Federal grant reviewers find many reasons to reject the proposals they see. "Avoiding the Most Common Weaknesses in Grant Proposals" (Local/State Funding Report, October 19, 2009 and October 26, 2009) lists eleven of these:

1. Information specifically requested by the agency is not included.
2. The proposal uses no original language; it just parrots the language of the funding agency.
3. The proposal uses overly florid language or too much jargon.
4. The proposal uses sweeping statements or unsupported claims, instead of facts, to support the need for the project.
5. There are too many footnotes and references.
6. The proposal makes vague generalizations and promises.
7. There is either no management plan or a very weak one.
8. The proposal does not clearly specify a contact person for inquiries about the organization or project.
9. Where agency instructions are vague, the proposal makes unwarranted assumptions.
10. The proposal recycles lots of elements from other requests.
11. The proposal was written before all the research was completed.

---

After a grant is made, even the most thoughtfully created proposals and program plans can become difficult to carry out. When and how should you bring problems to the attention of the grantmaker? In "Sharing Bad News with Funders" (CharityChannel, November 4, 2009), Saadia Faruqi urges grant recipients to establish a system for monitoring the implementation of the grant. The monitors should include those who wrote the proposal and those who have the contacts with the grantmaker. When something (for example, the departure of a key staff person, an unexpected decline in the number of clients served, or failure to raise the additional funds needed to complete the project) affects your ability to meet the obligations accepted under a grant, it is important to assess the degree of flexibility in the grant agreement. Under no circumstances should you keep secrets from the funder or carry on as if nothing has changed. Inform the funder as soon as it is clear that the major goals of the project will not be accomplished. Before contacting the grantmaker, you should have a carefully constructed plan, including a timeline, to address the shortfalls. Be sure to submit that plan in writing so that it will be part of the record.

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

---

If you wait for a federal grant’s RFP or application package to be issued before getting to know program staff, you may miss out on valuable insights or on chances to influence the grant guidance. In "Nonprofits Can Help Guide Decisions" (Federal & Foundation Assistance Monitor, October 16, 2009), editor Ray Sweeney tells how to get a head start. For example, under a new administration, federal officials are not only developing new approaches and programs, they are also rethinking existing programs (e.g., the faith-based initiatives of the former administration). He suggests contacting the program staff person once you have decided what you want to know. For example, you might ask to be brought up to date on the program and its history and how the work of your organization may relate to the goals of the federal program. If you develop a good rapport with the staff person, you may be able to discuss controversial aspects of the program (aspects that could be changed) and gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Sweeney also suggests finding ways to keep in regular contact with the program officials. For instance, you might offer to be a resource to them, so information will flow both ways.

---

Many nonprofit organizations may feel compelled to use social networks (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.) for fundraising. Or they may feel guilty about not doing so. But smaller nonprofits should think twice before investing heavily in social networking to attract more donors or volunteers. A recent study by Philanthropy Action found that 74% of the 250 groups surveyed had raised less than $100 through social networking. The report, "Social Networking in Mid-Sized Nonprofits: What’s the Use?," is available for free online. While larger organizations have the resources to experiment with a variety of approaches until they discover which ones work for them, the report advises organizations with budgets under $5 million to be cautious about investing large amounts of time and money in social networking. "Unless you are very, very good at social networking," says Tim Ogden, of Philanthropy Action, "your results from that are going to be less than they are from your traditional areas of expertise."

---

The grants world has its trends. Mercifully, we have survived "synergy," but now we’re deeply into "collaboration and partnerships." This raises the importance of leveraging, using one source of funds to get a commitment from another funding source.

Nothing brings a smile to a potential funding source’s face like the phrase, "Your dollars will be matched dollar for dollar by somebody else."

Here’s what makes leveraging so attractive to funding sources:

• It shows that others believe in the project.
• It addresses the issue of sustainability, because those who sign on as partners at the start have an incentive to continue supporting the project after the grant ends.
• Collaboration adds stakeholders to the project.

Leveraging is also beneficial to the grantee, for obvious reasons. But it’s not the easiest thing to do. For example, before assuring Funder B that Funder A will match their funds, be sure you have a signed letter of commitment, and not merely a verbal promise, from Funder A.

Another caution: If Funder B is not normally interested in making grants to support your work, don’t make the mistake of assuming that a matching grant from Funder A will make you more attractive to Funder B. That is very seldom the case: "Fit," how well your project aligns with a funder’s priorities, still trumps leverage.

The types of funds that may be counted as committed funds toward leveraging grants are varied. Some sources such as The Kresge Foundation are very specific and require "hard," or cash, commitments. Other funders will allow "soft," or non-cash, commitments, such as volunteer labor or in-kind goods and services (e.g., supplies, equipment, space, and professional services).

All leveraged funds, whether in cash or in kind, must be documented. This means that volunteers must sign in or otherwise account for donated time. Goods and supplies are valued at fair market rates. Space is also the rate rent would be charged in this particular location for the square footage. Professional fees are for the person when working in their field. That is, the hours an attorney spends doing pro bono legal work in a domestic violence shelter are credited at the rate a lawyer could expect to be paid for doing such work; if that same attorney volunteers to drive a bus on field trip, those hours are credited at a bus driver’s rate of compensation.

When you approach the grantseeking process, you need to think like the grantmaker. Why would a funder want to be part of a funded project rather than the sole source of the funds? Here are the reasons given by five funding sources who give only when their funds are leveraged with commitments by others.

• The U.S. Department of Education Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) Grants: "By law all grantees under the TQE grants program must provide a minimum contribution to their projects with non federal funds. The purpose of this matching requirement is to enhance the level of project services and to have grantees and their partners take significant ownership of the project through investment of their own resources."
• The City of Eugene Planning and Development Department provides a neighborhood matching grant program. The purpose is to encourage city residents to collaboratively identify and actively participate in making improvements in their neighborhoods. Community involvement is a key component of the program and is encouraged by requiring a 50/50 match, coordination with the neighborhood association, and documentation of neighbor support.
• The stated goal of the New York State Foundation for Science, Technology and Innovation Matching Grants Leverage Program is "to assist New York State research institutions in attracting new federal and private foundation or industry research dollars to New York."
• The Indiana Brownfields program takes a different approach. It passes on federal grant dollars from federal agencies, principally the United States Environmental Protection Agency, to qualifying political subdivisions that further the statutory purposes of the Indiana Brownfields program. The program states, "Successful Brownfields redevelopment projects involve public and private partners that invest technical and financial resources to leverage additional resources from others." The goal of the matching grant is to increase the competitive standing and success rate of applicants from Indiana for federal assistance for Brownfields redevelopment.
• The Kresge Foundation’s Challenge grant program is a well-known example of leveraging grants funds. The foundation awards facilities capital grants as challenge grants to help nonprofit organizations build their base of private financial support as they conduct capital campaigns to build or renovate their facilities.

Edna Brown is a trainer for The Grantsmanship Center. She has more than 40 years of experience in nonprofit program development, proposal development and review, and nonprofit and public program management.

---