I have been conducting a series of interviews with Funders to gather their advice to Grant seekers on successfully navigating the grant process in their particular foundation or corporation, and to gain their perspectives on grant making for the rest of 2013. In advance, I want to thank each person who so willingly shared information about their foundation or corporation, their programming interests and initiatives, and in many cases, their own personal ideas and suggestions that inform their work, and if heeded, can inform the actions of grant seeker’s as they endeavor to succeed in a very crowded marketplace.  Today’s interview is with Tyrone Spann, Director of Programs at Foundations of East Chicago (Indiana).

RB: What one thing can a prospective grantee do to ensure that their proposal has the best chance of funding?

Tyrone Spann: Be sure to read all the instructions and related material(s) that a funder provides before you begin the application process.  Funders spend a lot of time and energy putting this information together.  On the surface, it may seem tedious and overkill to a potential grantee, however, the funder provided this information for a reason.  Funders are looking for specific types of programs and/or projects with each funding opportunity. They communicate these wishes through the application instructions and any support materials/documents provided. By reading, understanding, and following all of this information, you will greatly improve your chances of receiving a grant.

RB: What is the most frequent mistake you see in proposals?

Spann:  Outside of not following the application instructions/guidelines required by the funder, the biggest mistake found from potential grantees is their assumption that grant reviewers are familiar with their organization and the project/program they are applying for. They assume that because the funder has either supported their program in the past, or they are a well-known entity in the community, the funder is familiar with them.  When applicants make this assumption, they fail to provide key information regarding the project/program in question. 

For the most part, funders look at each proposal as unique requests  and will judge it based on the inforamtion provided by the applicant.  If there are gaps or holes in the application, this opens the door for questions to enter the reviewer’s mind.  When this occurs, there is a greater chance your application will be scored lower than more detailed applications.  This greatly increases the probability your proposal will be denied.  In order to avoid this situation, grantees should always write their grants with the mindset that the funder has never heard of them or the program/project they are applying for.

RB: What is the biggest reason for rejecting a proposal at Foundations of East Chicago (FEC)?

Spann: When an applicant attempts to force a “Square peg into a round hole.” Meaning, they attempt to request dollars for something the organization wishes to receive funding for, but does not align with either the purpose or the eligibility requirements for that particular funding round.  For example an organization submits an application for a Program grant. In their write-up, they talk about all the after-school programming the organization provides for school-age children, and all the positive outcomes that occur. However, the organization is only requesting dollars to replace a broken fence that surrounds their building.  Well, these two things have nothing to do with each other.  The programmatic grant rounds were created to provide operational dollars for programs and not capital improvements for buildings.  The organization’s application is denied solely for that reason.  Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of  other organizations doing similar request mismatches which lead to denials.  This relates to my earlier answer regarding understanding what types of grants funders wish to see during specific funding rounds, and what type of items will be eligible for funding consideration.

RB: If you had an otherwise great proposal, but it exceeded the page or word count, would it be rejected?

Spann:  It really depends on the policies of each particular funder.  Some funders are very strict about their submission guidelines.  If they are the type of funder that receives numerous applications, they are looking for ways to reduce the number of applicants they have to review for a particular funding round.  By exceeding the word or page count, you are providing them with an easy excuse to deny your application. Other funders may be more lenient regarding these things, however, if they have more eligible applicants than they have available dollars, more than likely, your proposal will be put at the bottom of the approval consideration list.  Once all the other applications that followed the submission guidelines are reviewed, if there are dollars remaining, your proposal may receive funding, but it may be at a reduced level, based on the funds available.  There is also a strong chance that all available funds will be allocated before your proposal can be considered.  Therefore, to improve your overall chance of receiving funding, it is best that you adhere to the submission guidelines.

RB: Are there any “BIG IDEAS” in grant making that you see on the horizon for 2013?

Spann: Funders, both on a lcoal and a national scale, are looking for ways to make bigger, substantive changes to the communities and issues they support.   One of the biggest challenges faced by funders is a limited amoount of (and in a majority of cases, shrinking) resources to support initiatives.  One way funders are attempting to overcome this issue is by focusing a larger percentage of the their funding dollars towards collaborations.  This is attractive to funders because historically, collaborations have a better history of providing greater impact and creating more success stories around addressing areas of need, than individual organizations.  Because of this, funders are deciding to allocate a larger percentage of their resources toward collaborations rather than single organization grants.  I would suggest that organizations begin identifying other agencies that have similar “mission fits”  and look for ways they can collaborate on related issues.  This will put them ahead of the curve when it come time to compete for collaboration dollars.

RB: What other grant seeking or grant management advice can you offer to nonprofits?

Spann:  Be sure that when you have one person in your organization who is in charge of grant applications, then different person(s) who actually operate the programs, and yet another individual in charge of managing the financial aspects of your grant, that they communicate prior to submitting an application. When this occurs, it becomes very apparent once a grant is in operation, because the level of communication between the funder and the grantee becomes very difficult.  This difficulty often leads to miscommunication between the two, and in many cases causes the grantee to develop a negative relationship with the funder.  The more in tune everyone is that is involved with the grant writing, and oversight/management of a program, the more you increase your ability to receive future funding from a funder.  If a funder has to go to several different individuals within an organization to receive information and/or documentation regarding a grant, the funder will begin to perceive that the organization is disorganized.  While this may not be the reality, once a funder gets this impression, it is very difficult to change their mind.  While perception v. reality may not always be fair, it does exist, and it is the grantee ‘s responsibility to insure the funder never has to base decisions on perceived truths.

NOTE: Foundations of East Chicago supports programs which strengthen the quality of life for the residents of East Chicago, Indiana.  You can read more about the work of the Foundation at http://www.foundationsofeastchicago.org

To your success!

Renae

© Renae Brantley 2013