Many federal grant applicants find Grants.gov to be slow or unresponsive in processing requests. The problems, according to "Officials Offer Ways to Get Around Grants.gov Problems," (Federal & Foundation Assistance Monitor, February 4, 2010), arise from system overloads and are likely to continue at least through midsummer. To minimize the difficulties, the Monitor advises following these suggestions from federal grant agencies:

• Submit your application before the deadline.
• Send it in during low-traffic hours—before or after regular Eastern Time Zone business hours or, better yet, on the weekend.
• If you run into a problem, contact the agency program staff person instead of waiting for Grants.gov to fix it.

---

If you fail to examine all the consequences before you respond to a potential grant opportunity, you could be headed for trouble. In "Are We Ready to Apply for Grants?" (CharityChannel, February 16, 2010), Saadia Faruqi advises that you take a close look at your internal organizational capacity and consult with other key players to answer the following questions:

1. Do we have the staff, the partnerships, and the outcome measurement capacity to meet the funder’s program requirements?
2. Do all departments and leaders involved understand and accept the new responsibilities they would be undertaking?
3. Could we lose more, financially, by receiving the grant than by not applying for it?
4. Does the grant opportunity pose potential or actual conflicts of interest? Is it compatible with our organizational values?

[Full article can be accessed only by CharityChannel subscribers.]

---

As the recession saps their grantmaking capacity, many funders are directly or indirectly urging their grantees to cooperate or collaborate more—or even to merge. One step grantees are taking in that direction is the joint operation of back-room or administrative functions. But do such administrative collaborations live up to their promise? In "Back Room Collaboration" (The Nonprofit Times, January 15, 2010), Thomas A. McLaughlin spells out three elements that are critical for success:

1. Standardization. Organizations use different ways to handle and account for money. These derive from the different ways they manage their programs and services. To establish standard procedures that will work for two or more groups takes time.
2. Replicability. After organizations achieve standardization, they’ll need to replicate components of their operations, such as personnel policies and procedures. This may require one collaborator to adopt another’s system, or it may result in entirely new systems.
3. Scale. Administrative collaboration won’t save money (which can then be used for programs) unless there are enough transactions to make it feasible. If the organizations involved are relatively small, joint operation of back-room functions may not make sense.

[If you’re a full-time nonprofit executive in the U.S., you can order a free digital subscription to The Nonprofit Times here.]

---

Establishing the objectives their organization will commit to achieve, if it receives the grant, is often a struggle for proposal writers. Rebecca Vermillion Shawyer discusses six strategies that make that job easier in "Projections Should be Based on Facts" (CharityChannel, January 13, 2010):

1. For renewal grants, get an honest appraisal from program staff about the current experience with meeting objectives. Determine with them whether those performance standards should remain the same or be adjusted up or down.
2. For new programs, find out what best practices organizations with similar programs are using.
3. Look at the data, documenting successes and challenges, that your organization has compiled on past program performance.
4. Examine all past program and grant reports to identify your organization’s trends in meeting objectives.
5. Meet with your organization’s leaders to discuss your findings and your recommendations for performance objectives.
6. Before you submit the proposal, sit down with program staff to make sure they are comfortable with the projections you’ll make in the request.

[Full article can be accessed only by CharityChannel subscribers.]

---

Cultural organizations, and others that deal primarily with life-enhancing activities, face tremendous pressure to demonstrate their overall credibility. This is because it can be so difficult to produce evidence of the value of their activities in behavioral terms. One of the most reassuring signals they can give, however, is evidence of financial stability—a history of balanced budgets. But that, too, can be a challenge for arts organizations, many of which run a deficit year after year.

This makes evidence of good fiscal management imperative: How recently did your organization conduct an audit? Can you show that your organization receives funds from multiple sources, including individuals, businesses, foundations, and earned income strategies (admissions, sales of goods or services)? Board participation in fundraising, as givers and as getters, shows board commitment to the organization. A large number of active volunteers (and a sound volunteer management system) brightens the picture even more. Finally, an up-to-date strategic plan signals that your organization isn’t just winging it.

Your programs need to be credible, too. For the arts, it’s helpful to cite critics’ reviews. For others, testimonials from respected individuals can serve a similar purpose. If your organization has done well in the past, and if your activities have a reputation for being effective, the odds are that the planned project will also be successful. If you show increasing demand for your services, this can also reassure a potential funder. Use "hard data"—numbers and statistics. Repeat visits, membership or season ticket renewals, and growing audiences or increasing numbers of participants indicate that people value what you offer. Collaborations with similar organizations (reciprocal museum memberships, for example) or with other partners (a promotion program that ties admission to your concert series with dinner at a local restaurant) can help convince funders that your organization is marketing itself effectively.

The proposal introduction, which presents the applicant organization, is a critical part of your proposal. Besides providing the usual credibility information, be sure to include numbers and testimonials showing that your offerings are valued. Include evidence of good fiscal health and sound management. It may also be useful to show that your services, rather than focusing on one particular group, benefit the community broadly.

Attachments for arts and culture proposals usually include, in addition to the usual documents, some evidence of past accomplishment, such as a CD of the orchestra’s performance or a program from a recent exhibition. If your organization has a web site—and if you don’t, you should!—your attachments should feature past activities and include your organization’s URL. If space permits, it can be useful to include a copy of your home page with appropriate links circled.

Judy Gooch has been a consultant trainer for The Grantsmanship Center since 1994. This article is excerpted from " Understanding Arts & Culture Proposals," one of a series of five articles in The Grantsmanship Center’s newest publication, Adapting the Program Planning & Proposal Writing™ Model. The complete article examines the components of arts and culture proposals in detail.

---