Introducing Online Training in Grant Proposal Writing

From 2003-2018 I presented the class Basic Grant Proposal Writing Skills for Nonprofits at the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County about three times each year. During that same period, I also did custom versions of the class for several individual organizations and smaller coalitions of nonprofits.

All-in-all, well over 1,000 individual nonprofit professionals have gone through my grant proposal writing trainings, and have been very satisfied with the results.

Over the last month or so, I've updated the materials again. This time, with the goal of translating it into an online class. I'm quite pleased with the results, and am officially launching the class today.

I've divided the course into eight major presentations, plus three short lectures, in over three hours of video. All of the lessons have downloads, including the slides, worksheets, and other resources.

The major lessons are:

1. The Charitable Giving Landscape
2. Making Your Fundraising Case
3. Getting Ready for Grants
4. Starting Your Proposal
5. Goals and Outcomes
6. Methodology, Evaluation, and Sustainability
7. Budgets
8. Putting it All Together

Throughout the course I put an emphasis on the modes of communication, good storytelling, and what funders are looking for (including strong outcomes statements).

The cost of the course will be $64.99 (students at the Community Foundation typically paid $65/each for the same material), but, to get the course launched, I am offering it to my regular readers for only $9.99 through this link (limited time offer).

Please let me know your reaction to the course, and if you have any ideas for what online course you'd like me to develop next!

Three R's of Grant Writing

We had a great turnout at yesterday's Basic Grant Proposal Writing workshop at Community Foundation Santa Cruz County. The group asked a lot of great questions, and we covered a lot of material. Exhausting, but in a good way!

At the end of the day, Community Foundation Communications Officer, Luis Chabolla, asked me to stick around and make a quick video for the Foundation's YouTube channel. Luis asked me for three quick grant writing tips in under two minutes. Here's the result:


The Three R's of Grant Writing:

Research - Stop sending proposals scatter-shot to every foundation in the book. Target your proposals to those foundations who are interested in your work. No matter what work your organization does, there's a foundation that is interested in it.

Relate - Yes, you need good strong data to make a case, and to report on your outcomes, but don't forget the story. Putting a face on those numbers is what makes your proposal relatable and memorable and puts signatures on checks.

Revise - Edit for clarity and brevity. Proofread and then do it again.

Basic Grant Proposal Writing Workshops

For several years now I have been honored to teach nonprofit workshops through the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County. This year, I will be teaching three sessions of "Basic Grant Proposal Writing" on:

• Monday, January 28
• Thursday, May 16
• Wednesday, September 18

We pack a lot of information into these sessions, but they're always lots of fun, with about 12-15 people attending per session.

We start with a quick review of the charitable giving landscape, then move on to:

• Building your case for funding:
• Understanding your organization's assets
• Clarifying your Mission
• Knowing what story you're telling
• Writing a successful grant proposal:
• Types of proposals/submissions
• The standard components, section by section
• Focus on Outcomes!
• Putting the proposal together and submitting
• After the Proposal - Next Steps

The workshops are held at the Community Foundation's building on Soquel Drive in Aptos, right off Highway 1. If you're in the Monterey Bay area, or even Silicon Valley and want a day near the ocean, click on the dates above to register, or click here to see the full workshop schedule.

"Have the consultant do it"?

The title of this post is written with tongue in cheek, but it does get to what's often a fine line between consulting and contracting. Even when talking with other nonprofit consultants, we don't always agree on where we should draw the line between performing tasks for our client organizations and empowering them to perform these tasks themselves.

As a prime example, when I started as an independent consultant, back in December 2003, one of the main things I did was grant proposal writing. Now, I will rarely accept those types of assignments. Basically, over time, I came to realize that the client was better served by my helping them gain the capacity to write grants in-house. One of my favorite things to do is when I teach workshops on proposal writing (next workshop is August 24 in Santa Cruz!).

Of course, there are times when it's quite legitimate to hire a contract proposal writer to supplement an organization's own capacity, and I'm happy to assist in those situations. But I believe that fund development is so central to any nonprofit organization's survival, that outsourcing it should never be more than a step along the way to building their own abilities.

There are other tasks, however, that are should almost always be outsourced. Among these, in my opinion, is facilitating a strategic planning session. Your organization may have leaders with excellent facilitation skills, but at a planning retreat they are needed as participants. A good facilitator should be neutral, and not a part of any political dynamic that exists in the group, or have a stake in any decisions that the group makes. A good facilitator empowers everybody in the room to speak and be heard, something that's not always comfortable or possible when there's a boss-worker dynamic present.

So, the next time you're in a meeting, and you hear the words, "We'll have a consultant do it," think carefully about what you are asking a consultant to do, and whether it is truly empowering and adding to your capacity to meet your mission.

Whose Story is it Anyway?

I am one who has always believed in the value of good story telling in fundraising. Nothing earth shattering in that statement. Most anybody who has been successful in nonprofit fundraising - whether writing grant proposals, doing direct mail, or creating event programs - will tell you the same thing.

Even with foundations (and others) seemingly more focused than ever on outcomes and measurements, when I teach proposal writing I always caution my students from getting so caught up in the numbers that they forget the human element. Data and statistics, I tell them, may help make the case, but it's putting a face and a story to that data that gets signatures on checks.

With that in mind, I also believe that nonprofits who want to be effective at fundraising should always be on the look-out for good stories from the people they serve, encouraging them to (if possible) write out their experience of how the organization helped in their own words. These can be used in proposals, letters, speeches, etc.

For years this was considered good advice, and was appreciated by my students and clients alike. Until earlier this year.

The program staff of an organization I was working with all very strongly felt that using these real stories - even with names and identifying details changed - was a violation of their client's trust and privacy, ethically questionable, and akin to an act of violence.

The clients had been through rough times and did not have much. What they did have was their personal story, and to take that from them was beyond exploitation. Unless the client voluntarily and without prompting offered, "I want you to use my story to market the organization," there would be no compromise on this position.

I completely understood where the program staff was coming from on this, and the importance of being respectful of telling somebody else's story. But I also know the reality of trying to raise funds for even the best of causes without the ability to talk about the organization's success in terms of the success of the individuals it serves.

I have no simple answers with this blog post, other than to inform and ask permission before using a client story in your organizational material. But what do you think?

Are the stories of your client's success so important that it justifies exploiting them to raise money? And while the circumstances that brought a client to your nonprofit may be their private affair, don't you have some right to talk about how you helped them out of those circumstances? Please comment below - I'd love to know how you handle this delicate issue.

Proposal to Funding Conversion Rates

Often, my posts here start as replies to emails I receive from readers. Today I got an email with the following question:

I have written grants for years. I believe I have been fairly successful. My grant submission in relation to funding rate averages from 6-12%. However, I just applied for a full-time position where the organization listed that it REQUIRED applicants to have a history of a 60% funding conversion rate for grants submitted.

And my reply to the reader (in part) was:

The industry rule-of-thumb I've heard is that 1 in 12 proposals gets funded, or about 8.5%, and that's in a good year.

A professional grant writer should be able to do better than that, hopefully even one in four or better, but it really all comes down to the organization they're writing the grant for, and that organization's reputation and existing relationships with foundations.

An established, larger, or older nonprofit might be only working with the same foundations year after year, and only responding to direct invitations to submit a proposal. In such a situation where nothing is sent out as a "cold call," a 60% success rate might be easily achieved, or even exceeded.

Meanwhile, a newer, start-up nonprofit might be very happy with results of one in 15 proposals being funded, as virtually every proposal or LOI they send out is an introduction to the agency and an attempt to just get a foot in the door. Relationships with foundations have to start somewhere, and the LOI is traditionally that place.

So, your question was, is it reasonable for a prospective employer to "require" a 60% conversion rate. My answer is simply to turn it back onto them. What is their current conversion rate? Do they have established relationships with funders or have they had scattered luck?

If you're preparing for a job interview, you can figure out some of those answers by going to guidestar.org and downloading their 990 tax returns for the last few years. Check out who is funding them, and whether the list is completely different each year, or from a stable group of sources. Are they large grants, small grants, what percentage of the budget is funded through grants?

Meanwhile, in your letter and resume, you should explain that your success rate is based on the assignment given. If they client asks for LOIs to be sent to "a dozen new funders" that it will naturally be less successful than when a client asks you to write for a specific funder who has requested the proposal.

If they don't like that explanation, then, frankly, you're better off not working for them. If your job performance is going to be judged by an unrealistic goal your tenure will be short, stressful, and unhappy. Accepting a job you can only fail at is never a good career move.

Upcoming Workshops

For those who've written to ask, I've got a couple of public workshops coming up soon. Both will be held at the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, 2425 Porter Street, Suite 16, Soquel, CA.

Grant Proposal Writing 101 - Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. - This is an introductory workshop for those new to proposal writing, and unsure of what elements to include or what foundations are looking for.

Fundraising Planning in the New Economic Environment - Thursday, September 24, 2009, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. - To survive the current crisis will require a plan. This short workshop provides a few tools for you to use in getting your plan started.

Please see the Community Foundation's website (www.cfscc.org) for more information, fees, and online registration.

Return to blogging (part two)

Yesterday I apologized for not having posted for a long while, and put the blame on two factors: being very busy, and doing a bit of soul searching. Yesterday's post covered the busy part. Today I'll tell you a bit about what I've been thinking about.

I've now been an Interim Executive Director three times, and it's always interesting, but this last assignment went on for so long (nearly a year-and-a-half) that it became in many senses more like a "real job." So the assignment ending hit me in surprising ways. There is a very real sense of loss and emptiness, much like if a "real job" had unexpectedly come to end.

I'd already been examining my consulting practice and coming to the conclusion that writing grant proposals for a variety of organizations is not how I want to spend most of my time, and have been eliminating those assignments from my client list. For a variety of reasons, I feel that outside consultants can best serve an organization by giving them the knowledge to write their own proposals, and help on a limited basis. I have come to hold the belief that a nonprofit agency that completely outsources it's grant writing is making a strategic error, and probably not getting the best value on their investment, versus building that skill in-house.

So, with no more grant writing clients, and my long-term assignment coming to an end, I've had time to think about "what I want to do when I grow up." The basic options being: continue as is, just with fewer grant writing assignments; look for a "real job" as an Executive Director or other nonprofit leadership position; or "go corporate" and get a "real job" on the other side.

After a little exploration, and talking to several people about different options for me in the for-profit world, I've come to the obvious realization that it's just not for me. I am a nonprofit guy through and through. This was an exploration I had to go through (for the elusive dream of more money and a better retirement plan, etc.), but it was a silly idea.

But I did enjoy that last Interim ED position, and I do miss it more than I expected to. And so, while I'll continue to take some limited term consulting assignments right now, I think my long-term plan is to find a permanent Executive Director (or other senior leadership) position in the nonprofit sector.

Meanwhile, I'll get back to blogging, and shift back from "contemplative mode" to "active mode." I've been sent a great new book, Grassroots Philanthropy: Field NOtes of a Maverick Grantmaker by Bill Somerville and Fred Setterberg, that I'll be reviewing shortly too.

Thanks again for your patience and support.

A different point of view...

One of the most popular posts on this blog is one the earliest. It is also the one that seems to upset the most people. I'm referring, of course, to my posting on nonprofit grant writing fees versus commissions. In that posting, I explained why I follow the AFP Code of Ethics and refuse to write grants on a contingency basis.

Many people have written to me, or commented on the posting, that they don't understand why contingency payment is bad, and I've tried to explain and re-explain the AFP position (see the links for details). It's not that contingency payment is illegal, it's just against the industry standard, considered an ethical violation by many, and (perhaps most important) frowned upon by the very funders that we're applying to.

But, so far, nobody has given me a compelling reason to question that position. Until last week...

Here's an excerpt from an email conversation I've been having (since it involves a potential ethics violation, I'm keeping the author anonymous - if the author wants to take credit in the comments, that's up to them):

I'll add some comments on the "ethics" of contingencies. Standards set up by grantwriting boards and societies are generally self-serving. Many of the ministries that I support cannot afford Ph.D level research and writing but their causes do merit funding. For example, I am working with a group building a rap studio for positive, drug-free support in one of the most crime ridden neighborhoods in Minneapolis. They don't have the money to risk $50-75 per hour on grants that may not get funded.

Our resolution is to bill at $20 per hour which they can afford, and then bill at $75 for time after the award, if and when it comes. Quite frankly, the discussion of ethics that I have researched regarding these issues have all centered around putative issues of the appearance of integrity on behalf of the grantwriter (is it or is it not a kickback) and no dialogue has been forthcoming about the IMPACT our services have on the organizations we help support and the clients they serve.

Clients that can afford to pay full scale on the front end are billed in this manner, but those that cannot should not be ignored in the funding process because of self-serving billing practices developed by "grant writing professionals." If that is the standards developed by these societies then I will take the position of Groucho Marx, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member."

I certainly cannot dispute the self-serving aspect of the AFP code; after-all, I need to pay my mortgage and bills and can ill afford to wait months on payment for my work - a payment that may or may not ever materialize.

But I certainly hear the point about the impact on our clients loud and clear. This is not something I've been blind to, and have felt guilty and shamed in times when my work for a client has not immediately resulted in grants that far exceeded my fees. This frustration is part of why I've lately been trying to minimize the amount of grant writing I do as opposed to other services.

I still feel there are valid points to the AFP prohibition against contingency fees, and until the funder community comes to a consensus to the contrary, the grant writers are not likely to change their practices.

But what about those smaller nonprofits that can ill afford to pay for fundraising upfront? How does a startup start up if they cannot raise those first dollars on a contingency? In a very real way, our insistence on the purity of our image is yet another roadblock that grassroots organizations face in their struggle to serve our communities.

"Just the facts, Ma'am"?

Viewers of the old TV program, Dragnet, remember Sgt. Joe Friday repeatedly telling the witnesses he'd question about a crime, "Just the facts, Ma'am." He had no time to get mixed up in the emotional aspects, he just wanted names, numbers, and details.

Many fundraisers also take the Sgt. Friday approach. Whether it's in a foundation grant proposal, or direct mail letter, or a talk at the local Rotary, too many of us get so caught up in our fabulous statistics and data that we forget that we are in an essentially emotional business.

When I teach grant writing classes, I always tell my students, "The data may get the funder interested, but it's the emotional hook that puts the signature on the check."

I am reminded of that this week because of a phenomenon being fueled by YouTube. A video was posted a week or so ago telling the story of a Josh Adkins, a boy with terminal cancer and one final wish: to get into the Guinness Book of World Records for receiving the most get-well cards.

Other YouTube users posted replies and helped spread the Josh Adkins message. One of these videos ended up being featured on the YouTube home page, bringing in over 100,000 views (to this date).

Needless to say, there are now thousands of cards being sent to the address given for young Josh. (Note: The Guinness people no longer certify a record in this category since a British child received more than 200 million cards in the decade since he put out his request. Still, Josh is a real boy, who wants to receive cards, whether or not it earns him a record.)

The creator of the featured video, Tom Guarriello (an online buddy of mine and a great business consultant), has since posted a follow-up video talking about the phenomenon that he unwittingly participated in, and some of the reaction to it.

In this new video he mentions that some of the comments he's received are along the lines of, "Why should we care about this one kid, when so many others are also dying?" Tom very rightly answers about the power of emotional arguments to push logic and reason aside. The image of one sick boy hits us all (okay, most of us) much harder than charts showing the number of childhood cancer victims and survivors.

Which brings us back to what I teach my grant writing students: Put in the data, but don't be afraid to include the emotional hook too.

Yes, brag about how successful your organization is, and how many people you serve, and how it has improved their lives - but then illustrate that with a real client story. Put in that name (first name only, remember confidentiality) and create that image. Funders are human too.

After all, did you get into the nonprofit field for all the nifty spreadsheets and the huge paychecks? Or did you get into the nonprofit field to help people?

"Just the facts?" I don't think so.

About Grant Writing Fees & Commissions

As a professional grant writer, I usually charge an hourly fee, or sometimes a flat fee per project. Never do I charge a percentage of funds received or in any other way work on spec or contingency.

First off, this is just accepted professional practice in the nonprofit industry. Second, as a professional I need to be paid fairly for my work. But, most importantly, it is a matter of ethics.

I always strive to fully abide by the code of ethics published by the AFP (Association of Fundraising Professionals), which states, "Members shall not accept compensation that is based on a percentage of contributions; nor shall they accept finder's fees."

Still, there are some organizations that will expect to pay for proposal writing only when it is successful, and there are those consultants who will accept that. I have often had conversations where I've had to explain why this is considered an unethical practice.

Yesterday I came across an essay by Goodwin Deacon, founder of the Puget Sound Grantwriters Association, that goes beyond simply saying "it's unethical" to explaining why funders frown upon the practice.

The bottom line in her essay is, as I've also always said, even if a grant writer doesn't mind being paid on contingency, "such an arrangement is basically a kick-back, and therefore unethical." Would you want to support a charity that gave kick-backs? Didn't think so.