand, “if we fund in ‘good’ neighborhoods, the amount of money we give is far more modest… in fact, we’ll generally ​use a challenge-grant approach (which requires the grantees to find additional funders),” another of our panelists explained. One funder offered this hint: “If you are in a wealthy neighborhood or community asking for a grant, be modest. But geography doesn’t automatically knock you out of the box.”

Does the Nonprofit Status of a Group Matter?

The nonprofit status of an applicant matters, even if it has a wonderful program in a very needy community. “Sometimes a group will come to us and say, ‘We don’t have a 501(c)(3), but we feed hundreds of hungry people every night,’” a foundation grantmaker said. “It’s frustrating because some groups have access—they know how to get help with that sort of thing—and other groups—like this one—can’t manage it.” Foundations usually can’t give grants to organizations that don’t have their paperwork in place, no matter how great their need is and how many people they serve, so it is easy to see why this funder may be frustrated.

And Now for Those Measurable Objectives… Do We Really Need Them?

Generally, the need or problem section of a proposal is followed by the objectives you hope to achieve in order to solve the problem you laid out. In Roundtable I we discussed the increasing emphasis grantmakers are placing on outcomes and impact. Because every program planner and proposal writer tends to have a difficult time arriving at suitable objectives, we asked our panelists about the importance of objectives and for suggestions about how to develop them.

“Measurable objectives—very important,” said one funder. “I need to see benchmarks so I can sell the proposal to the board and senior staff.” A government funder explained that the most important thing an applicant can do is “be results oriented,” which is what objectives are all about. “What do you want to do—what are the gaps—and what services will you provide to fill in the gaps? This is important,” said another funder. “There is a lot of research out there ​that can help you. Be realistic. Don’t say you’ll increase reading scores by three grade levels through a summer recreation program for children!”

“Frankly, I don’t care how many widgets you made, I only care if the widgets made a difference—and how they made a difference,” warned another government funder. This grantmaker is not quite so interested in how many people you served as how well the program worked. “Objectives weren’t important to us until [recently],” said a panelist. “Our board didn’t require them. But now, we don’t just fund from our heart—we need to support groups that will make an impact.”

“If you’re having a problem setting up appropriate measurable objectives,” suggested a grantmaker, “work with your program officer… or someone who can help you.” One of our panelists pointed out that because organizations often need help in understanding outcomes, his foundation funds training in how to identify them. “We believe that nonprofits should come up with the outcomes they hope to achieve. It isn’t up to us to tell them.”

We Understand That Measurable Objectives Are Important. But What If We Don’t Achieve Them? Will We Have to Give the Money Back?

“Once in a blue moon, if you’ve aimed too high, the foundation will ask for the money we gave you back,” admitted one of our panelists. But this probably would happen only if the organization hasn’t seriously worked at reaching the outcomes. “If you’ve engaged the community and really made an effort, we probably won’t ask you to return the funds.” Another said, “We want organizations to succeed. We don’t want to take money back. If grantees keep the foundation informed about what’s going on… we can help you,” said a panelist.

Keeping the funder informed may be the key to what happens if the program isn’t successful. “I like to see how grantees deal with ​challenges. Tell me, ‘We thought this would happen, but then this happened. Luckily, we had a Plan B, a Plan C, and help from friends and supporters,’” explained a grantmaker.

One funder suggested, “Large foundations can be understanding if you weren’t successful doing what you said you’d do. Smaller foundations can’t afford to be as flexible.” Organizations often can rely on help from funders in figuring out how to restate the objectives to be more realistic, how to achieve the desired outcomes, and why things went wrong. A government grantmaker said, “It’s a new ballgame once you get a grant. The highest scores on the proposal are not necessarily the highest performers. The extent to which an applicant overstated its objectives might be revisited once the grant is actually being implemented.”

To summarize: Of course funders are more concerned when you don’t even try to achieve your objectives than when you try hard and fail to achieve the results you hoped you would. And they all want to see evidence that you’ve learned something when you haven’t quite succeeded.

Oh, and they like to be kept in the loop as you’re attempting—or even struggling—to achieve your objectives. No one—not you, not us, certainly not grantmakers—likes surprises. If you’re having trouble with your grant-funded program, make sure you talk to the funder. Not only can you get moral support, you can also get tangible help.

The Program Is the Key, Right? So What Do Grantmakers Really Look for in the Program Description?

First, you need to keep in mind that program officers can recommend grants but generally don’t have the final say about whether a proposal gets funded. Provide enough information so that they can make your case: “I need a very detailed program description because that’s what I’m selling to my board. Your program description gives the program officer the power to make your case by using your ​words.” A government grantmaker described a conversation with an applicant who had gotten a mediocre score on a proposal—and no grant—and was upset because she had received grants for the same program before. “I sat down with the criteria and her application, and called her back and said, ‘This is not a good application.’ She hadn’t clearly and cleanly explained what they wanted to do.”

Concerning the program’s importance, the grantmakers also said, “The first thing we look at is your program—whether it reflects best practices, sustainability, and measurable outcomes.” “The program should be a blueprint for everything.” “A good program is the key: What is it you plan to do?”

And what do the grantmakers look for in a proposal that convinces them that it’s a good program? “The fewer questions I have about a program as I’m reading a proposal, the better the program is explained,” one panelist said. Others noted, “I look at what and who: What is the program and who is the leadership?” “We want to see an explicit theory of action.” “Be clear and concise. Build your case: Why is the program excellent, and why is it likely to accomplish what you hope it will?” “Make a good case that the proposed program is consistent with your organization’s line of business. ‘Stick to your knitting,’ which means focus on your core line of work.” “The project design should be clear and concise: We are going to implement this and this. We are going to manage it this way and that way.” And watch your language. Funders told us, “Program staff are committed to doing a great job running their program.… But they don’t learn to sell their program. They learn jargon instead.” “I hate pseudoscience babble,” one panelist said. “I hate phrases like ‘myriad approaches.’ Just tell me what you’re going to do.” “I want to read a proposal and say, ‘I want to hear more.’” “I want to know that transformational work is going on.”

Above all, one grantmaker said, “Be reasonable. Doable. Implementable. In line with your organization’s vision.”

​And How Important Is Collaboration? If I Collaborate, Am I More Likely to Get a Grant?

Grantmakers talk about collaboration, but grant seekers argue about it. “What is it exactly?” “It’s more trouble than it’s worth.” “It’s easy for you to like it—you don’t have to do it.” As we noted in Roundtable I, grantmakers are thinking much more intently about the benefits (and drawbacks) of collaboration. We asked them to elaborate.

One funder said, “Collaboration is not necessarily a means to an end.” But others disagreed. One said, “We encourage collaborations at times when resources aren’t abundant.” “We fund community development, which works much better with collaboration. We give preference—for financial and policy reasons—to collaborative approaches. They’re critical,” she added. Her colleague agreed: “Collaboration is essential. Sometimes it isn’t about collaboration, but mostly it is. Get together and talk!” Another panelist said, “We actually ask applicants who they are coordinating with.… We want to make sure they’re connecting with other groups to provide the highest-quality services.” A funder added, “collaborations are important—both formal and informal ones. Be open to forming relationships that may lead to forming pragmatic collaborations.”

But we know it’s hard. Whether they preferred to see collaborations or not, grantmakers agreed that it’s very difficult. As one said, “We like collaboration, but from personal experience, it takes a lot of work.” “Sometimes collaboration makes sense… but it is difficult—especially when you’re bringing together groups that have different cultures. It’s messy,” said another.

In fact, the grantmakers recognized that collaboration should emerge from the community itself rather than being required by the funder. “It’s nice when two or three groups get together and approach you rather than your telling them to collaborate,” said one. “Collaboration is beneficial but it shouldn’t be funder driven—and it’s awfully hard work,” said a foundation grantmaker. “We help people ​collaborate… but we don’t expect them to do so. We actually fund people to work on collaborations—funders need to be sensitive to the difficulty.” “We don’t force it but we’re interested in collaboration,” said a funder. “We’ve seen groups forced to work together who don’t like each other.”

“We haven’t seen much collaboration,” said another funder. “But our board would probably appreciate it. We’d be willing to give more money if the groups explained that they were asking for the extra money so they could actually collaborate.”

Government funders like it even more. Government grantmakers were even more committed to the concept of collaboration. One government funder said, “It’s the best way to get things done. No single entity can do it all. Individuals we’re concerned with have very complex needs—housing, primary health care, mental health care, child care, transportation, rehabilitation programs. The very stable, very creative and sophisticated organizations have multiple funding streams and established relationships, sharing information and working together. There’s not enough money or expertise to make it happen any other way.”

Government agencies are finding ways to collaborate with one another and with community-based organizations within the limits of their procurement regulations. A city government official told us, “Three nonprofits got in touch with us about applying for a federal grant that required collaboration between the city and nonprofits. We did a quick mini-RFP and sent it out to those three organizations and seven others we knew were working in the field. We lifted questions straight from the federal grant application and asked the nonprofits to respond. We got proposals back and had them reviewed just as we would any other. The review team unanimously selected one group, and we put that organization into our grant.” This meant that once the city agency won the grant, it could start the program immediately without having to go through another protracted contracting process.

This panelist also told us that more agencies within city government are collaborating, including agencies that are not directly ​under the mayor’s control, such as district attorneys’ offices and others. And most important, “Forward-thinking commissioners and agencies are just interested in getting the money into the city. They understand that they don’t have to be the grantee, and that they can work with whoever is the best applicant.”

Another government funder advised us that “collaboration is becoming more intense. To have a comprehensive impact on communities, you need a coordinated effort. It used to be acceptable to have a bunch of letters of support with different executive directors’ signatures. Now there’s been a paradigm shift: Create partnerships at the beginning of the project, not right before you’re mailing out the grant proposal!”

How should collaboration work? A government panelist reminded us that “collaboration has the word ‘labor’ in it. ‘I’ve got the costumes, you’ve got the stage—let’s put on a show.’ That’s collaboration!” His colleague commented, “I see project staff as the key to building collaboration… an entrepreneurial person is needed.” And a foundation panelist noted, “To do it well, someone must be in charge to nurture the collaboration… for the care and feeding of the partners… to facilitate the partnership.”

One government panelist spoke of foundations as well as nonprofits when discussing collaboration. “There is a lot that foundations can offer without writing a check. They have information on best practices, research they’ve funded, a perspective outside the specific geographic location. They can donate space for meetings, sit on advisory boards, provide personal contacts. It rounds out the process.”

And collaboration’s not going away. Most funders seem to agree that working together to solve a problem, help clients, and conduct a comprehensive, effective program is better than working in isolation. But doing it—and doing it well—is another matter altogether. It’s probably safe to say that collaboration is a goal, but we haven’t reached it yet. Clearly it is on the minds of grantmakers, though. A funder’s last words on the subject: “Generally, like it or not, collaboration is not going away anytime soon.”

​The Program Is Great, but How Can I Prove My Organization Is Capable of Implementing It?

As grantmakers are deciding whether to fund your project, they wonder about your organization’s ability to do what you say you’re going to do. It is one thing to talk the talk (and write up the write-up) and another thing to walk the walk. We asked our panelists to address “the Big Three”—capacity to implement the program, capacity to sustain the program once the funding cycle is over, and the adequacy of your budget to conduct the activities efficiently.

Leadership was a key to grantmakers’ decisions. “I don’t necessarily need to know the person in charge of an organization personally, but I want evidence of a track record.… Who supports it, who funds it?” “For us, leadership is everything. Does the leader have the vision and capability to run the organization?” “We look for the proof that you have the ability to deliver what you say you will: staff and track record.”

Collaboration, or at least the organization’s solid place in the community or its relationships within its program area, is another indication of potential success. “If the organization is plugged into a network of other groups we fund, there is at least a context that helps us believe that the organization will do what it says it is going to do.” “I want to know who will help the organization if things go wrong.” “The size and length of time an organization has been around is not important. What is important is the ability to do what it says it will do—which is why we encourage applicants to form partnerships to build up their capacity.” “Show that you’ve reached out to all the stakeholders the program is expected to impact.”

A few grantmakers are willing to help by giving grants that can strengthen the organization: “My foundation gives capacity-building grants.” Others look for a signal that the group is not overreaching: “We believe in an agency that knows what its niche is.”

​Sustainability Is Another Story. How Can I Prove the Program Will Live On When I’m Not Even Sure Myself?

Convincing grantmakers that you will sustain the program when there are no more grant funds is a monumental challenge. More than a monumental challenge, which is why we discuss it throughout this book. We asked our panel how important it is to show you’ll sustain the program when the grant runs out, and how applicants can believably and convincingly address the issue of sustainability in their proposals.

“I like to fund programs that are transformative,” explained a foundation funder, “but they don’t necessarily need to lead to self-sufficiency. I like to see a certain level of democracy, where the beneficiaries of grants turn around and help other organizations.”

Diversify funding sources. Several panelists commented on the diversity of funding sources as one way to ensure sustainability. One grantmaker explained, “I am willing to understand that sustainability is a long-term process [rather than a program-by-program effort]—but some organizations don’t have diversified funding sources and a healthy individual donor base.” “No matter what kind of group you are, diversify your funding,” warned a funder. Another said, “We need a sense of the organization. Is it planning for future financial stability? We like to see an economic plan for the future, although we know it’s complicated. It gets back to leadership and vision.” For the current edition, we asked grantmakers for their opinions on social enterprise, or social entrepreneurship. Some organizations use such business initiatives, developed in support of their mission, as part of a long-term plan for sustainability. The panelists generally were very positive, but with some caveats; their responses are presented in Lesson 18 and Funders Roundtables I and IV.

Build capacity. “Build a development staff,” a member of our panel suggested, “and align programs of the organization in an orderly way to secure additional, diverse funding.” Another foundation ​funder said, “Look at other donors, earned income, show that you’re thinking about sustaining the program, and that you have some understanding about sustainability.” And one suggested, “Be creative about sustainability. Do board development. If 10 of your board members raise $1,000 each, it’s a lot easier than getting a $10,000 grant.” “Look at grants as building blocks for financial sustainability—but not as the only building block.” “Don’t be dependent on only one sector for funding. If you are, foundations—or, at least, my foundation—will be concerned.”

Don’t count on getting the grant renewed. Perhaps we should not have been surprised at the reversal of a long-held assumption in philanthropy that foundations stimulate new programs, and government sources take over to support those that are demonstrated to work well. A federal government grantmaker said, “Everyone in Washington expects grantees to have everything figured out once the federal investment runs out. Even if a grant doesn’t require it, show that you’ve thought about sustaining the program or project. Remember: Programs are no longer funded into perpetuity… there is diminished entitlement.” Another government funder is willing to give seed money to get a project started—but he wants to know, “What are your plans to sustain?”

“When there is a large community buy-in, there is likely to be sustainability because the community partners [i.e., local government or businesses] will take the project over,” a federal government panelist said. “We expect programs to be institutionalized by the end of five years. We might reduce funding in the third and fourth year.”

“The best way to ensure sustainability is to build relationships,” a funder said. “Many cities are ‘smokestacked.’ No one talks to anyone. The schools don’t talk to the police who don’t talk to.…” “Leverage resources—build public-private partnerships,” suggested another grantmaker.

​Which Leads Us to the Budget: What Do Grantmakers Look For?

“Too often grant writers obviously don’t understand the financials of their organizations,” said a foundation funder. “Trustees of foundations tend to be business people, so the financial aspects of a proposal are really important to them. They’ll ask, ‘Why are consulting fees so high?’ They’ll ask questions about overhead costs.” “It’s funny,” another panelist said, “newer, less experienced groups don’t build in overhead—and they undercut themselves. Larger groups, on the other hand, exaggerate their overhead costs. And everyone tends to underestimate in-kind contributions in their proposals.”

“A pet peeve of mine is when the budget isn’t transparent. People like to bundle things together to leave themselves some room,” explained a government grantmaker. “In one proposal I read, the applicant used the word ‘modalities’ in the budget (with no explanation)—and spent two-thirds of the grant to pay for this thing called ‘modalities.’” “I also don’t like to see a disproportionately small number of staff included in the budget—it makes me think that someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes,” he added.

“Sometimes we get a budget that looks like it’s for a different proposal,” complained one grantmaker. “Half of the grant money is going to an arts organization and they didn’t mention a word about the arts organization in the narrative. The budget should be able to stand alone as a representation of the proposal.”

Another funder complains, “I hate it when budgets make no sense. And I loathe the ‘blah-blah-blah syndrome’—when grant writers sort of go blah, blah, blah instead of just telling us directly what they plan to do with the money. Keep the budget simple.” As a government panelist advised, “It all goes back to writing a clear proposal. Our application format has a proposal narrative and a budget narrative, and the two have to ‘crosswalk.’”

And the funders can’t think of any reason you shouldn’t have a realistic, straightforward budget. “Spreadsheets and other software ​packages have allowed people to be more on top of things as far as crafting their budget is concerned.”

Other elements of the budget are important to some funders. For example, “I like to see what I think of as ‘added value’ in the budget,” said a grantmaker. “Things like in-kind contributions that show how resources are leveraged.” “We’re always looking at the reasoning behind your budget—your assumptions need to be clear.” “Who are the other funders—name them in the budget.” This approach also provides references: “Our grants are only for about $25,000 a year—so we hope that the organizations we’re funding are stable. Who funded them last year? We call other funders—if we know them—to check the groups out.”

As still another reminder about reading the guidelines, another funder said, “Don’t slip something into the budget that we say we won’t fund (rent, for example). Some grantmakers will stop reading proposals that do that.” “I saw a funny one last year,” added a government grantmaker. “Our announcement included a small amount for renovation if it was necessary to provide the services supported in the grant. We got an application asking for the entire amount of the grant for renovation! People don’t understand: Leasing, car rental, renovation have to be tied to the services!”

Don’t shortchange yourself! “Be realistic about what it costs to run a program… don’t shortchange yourself,” insisted a panel member. “Put it in front of the foundation’s eyes—right smack in the middle of the proposal—that it costs money to do all the things you want to do. Don’t say, ‘We only need $45,000 to pay the salary of a staff member,’ when it costs a hell of a lot more than $45,000 to run the program.” Another panelist commented, “We don’t want to be the sole support of someone’s salary because, let’s face it, when the grant runs out, there’s a good chance the person will get fired. We don’t mind paying a part of a salary, or we might be willing to pay the whole amount for a development staff member who will turn around and raise money for the organization.” Even if you’re just asking the ​foundation to support that salary, or part of it, show how it fits into the larger program budget.

Realistic. Reasonable. Appropriate. Grantmakers do want your staff to be paid adequately: “We want to see reasonable salaries.” “I believe in reasonable salaries and benefits for not-for-profit staff. I hate to see high-priced consultants mentioned in budgets. They get paid an awful lot of money—and then they disappear.”

And about being realistic… Another foundation grantmaker expanded on the need to be realistic. “It’s unrealistic, for instance, if you have an all-volunteer staff and suddenly you want to jump to 10 paid staffers. Jump gradually if you expect to get funded.” Similarly, “It’s silly for a group that we never funded before—never heard of, never dealt with—to ask for $100,000 for general support,” warned a funder. “People ask for a larger amount of money than we can give them,” said a grantmaker. “We need to see a realistic assessment of how you’ll do what you said you’d do using a smaller amount of money.” One funder said, “We look at the budget of the proposed project in the context of the organization’s entire budget to make sure it fits and makes sense. The budget and the proposal narrative should be completely linked.” And, “We don’t nitpick about salaries—but we like to fund groups that have done everything possible to be fiscally smart. Are you getting donated space and services? What else are people contributing?”

One last thing on the topic of budget. A funder warned, “I have a dialogue with grant seekers and ask why certain items appear in the budget. I look at the program ideas first and the financials second. But I have to warn you—other grantmakers do it in the reverse. They look at costs first… and only after they’ve analyzed your budget do they look at the elements of your program.”

What Do Grantmakers Say About Evaluation? (Please Say, “It’s Not Very Important”!)

Sorry, but most grantmakers say evaluation is very important. Again, look back at Roundtable I to see how important outcomes are; ​evaluation can document those outcomes. “Anyone can design a good program… but will it get good results? The world is littered with good programs. I want to focus on results,” said a grantmaker. “Very few program staff actually care about evaluation—but they should use evaluation techniques to help them make changes in the program. No one ever says, ‘We haven’t succeeded.’”

Although the ability to know if a program is working is important to almost all funders, foundation grantmakers are more sympathetic about the difficulties of program evaluation than are government grantmakers—probably because the latter are willing to pay for evaluation when it’s important to them. “So few funders pay for evaluations that it seems cruel to ask grant writers to include them in proposals,” said a foundation grantmaker. But “evaluations allow you to retool constantly to improve your program,” another funder pointed out. “We’ll help people work on their evaluation plans.” Perhaps most reassuring to organizations that really don’t know how to do evaluation, “We work with less sophisticated groups and are comfortable with simple deliverables. We just want to see that they have some ideas for evaluation.”

A government funder offered a very practical warning: “Don’t tack on the evaluation at the end. Front-load it—build in the evaluation component at the beginning. Explain what tests and other measures you’re going to use to decide if you’ve achieved your objectives as you write your objectives. Use the evaluation section of the proposal to go into some detail about how you will use and analyze the measurements.”

And when you work with an outside evaluator, as required by many government grants, be sure the evaluator understands how important it is to integrate evaluation into the whole program—and the whole proposal. “Sometimes we see evaluations that don’t fit in with the rest of the proposal—we suspect that high-priced consultants were probably used,” another government grantmaker complained. “Garbage in, garbage out.”

​We were reassured to hear that grantmakers want to hear about failures too. “We’re lenient if you say that your program didn’t have an impact, as long as you try to figure out why it didn’t work,” said another panelist. “Tell us what lessons you learned. What you’d do differently. Say something like, ‘We didn’t realize the community wouldn’t care about such-and-such. Next time we’d approach folks differently.’ We love it when you say, ‘We bombed this year… but we’ll do better next time.’”

Whether It’s Called “Appendix” or “Attachment,” What Should I Include?

Sometimes the guidelines or application specify what additional material should be sent; at other times, there is no mention of any supplementary information that funders want to see. We asked the grantmakers a question about what appendix material or attachments should or should not be included in a grant proposal if there’s no guideline about this.

“In my opinion,” said a government funder, “appendix material should be connected to the collaboration in some way. I like ‘resource mapping.’ I also like to see articles about past successes, past evaluations of the group’s efforts, examples of the organization’s track record. ‘Soft stuff’ [such as anecdotal information] is good too, if it is allowed. Also a brief résumé of the project director—I’m interested in human capital. Do you have the right leader?” Another government panelist pointed out that when grantees receive the grant, “All of a sudden they have to start implementing the project… all of a sudden the rubber must meet the road. I like to see letters of commitment and memoranda of understanding that define how often and how much. They really explain how things will get going.” And yet another government member of our panel likes the appendix to include “minutes of partnership meetings—proving the partnership is real. Sometimes applicants go way overboard on the support letters,” she said. “And they all have the same wording on different organizations’ letterheads.”

​But keep in mind that, especially for foundations, “when there is too much appendix material, there is a temptation to leaf through it and not read anything carefully.” “Send what the foundation asks for—and this is like pulling teeth,” explained a funder. “We expect to see an audit (our treasurer goes through this line by line).” “Don’t send videos—they usually end up in the trash. And just don’t send tons of stuff,” said another grantmaker.

What Do I Do If a Foundation Doesn’t Have Application Guidelines?

Sometimes the answer is a letter of inquiry. As we said earlier, there are thousands of small to middle-size foundations across the country that have no staff or a very small staff, maybe just a part-time person. They don’t want lengthy applications or proposals. For example, “We’re open to a broad range of presentations,” a grantmaker said. “We’re looking for something wonderful. Our program officers can ask you to rewrite if need be.”

Another grantmaker whose foundation doesn’t have a required application said, “I hate long, beautifully written proposals. I don’t want to see more than five pages… and don’t send everything you’ve got right away. Remember, we’re just dating. We’re at the beginning stages. I don’t want to meet your parents yet.” (This is why it’s a very good idea to call and check with a foundation before deciding what to send: Do you want a short letter of inquiry, a full-blown proposal, a miniproposal, a paragraph, attachments, no attachments? You don’t even have to bother the program officer—the receptionist probably has fielded this question many times before.)

“I like to see a one-page executive summary—even though we don’t have an application—followed by a brief proposal,” said one funder. “My board is persnickety about putting restraints on applicants, which is why they would never think of asking for an actual application,” she explained. “They’re afraid they’d miss the discovery of the Matterhorn or something if they reined applicants into submitting a form application, so they really look hard at the executive ​summary. It is the executive summary that is given to the board no matter what proposal an organization submits.”

Many funders said that their process begins with a fairly short letter of inquiry (LOI), which is either accepted or rejected by the foundation. If it is accepted, applicants are asked to send a completed proposal. Sometimes site visits are arranged as well.

“I like a letter of inquiry to start with a ‘grabber’—a startling fact, a compelling story, and a program or strategy that deals with the issue,” explained one funder. Another grantmaker said that her foundation expects a letter of inquiry after the applicant has carefully researched what the foundation is doing and invited the foundation to see the program. And, “I like applicants to mention in the LOI which other groups are funding them.”

If you are asked to send a letter of inquiry, here’s some useful advice from a funder: “The LOI should be a brief description of who you are and why you want a grant. It should be simple and show clarity of purpose—and reflect the foundation’s guidelines. And don’t forget to mention any telephone conversations you may have had with us.”

Before We Move On, Let’s Go Back to Those Pet Peeves

You’ve heard what the panelists said about preparing for a proposal, finding the right funder, designing the best program, being clear about what you want to do and how you will do it, and making sure each part of the proposal reflects that design. You’ve followed their advice and created a great proposal. You’re ready to go. Almost. Before you send out that proposal, let’s focus for just a minute more on some of the more concrete, less holistic likes and dislikes of the grantmakers. Then comb through the proposal to be sure you haven’t hit any sore spots. As with everything else the panelists have talked about, there are some differences of opinion along the way. But here goes.

Language and format. Only one or two of the panelists were unconcerned about the proposal’s presentation and formatting. Rather, panelists said things like, “I’m not the page police, but don’t go over ​the page limit and get all wordy.” “[I hate] proposals that don’t reflect a clearly defined vision.” “[I hate] when applicants don’t stick to page limits and font-size limits. You’re not considered serious. When people try to get around these limits it drives reviewers nuts. If you want to get on a reviewer’s bad side, ignore these limits.” “[I hate] incredibly long proposals. If we say two to three pages, don’t send us 20 pages.” “[I hate] jargon. I hate when things get overintellectualized as opposed to a clear, direct description of the organization’s mission and the purpose of the grant.” “[I hate] jargon and hyperbole. A woman actually said to me that the target audience for her program was ‘potentially every child in the world.’” “[I hate] proposals that aren’t precise, concise, and sharp.”

“Our reviewers go off when there are a lot of spelling errors. ‘Don’t they know what spell-check is?’ they say.” “Because of spelling errors, ideas can be unclear and points are deducted from your score.” “Lack of proofreading makes me crazy. From a small grassroots organization—that’s one thing. But from a large organization—it’s unacceptable. Even with computers, terrible errors can occur!” There’s an echo in here: “Bad grammar drives me crazy. We’re community oriented and know that English often isn’t the first language of the writer. I try to understand but it’s hard; bad grammar breaks the flow and it’s jarring.… It’s less important with grassroots organizations, but I just finished reading proposals from groups that are teaching people to write proposals. That’s different.”

And so on… A few pet peeves were more personal or perhaps idiosyncratic, but they give a good idea of why you have to be so attentive. “[I hate] name dropping: When someone calls and says, ‘Oh, So-and-So said your foundation would fund our project.’” “I hate it when someone says, ‘We’re the only one doing this program in the entire city, state, country, world, planet’ (but I have to laugh).” “I don’t like ‘menus’ of requests: ‘We need support for this, this, this, and this. Do any of these things appeal to you?’ Make up your mind about what’s important to you!” “[I hate] budget costs that are ​obviously unrealistic—giving someone too much work to do for too little money and in too little time, for instance.”

We recommend that even if you’re ready to send out that proposal, you should go back to read the guidelines one more time. Listen: “It makes me nuts when you don’t read the guidelines. And you don’t proofread. They’re my grant guidelines. I wrote them and rewrote them—then my boss edited them some more and I rewrote them again. Then a consultant reviewed them. And you turn in an error-filled proposal that is obviously a first draft!” “When I was writing proposals, I figured that if a question wasn’t clear or wasn’t to the point of what I was writing, I could finesse it. But when you’re reviewing proposals it’s clear in an answer that the proposer didn’t like the question, didn’t think it was important, or didn’t get it. My agency spent months putting the proposal together. You can’t finesse it.”

And, “We don’t accept the common application form—we ask for a letter of intent—yet people keep sending the application.” “We include a checklist of things that should be part of a proposal. Only a minority of applicants come close to following the checklist. We go back and ask them to send things they excluded—and they still sometimes don’t send them—but other funders don’t necessarily have the time and inclination to do this.” “[I hate] proposals that have no business being sent to us.”