RSS Feed for Grant SeekingCategory: Grant Seeking

Putting an Application Rejection Into Perspective

Most grant writers tend to blame themselves unduly if an application is rejected. Granted, there are sometimes instances where obvious mistakes have been made on the part of the grant writer. However, I have found that most professionals in this field are sincerely dedicated to their jobs and really want to receive the grant money. This is a very big incentive to do the very best job possible on the grant application.

This field of work has some features which are different from many others. There is a need to remain focused and stay on track, as tangible products must be produced. It is hard to “slack off” when there is a submission deadline to be met. The funding agencies will not accept late applications. Grant writers who do not produce an application on time will not have many more chances to redeem themselves. Not meeting the deadline and therefore not being able to submit an application is considered to be a failure of the worst sort.

This of course produces a pressure to perform, which can, in extreme cases, induce performance anxiety. This is exacerbated by the highly competitive field in which the grant writer operates. In the case of most federal and state grant opportunities, all municipalities, counties, or nonprofits applying are in competition with one another. This does nothing to reduce the pressure.

Conversely, when an application is approved, the grant writer becomes a “rainmaker”. As one can imagine, this is a highly respected person who is given a great deal of importance within the organization.

The purpose of saying all of this is to caution the grant writer to not become overly identified with the results of any one particular application or even several applications. In order to preserve one’s sense of balance, it is necessary to not become overly dejected when an application is not funded or to take too much of the credit for successful applications.

Documenting What You Say in the Grant Application

This is nothing more and nothing less than proof or backup for what the grant writer says in an application and is invaluable in establishing credibility. This also pays off not just in the current application round but in subsequent rounds, as funding agencies begin to see that your agency always presents truthful and complete information.
Examples of documentation include the following:
• Proof of matching funds (this can be a letter from the funding agency or a grant agreement)
• Rejection letters from other funders
• Memorandum of Understanding with a cooperating agency which shows that the applicant has solid partners to carry out the project
• Resumes of key project personnel
• Engineer’s or architect’s estimate of costs
• Income survey results
• Census or Bureau of Labor Statistics maps and tables
• Other research results
• Letters of support from community organizations or groups which will benefit from the project
• Drawings or renderings of the facility to be constructed or rehabilitated with the grant
• Map(s) of the project area
• Progress reports for previous grants from the agency from whom the funds are being requested
• Photographs
• Organizational documents (charter, Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws)
• Certificate of Good Standing issued by the state (for nonprofits; this may have different names in different states)
• Environmental review documents
• Financial statements, audit reports, operating budgets and tax returns
• Proof of 501©(3) status
• List of Board of Directors
• Resolution of support from a local government or the Board of Directors of a nonprofit organization

Evaluating Your List of Grant Prospects

Now that we have finished our research, it is time to put it all together and develop a strategy, or plan of action, by which we can access grant funds for our project. The most important rule to follow here is to be inclusive when it comes to developing a list of potential funding sources. If there is any doubt at all, it is best to keep that source on the list. This is particularly true of private foundations where often the first inquiry is a two-page letter. In most cases, the same letter can be sent to multiple foundations with very slight variations. There is therefore little or no cost involved in including additional foundations on the “potentials” list. It is much better to include some sources which may not work rather than miss out on a source which might later prove to be a beautiful fit for the project.

Most governmental grant programs are generally rather clear in their guidelines. Once again, the idea here is to look for “deal breakers” such as project eligibility, applicant eligibility, geographical eligibility, due date, and matching funds. If there is any doubt at all, it is absolutely essential to contact the funding agency to get clarification. It makes no sense to commit significant staff resources to write an application only to have it be turned down during the initial review without being rated or ranked due to ineligibility. It can also be quite embarrassing to explain to your boss or to your Board of Directors.

Once the grant writer determines whether the project (or the applicant agency) will meet threshold (eligibility) review, it is time to determine the chances of success versus the staff resources required to complete the applications. There are several variables here, and the process somewhat resembles a juggling act. If the application is relatively simple, it makes sense to apply even if chances of getting the funding may not be the most promising. In this case, relatively few resources will be utilized, but yet there is still a chance of receiving grant money. There is no magic formula which tells you when the committal of resources is worth it. This is a highly personalized decision made by the applicant agency and will in part depend upon how ample the agency’s resources are. If the organization is operating on a shoestring, it may not be worth the effort to have three staff members take two entire days to prepare an application which only has about a 10-15 percent chance of being funded. There are better ways to utilize staff resources.

On the other hand, an application with a relatively high chance of being funded should be submitted even if a significant amount of time and resources is involved. It is better to stretch oneself a bit and “go out on the limb” in order to have the best chance of succeeding at grant seeking. Even if the first try does not succeed, the organization is in a better position the following grant round and may very well receive the funds at that time. A re-submittal of the same application obviously does not involve nearly as much work. In addition, if your agency submits two or more of this type of application, even if the staff is hard-pressed for a short period of time, the odds are that you will receive approval for least one of these applications.

Most federal applications require a substantial amount of work. It is also well to keep in mind that federal programs are awarded through national competitions. It is a good idea to not apply to federal programs if the project is marginal and significant resources are needed to complete the application. For this reason, it may be well to give preference to state programs.

Other search criteria which can eliminate certain private foundations are geographic eligibility, eligibility of the applicant, and eligibility of the activity. The chances of receiving funds from a local foundation or from a foundation which only awards grants within a certain state are much higher than receiving funds from a foundation which gives on a national basis. The grant seeker is also advised to try to match its proposed project as closely as possible with the interest areas of the various foundations. A client recently asked me to search for funding to construct a building which would house a local Boy Scout troop. When searching foundations which give nationally, I only specified those which are interested in giving to Boy Scout projects. If I had searched for national foundations which are interested in giving to youth activities, the list would have been too long and it would have been very difficult to sort it out. However, in searching local and state foundations in my area, I included both areas of interest — Boy Scouts and youth. The advantage in applying to local and state foundations was enough to include those only stating an interest in youth activities.

When making telephone or e-mail inquiries to private foundations in order to determine the eligibility of your project for their funding, keep your questions short and
direct. You will be much more likely to receive an answer this way. Do not ask them to make a detailed critique of your project’s eligibility. They do not have the time for this.

One last word on eliminating various sources- clearly, those funding agencies whose applications and administrative requirements are beyond the scope of your ability should be taken off your list. One example which comes to mind is many of the programs funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The majority of the funding awarded by this agency is for scientific research which must have a principal lead investigator with sufficient academic and research credentials. In addition, the project must be rigorously designed in order to follow the protocols accepted by the scientific community. The applications are extremely lengthy and complex and it is most helpful if a scientist completes the majority of the items. It is almost impossible to “get your foot in the door” unless you are a recognized academic/scientist/researcher. Several laypeople have approached me about applying to NIH for rather loosely organized studies dealing with mental and physical health. I have told all of them that such an application would be a waste of time. This is something that I very seldom tell anyone.

Putting a Grant Rejection Into Perspective

Most grant writers tend to blame themselves unduly if an application is rejected. Granted, there are sometimes instances where obvious mistakes have been made on the part of the grant writer. However, I have found that most professionals in this field are sincerely dedicated to their jobs and really want to receive the grant money. This is a very big incentive to do the very best job possible on the grant application.
This field of work has some features which are different from many others. There is a need to remain focused and stay on track, as tangible products must be produced. It is hard to “slack off” when there is a submission deadline to be met. The funding agencies will not accept late applications. Grant writers who do not produce an application on time will not have many more chances to redeem themselves. Not meeting the deadline and therefore not being able to submit an application is considered to be a failure of the worst sort.
This of course produces a pressure to perform, which can, in extreme cases, induce performance anxiety. This is exacerbated by the highly competitive field in which the grant writer operates. In the case of most federal and state grant opportunities, all municipalities, counties, or nonprofits applying are in competition with one another. This does nothing to reduce the pressure.
Conversely, when an application is approved, the grant writer becomes a “rainmaker”. As one can imagine, this is a highly respected person who is given a great deal of importance within the organization.
The purpose of saying all of this is to caution the grant writer to not become overly identified with the results of any one particular application or even several applications. In order to preserve one’s sense of balance, it is necessary to not become overly dejected when an application is not funded or to take too much of the credit for successful applications

Historic Preservation Grants

The National Trust Preservation Fund provides two types of assistance to nonprofit organizations and governmental entities. Matching grants of from $500-$5,000 are given for preservation planning and education. Funding is also provided for preservation emergencies. Examples of preservation planning activities may include the services of experts in architecture, archaeology, engineering, preservation planning, land use planning, fundraising, and organizational development.

The Johanna Favrot Fund for Historic Preservation provides grants for professional advice, conferences, workshops and education programs which contribute “to the preservation or the recapture of an authentic sense of space”, as stated on the website. Prospective grantees must in general apply for at least $2,500 and no more than $10,000. There are some exceptions to this. Nonprofits and governmental entities may apply for funding for any type of project which meets these general guidelines. Individuals and for-profit businesses may apply only if the project for which funding is requested involves a National Historic Landmark.

The Cynthia Woods Mitchell Fund for Historic Interiors is concerned with preserving the inside of historic buildings. Again, grants range from $2,500 to $10,000. Eligible applicants are the same as those stated for the Johanna Favrot Fund.

Heritage Preservation (http://www.heritagepreservation.org), a national nonprofit whose mission is to assist museums, provides assistance worth $3,000-$6,500 to undertake conservation assessments. This funding is geared toward any non-profit institution which possesses a collection of items which tell a story. This could include museums as well as zoos, botanical gardens, and historical houses. The collection must be small enough to be surveyed within two days. The site also lists other sources for historical conservation.

Going in With a Great Project

This checklist is being provided so that the grant writer may see how the proposed activity meets the characteristics of a well-designed project. Granted, I have seen several cases where an activity which does not meet all the criteria below has gotten funded. The project may be very strong in several key areas but weak in one or two others and still get funded. Many times funders are moved by what seems to them to be the greater good to be served and go on to approve a project which is not “perfect”.

This checklist is as follows:

 The problem will be fully or partially solved.
 The project is ready to proceed.
 The project will be completed in a timely fashion.
 Matching funds have been committed.
 The applicant has a commitment for funding to sustain the project once the grant period is completed or sustainability will occur through project design such as for a new construction project or an equipment purchase.
 The applicant can demonstrate that an exhaustive search of other sources was conducted.
 The proposed activity has worked elsewhere for a similar problem.
 The activity was developed after looking at several alternatives.
 The results of the project are easily measured.
 An evaluation plan is in place and the appropriate resources have been secured.
 The project has support from the general public, the population to be served, professionals who work in the field, and governmental entities in whose jurisdiction it will take place.
 The applicant has a proven track record in administering similar projects and there have been no problems in the administration of previous grants.
 Collaborative agreements have been secured.
 Construction and rehabilitation activities have been at least partially designed.
 Any professional studies specific to this project have been completed.
 Cost estimates have been carefully documented.
 The project is included in the appropriate planning documents.
 Statistical data has been used to document the need and is included with the application.
 A feasible work plan can be developed for inclusion in the application.
 Any procurement activities can be conducted so as to meet the requirements of the granting agency.
 It can be demonstrated that the activity chosen is clearly superior to other alternatives.

Please, readers, feel free to suggest any additional factors.I personally try to assign a rating of from 1 to 5 for each factor and see how each activity stacks up. The one with the highest score would then be the most fundable and should be chosen to be the subject of the grant application(s).

Free Resources to Search for Foundations

The Foundation Center is the source that I most commonly use when searching for funding from private foundations due primarily to the comprehensive nature of its information. This organization has been in existence for over fifty years and offers information on 98,000 foundations and 1.8 million individual grants. However, this is merely a matter of personal preference. To check it out, go to www.foundationcenter.org. The following is the free information available from this organization:

• A list of the one hundred wealthiest U.S. foundations
• A list of the amount of funding provided by subject area for each year, and the recipients receiving the largest amount of funding for each subject area
• Foundation Finder- the grant seeker may locate foundations by searching either by their name, location, or their employer identification number, which is assigned by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
• 990 Finder- the searcher may locate a particular 990 by inputting either the 990 form type, organization name, location, Employer Identification Number, and/or year.
• Trend Tracker-the user of the service may specify up to five foundations at a time and receive information regarding how much those foundations have given over a seven-year period. This information is provided in bar graph, line graph, and table form.
• Search for Requests for Proposals- the grant seeker may search by subject or browse all of the requests for proposals listed. The website shows a summary of each RFP with a link to the original posted opportunity.
• Map showing grants by U.S. grant makers to groups abroad-this map is interactive and the researcher may click on specific countries to get information about the grants given in that country. • Common grant application forms used by various associations of grant makers throughout the country
• Research studies showing trends in grant making

What is the most useful component of the Foundation Center in your opinion?

Writing a Compelling Abstract

Abstract
This is a brief summary of the application, generally running no more than two pages in length, although many solicitations limit the abstract to one page. This element of the application is not always required, and should only be prepared when explicitly requested in the grant guidance documents. In some cases, the specific points to be covered in the abstract are delineated by the funding agency.

When specific guidance is not given, the following items of information should be included:

• The heading should clearly state the title of the project, the funding agency to which the application is being submitted, the name of the funding program, and the name of the applicant.
• The first paragraph should be a summary of the activities to be undertaken with the funds as well as the amount applied for-it is helpful to funding agencies to know exactly where their money is going at the very beginning of the application. This provides a clarity which makes a positive impression.
• The second paragraph should briefly describe the need for the project and give statistical information to back this up.
• The third paragraph should delineate specific positive outcomes resulting from the grant.
• The fourth paragraph should briefly describe the capabilities and experience of the applicant organization, as well as the reasons why the applicant cannot afford to undertake this project on its own
• The final paragraph should be a brief “wrap-up” which states how the project will be evaluated and then sustained after the grant period has expired.

After reading this chapter, it will become obvious that the abstract is no more than a very brief summary of each section of the application in turn. This is a very important part of any submission, as it provides a brief, “at a glance” description which should make a very positive impression in the very beginning.

Searching for Federal Grants

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This resource has both print and online versions which include 64 federal agencies, including all major cabinet level departments. The home page of the CFDA (www.cfda.gov) allows the grant seeker to download the 2009 print edition. It is not necessary to have an account on this site in order to search the catalog or view programs.

A basic search can be done by inputting a keyword or program number and/or the type of assistance (grant, loan, federal contract, training, federal employment, etc.). A list of program solicitations will appear. The searcher may then click on a particular grant opportunity and receive a very complete description of that program. However, no application forms are available, and the grant seeker is referred to the specific agencies for that information. The listing will contain all programs which make grants for certain types of projects (i.e., environmental, law enforcement, education, etc.) whether the opportunity is currently open to accept applications or not. Many federal programs accept applications once a year.

Advanced searches allow the grant seeker to input the following: full text, assistance type (grant, loan, etc.), applicant eligibility, use of the assistance, beneficiary eligibility (the types of persons which the program will ultimately benefit, such as job recipients in the case of an economic development program), functional codes (agriculture, natural resources, law enforcement etc.), deadline, date modified, date published, whether the opportunity is funded by ARRA money, subject terms and whether the opportunity is subject to the clearinghouse requirement.

Both the basic and advanced searches will produce the following information: authorization for the program, its objectives, the types of assistance available, applicant eligibility, application and award process, post-award reporting requirements, matching funds required, and timeline. A very handy user’s guide can also be downloaded. In addition, clicking on specific agencies will produce a list of programs administered by that agency. The user has the ability to click on a particular program and view it separately.

It could be deduced that searching on CFDA should yield more opportunities due to the fact that there are sixty-four agencies available on that site and only forty-two on Grants.gov. Of course, both sites contain listings for all of the major cabinet agencies. I would like to give a very interesting example of the widely varying results which can be obtained by searching both sites. I had a client who wished to open a school to train firefighters. While searching Grants.gov, I used the keyword “firefighter”, “firefighting”, and “firefighter training”. Much to my surprise, I only got one result, a program administered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On using the same terms in CFDA, I got over six hundred results.

Sometimes A Project Just Won’t Be Approved

Sometimes even the best applications are not successful. One example that illustrates this beautifully is a story I heard about a municipality who was applying to the state government for funds to rehabilitate a street that was in imminent danger of collapse. There was a very real need here and the only solution was a costly (four hundred thousand dollars) complete rehabilitation of the street. This town had a population of only 750 people, and only about 50 residents on the street would benefit most directly. The application was turned down the first year it was submitted. The funding agency was good enough to make a regular practice of letting the applicants who did not get funded know the reason for that decision. In that case, they mentioned a few minor issues with the narrative which were easily corrected. However, their main problem seemed to be centered on the fact that no other funding sources were being sought. It was obvious that they did not feel comfortable making a grant of that size and being the only funding agency involved in the project.

Unfortunately, grant sources for municipal street work are not plentiful in that part of the country. The town reapplied the next year and made the requested narrative changes. An attempt was made to find other sources to leverage, or match, the state monies. The town was able to show that it had at least tried to find other funds. However, the town itself, with its budget of only $375,000 per year, could not afford to put any money into it. The application was turned down for the second time even though the town did everything that the state asked for with the exception of contributing its own money to the project. This was a very unfortunate case as the project really needed to be done and there was no other place to turn. However, this just goes to show that the best written project can be turned down because of situations beyond the grant writer’s control.