The Unlock-Grants course includes some handy tools I developed that I have used in my everyday work as a grant consultant. The tools are different decision matrixes I use to determine if a funder is suitable for approach for an organization or its programs, or if an organization’s program is strong enough to be fundable, or of interest to funders.
The tools not only help me, but I have used them to show clients how they can use them to gauge if a possible initiative is worth pursuing. I also use them to show a client how I arrived at a decision. They are useful for the grants person in a nonprofit because they help them decide what to spend their time on, and then show their employer how and why the decision was reached.
The grant person can also use the decision-making tools in other situations beyond what they were initially intended for. They can be modified and used to determine if a sub-grantee candidate is strong enough, or if a potential program partner is suitable. There’s probably many other uses I haven’t even thought of.
They are simple tools, and they’re based on what weight funders put on different criteria, so they’re based in fact and not opinion. I tell those new to grants to use them to make a fact-based argument to anyone stuck on whether to go ahead with any arrangement, proposal, agreement, or program.
They really can help take any emotion out of the equation, and make a decision black-and-white and non-judgmental. I say that it “takes the drama out of” telling someone “no” when they want to hear “yes.” For anyone who has to “coach up,” what the tools can convey in simple terms can really help “keep it professional” and help you convey your thought processes.
In this two-part series, I will go through my thought processes in developing each tool and its parts. Here in Part One, I cover the Prospect Funder Scorecard, which determines if a funder match is strong enough to consider applying to them. In Part Two, I will cover the Program Fundability Scorecard, which determines if a program is strong enough to continue with in its current state.
The Prospect Funder Scorecard: What are its parameters?
In the Funder Prospect Scorecard I developed, the factors I weigh in decision-making on whether they are a “good prospect,” or a “medium prospect, where cultivation is needed,” or they are “not viable” as a suitable funder prospect are all based on criteria that any grant pro would tell you accounts for a good match:
- The funder’s priorities
- The funder’s geographic region of interest
- The funder’s funding range ($)
Then I add a few factors that should also be considered, and are more “judgment calls:”
- The funder’s application and reporting requirements
- The funder’s relationship to the nonprofit
There could be other factors to consider, but let’s break down what each of these factors means.
THE FUNDER’S PRIORITIES.
Are they clearly stated, and do they align well with what you intend to do with your program? Lots of times, the priorities of a funder are really general, broad, not really specific. What appears on their website could be interpreted any one of several ways.
If we come across this situation, and the funding amounts are relatively low, I would definitely have a conversation with them to determine if your agency and program are in their ballpark. This is a Best Practice anyway, but what these red flags indicate is you need to reach out in order to make a true assessment of their viability for you.
I would also check to see if they are even accepting applications, since they may be vague in their priorities description on purpose. Give them a thumbnail of your program’s intent and see if there’s interest. Ask for some further guidance on what they consider a priority.
Even if their funding priorities seem to be crystal clear, still have a conversation with them. It’s quite possible (and it’s happened to me any number of times) that YOUR interpretation of “underserved populations,” for instance, and THEIR meaning are totally different. Get it straightened out before you waste your time and resources on this application.
THE FUNDER’S GEOGRAPHIC REGION OF INTEREST
This one is easy. If they fund in Idaho and you work in Florida, that’s a no-go. If they are super-specific as to the neighborhood (i.e., “the South side”), and you work on the border of that neighborhood, there might be room for discussion, but I would have a conversation with them to make sure.
If they fund in several states, make sure that the area of the country you work in aligns with their interests. Saying “Illinois” is not the same as saying “Chicago’s South Side.” Check before you put the time in on that application.
THE FUNDER’S FUNDING RANGE ($)
If their awards top out at $5,000 and you have a multi-million dollar project, I would proceed with caution. The only way I would go out for this funder — if they are otherwise aligned — is if I can pitch them a really sweet piece or part of the whole program that they could feel ownership of. If you have something that is $5,000 and is a real lynchpin of the entire project, then I would go ahead and consider a higher score for this factor.
However, if the situation is reversed, and this funder’s awards are in the six- to seven-figure range and you need $5,000, I would consider this out of alignment. It’s like I tell my students: If you need $5,000, don’t go to the Ford Foundation.
THE FUNDER’S APPLICATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
This parameter has nothing to do with the strength of your mission alignment or anything the least bit esoteric. It has to do with the sheer onus an application or the reporting on a grant award puts on an agency. It echoes what the self-professed “Rabble-rouser” Vu Le espouses in his “Crappy Funding Practices” when he calls out funders that have unrealistic expectations for $5,000 awards.
If a funder’s funding amounts are historically low and their application is especially intense, tricky, specific, and intrusive, I would rank this funder low on the scorecard tool. Or if their reporting requirements eat up all the grant money because of requiring an outside evaluator to be paid, and data to be collected that is outside the normal range of duties you already pay staff to do, or is intrusive to your program participants, then I would score this funder low. Past a certain point, you have to decide if it’s worth the agency’s time to go out for what a grant affords you to do.
THE FUNDER’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE NONPROFIT
This parameter is huge and could trump all the other factors. If there is already a solid relationship between a nonprofit and a funder, there could be exceptions made to the normal course of business of the funder, and your agency could be eligible for a grant from them. The power of relationships cannot be undersold.
If, on the other hand, you submit an application to this funder without so much as a call or email to introduce yourselves, that could spell real trouble for your application. And you would get what you deserved, because you’re treating that funder like an ATM. Put your app in the slot and money spits out? Ah, no!
There’s enough weight placed on The Relationship that I made it its own scoring factor in my scoring tool. Pick up the phone. Send a well-worded email. Check in before your send your application and don’t take this funder for granted.
In my next blog, I will cover the decision matrix to assess program viability, The Program Fundability Scorecard. Stay tuned!
