Pt.1 What I found most interesting about this reading thus far is that there are numerous types of grant writing/many categories of support that can help depending on their needs. From program funding to research funding, there are many opportunities to get the money your team/company needs. I am also curious as to if these categories are flexible or if more than one program can be used at once. Another thing I found most interesting was the idea of it being a team-based form of collaboration. There are multiple levels to the team. The lead program staff, a finance person, a grant writing staff, and an executive director. I thought originally that a grant writer was just a solo act and that programs/companies hired them. However, while reading, this is new information to me and very interesting. Along with that, a lot of research has to be done in order to make a grant or proposal to be appealing to whoever is going to read it.
Pt. 2 I think an important takeaway from this is that research is critical in order to make a grant/proposal. Getting numerous sources and then investigating them is crucial to making the right decision for the company/project. The sources can be a wide range and variety to the compilation process. Another interesting process is the idea of refining who you choose based on collaboration/research is another key factor during this process. But what is even more important is that each organization needs different things so having a full understanding of what you need to research is a major key in order to hopefully get the money you need for you project.
PART 1: When reading the first chapter of WG, I found myself being surprised at a number of different things, and ultimately realized that I don’t know very much about grant writing. The thing that surprised me first was simply the amount of people that are involved with the creation and the acceptance process of a singular grant. The lead program staff, finance person, grant writing consultant, and executive director are just a few of the ones that are listed in this chapter. Each one has a very specific job that is vital to the grant writing process, and that is entirely something that I had not known about before. Another aspect of this chapter that surprised me was the amount of different types of proposals one can make. When I thought of grant writing in the past, I truly believed that there was only one correct way to do it, while this book describes the concept paper, letter proposal, and full proposal all as their own individual type of writing. While it does say in the book that the full proposal is the most commonly asked for from companies, I would like to know more about the uses of the other types and if they are still used often.
PART 2: This reading I found to be particularly interesting. After reading the textbook about how to write a grant, I didnt even begin to think about how one goes about finding the funder for the grant itself. I found the Compile, Investigate, Refine method to be very interesting and well thought out. The act of actually compiling a list of trustworthy people to essentially convince them to give you money is one that I think I will have fun with. The deep dive into companies and finding which ones have the best credibility, I feel like will be a rather eye opening and informative experience. Another aspect of this process that I found to be particularly interesting was the use of the internet. The internet is definitely a very powerful tool that is used for an endless amount of things. In the grant writing process it makes it easier to connect with people all over the world, but it also makes it easier to fall for scams or the spread of false information. When it comes to educating oneself on a potential funder, the article discusses the levels of research one must do in order to make an informed decision. This article showed a completely different part of the process than the textbook did, and I really liked being able to see the contrast.
Pt 1:
Overall, I felt the first chapter of our textbook had a lot of important information. One thing that I found particularly interesting was how many components are essential to include and consider while writing a grant. For example, when I think of cover letters, I think of job applications and resumes. So, the fact that grants often require cover letters came as a surprise; it makes sense, however, I would have never assumed that to be the case. The second thing that stuck out to me was how similar grant writing is to news writing. Elements like a strategically timed follow-up, collecting personal and professional information about specific individuals, and tailoring the writing to an audience all double dip. In many ways, grant writing seems to be a mixture of journalism, PR, and marketing. As such, I am very excited to dive further into this course, with the hope that I will be able to learn about grant writing and news writing.
Pt 2:
The first thing I found interesting in chapter 10 was the last paragraph of the internet section. When researching what organizations to ask for a grant, this paragraph advises readers to only use the internet as a supplement. The author explains a plethora of other ways to learn about various granters without using a web browser. I found this interesting because other sections of the text seemed dated, such as the discussion about CD-ROMs. Assuming this edition is a decade or two out of date, would the comment about limiting online research still apply? As we are in a very technologically driven world, would it even be possible to find more information about an organization offline than online? The second thing that caught my attention was the discussion on guidelines for sending a request to an organization. The specific nuance that interested me was in a paragraph discussing that, occasionally, proposals that fall out of an organization’s scope are still funded. This can happen for various reasons and is often due to individuals in the organization supporting causes from a personal standpoint. I was curious about how one would begin to research a member’s individual passions, interests, etc. My first thought was to use sources like LinkedIn. However, because this article suggests that internet use should be finite, then I’m unsure how someone would learn about such information.
1. The biggest idea that I found interesting is the number of roles and amount of responsibilities that come with the grant writing process. The lead program staff appears to take on the bulk of the responsibility for the grant writing, as they provide the program plan and establish the goals and objectives of the program for requesting the grant. They can even take on the duties of being the person of contact and the one who does the actual grant writing. Another key person in the process is the one who handles the finances, ensuring that the proposal displays sustainability and a solid budget for effective persuasion to obtain the grant. I also found it really interesting that there are so many ways for nonprofits to fundraise and that foundational grantseeking is a relatively less popular way to obtain funding compared to from individuals. The power of social media today is something that must be considered when it comes to implementing various methods of fundraising, as a mass audience can be reached effectively and quickly. It is also important to consider as an organization the types of foundations to seek grants from, as larger foundations tend to fund larger organizations while smaller foundations fund organizations of various sizes.
2. What I found very interesting was the fact that the IRS requires these private foundations that give grants to file a 990-PF form annually. This form that the IRS requires is published for public access on the internet, which allows for something to consider when researching each potential source for grant writing. This form gives an idea on the amount of grants and other charitable donations that these private foundations are giving. It is useful to consider and investigate as the size of the grants should be appropriate for the grant writing organization’s needs. Further investigation can provide insight into whether these foundations have already allocated future grants and how willing they are to grant to new organizations. I also found it interesting that the Foundation Center has a website that provides a list of information of private foundations and corporations that are offering grants. It is sort of a database that provides the websites of these foundations, which can thus provide use information to grantseekers to assist in finding the foundations they are looking for. This information includes annual reports and application guidelines. The Foundation Center’s website provides direct links to the foundations that have online presence, even though many foundations don’t have websites yet.
The first interesting thing that I picked out from the textbook reading was how much really needs to be in place before an organization is ready to apply for a grant. The textbook walks us through five steps that organizations should ask themselves before applying for a grant, including questions about the establishment of a main mission for the company, financial procedures, leadership and many more factors. I always imagined a company applying for a grant to help them to expand, and never expected that many grants are not awarded to new companies, rather to older, more experienced companies. I found reading about questions asked to organization to be very interesting, and I feel like I understand the work that goes into grant writing in a better way.
Another interesting thing that I noticed was how many grant categories exist. I didn’t think that income that an organization receives from a grant would be so limited and have so many possible restrictions. For example, I found it interesting that some grants allow the organization a large amount of freedom, while other grants are given for very specific projects and only allowed to be used for certain costs.
The first interesting thing I found about the handout reading was the process of compiling a list of potential donors, and the challenges that might come along with that. The handout describes the type of process that one might need to go through to find possible donors, involving a lot of research and networking. Personally, I have never considered the work that might go into this process, and the luck that someone may need to have to even find an applicable grant. While I may have considered the time it takes to write a grant proposal, this is a piece of this process that I have not previously given much thought.
A second part of this reading that I found interesting was the piece about investigating the past decisions that foundations have made in regard to awarding their grants. Specifically, I was not aware that so much information about the financial movements of foundations was available to the public, although after reading, it does make a lot of sense. It is crucial that grantseekers use all this information while doing their research, and that the knowledge of how much is truly available online to them is made widespread.
Part 1: I know virtually nothing about the process of grant writing, and reading this introductory chapter gave me a lot of insight into how the system works. Firstly, I was amazed by how many people it takes to write the grants. The book indicates that 3 to 4 people should be involved for different aspects of the grant writing process. I understand that this divides the labor and allows people like those who do organizing or financials to use their expertise, but I have spoken with professors and other professionals who have done this project on their own. A team seems almost mandatory for larger grants and even the smaller ones seem rather overwhelming to take on alone. Secondly, I really enjoyed the “reality checks” in this chapter. I think with the overview and tips for the proposal process it is important to keep reassessing and reorienting oneself to their actual capabilities. This reminder I feel is especially important for smaller organizations or NGOs looking to start looking for grants. What good is a grant won if you cannot complete your objectives because of lacking infrastructure in place. This unfortunately is a very chicken and egg dilemma as many organizations write grants to expand, and do not necessarily have the funds to set up the best systems and most comprehensive infrastructure.
Part 2: I found this text a good supplement to the first chapter as it goes into the refined details of one of my favorite things- research. Specifically the research that needs to be done to accumulate a suitable list of potential grant funders. I was really interested in the “Investigate” subsection of the paper. Geever suggests grant writers should look back at past funding foundations have given out, but also recent mission statements from foundation leaders, and 990-PF forms. All of these areas can reveal the potential grant funders philosophy, past and future mission directives, and cashflow. I think these are very creative and skilled methods of research, but do take a lot of time and effort that some organizations might not have. However, O’Neal-McElrath et al. posit that this in depth initial research is what can really improve organizations’ chances of receiving a grant. Secondly, I found that this article emphasizes the importance of print media, especially locally printed media to find avenues of funding. In the age of increasing digitalization, more print resources are not being utilized to the fullest but can include valuable community connections. I believe that visiting chambers of commerce and town or city records can provide a lot of information that is not as readily available online.
1. The biggest idea that I found interesting is the number of roles and amount of responsibilities that come with the grant writing process. The lead program staff appears to take on the bulk of the responsibility for the grant writing, as they provide the program plan and establish the goals and objectives of the program for requesting the grant. They can even take on the duties of being the person of contact and the one who does the actual grant writing. Another key person in the process is the one who handles the finances, ensuring that the proposal displays sustainability and a solid budget for effective persuasion to obtain the grant. I also found it interesting that there are so many ways for nonprofits to fundraise and that foundational grant-seeking is a relatively less popular way to obtain funding compared to individuals. The power of social media today is something that must be considered when it comes to implementing various methods of fundraising, as a mass audience can be reached effectively and quickly. It is also important to consider as an organization the types of foundations to seek grants from, as larger foundations tend to fund larger organizations while smaller foundations fund organizations of various sizes.
2. What I found very interesting was the fact that the IRS requires these private foundations that give grants to file a 990-PF form annually. This form that the IRS requires is published for public access on the internet, which allows for something to consider when researching each potential source for grant writing. This form gives an idea of the amount of grants and other charitable donations that these private foundations are giving. It is useful to consider and investigate the size of the grants that should be appropriate for the grant-writing organization’s needs. Further investigation can provide insight into whether these foundations have already allocated future grants and how willing they are to grant to new organizations. I also found it interesting that the Foundation Center has a website that provides a list of information on private foundations and corporations that are offering grants. It is sort of a database that provides the websites of these foundations, which can thus provide useful information to grant seekers to assist in finding the foundations they are looking for. This information includes annual reports and application guidelines. The Foundation Center’s website provides direct links to the foundations that have an online presence, even though many foundations don’t have websites yet.
Chapter 1: The first thing I found interesting about this chapter was the section on fundraising plans, partnerships, and events. It states how one should look at the various fundraising strategies in mind and aim to incorporate multiple into the overall plan. Having a diversified fundraising plan increases the amount of networking opportunities with other groups while also (likely) gaining more funds. On an even bigger scale, diversifying one’s plans contributes to the overall function of the nonprofit. Allowing for new and more diverse supporters, increase awareness of the organization toward funders and public works, and building shared ownership with supports or other group. Reading this made me thinking about the phrase “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” If you do (in the case of grant writing) it likely lead to decreased support and engagement. I say this because if an individual exclusively works with the same three funders or partners, it doesn’t display a want to diversify or increase support.
Another aspect of the chapter that stuck out to me was the categories of support, specifically the program one. It caught my eye because it was something I could relate to hearing at my current internship. One of the main efforts at The Telling Room is hosting in school and after school programs centered around writing. As a nonprofit, these programs need to be supported by members of the community, donors, and fundraisers in order to be possibly. This past week, I was able to sit in on conversations about program planning specifically related to how they decide on what programs run versus face discontinuation. It was fascinating to see the background of why organizations choose to work with different groups based on either grant funding that group has received or if it considered a pro-bono program. I agree with the chapter in stating that programs sometime receive restricted income because of witnessing tough decisions being made that may have been based on grant funding. I’m curious to learn more about the aspects of program funding and how to maintain a good financial balance while also serving the promised communities in one’s nonprofit mission.
Geever’s Article: The first part of this chapter that sparked by interest was within the research section, specifically the compilation portion. I thought the way Laura Gilbertson suggested research and compilation as “casting a wide net” was helpful in imaging what research will be like. I say this because I find that guidelines, whatever they are for, always read or feel more concrete than they actually are. They typically are to the point in terms of what foundations or corporations interests are. In the realm of job applications, even more so. Therefore, when it comes to looking for possible funders, it can be difficult to compile a list confidently. This section of the chapter opened to my eyes to see that it doesn’t have to be so difficult or to the point. That being more inclusive rather than exclusive can be beneficial in finding a group that aligns. I also found it helpful that the chapter mentioned awareness as the other key component to compilation. Thinking of compilation as an equation, you could say the two factors are awareness and inclusivity. Of course, this becomes more narrow with time.
The second portion of this chapter that stuck out to me fell under the guidelines section. It expresses how guidelines are essential factor when considering whether or not a foundation or corporation aligns with what the grant-seeker is looking for. Reading that set alarm bells off in my head about the equal importance of intentionality. One can take a foundations guidelines almost as an outline or wish-list of what is expected or sought after when choosing who to fund. So, when it comes to writing the proposal, there is the intention behind the words of aligning with said group. Another factor that makes my analogy tricky is what I mentioned earlier. Guidelines are not always the hard definition of what a group os looking for. They can sometimes bend and change with time. This then also puts emphasis on what the chapter later describes under the research section.
I had never really thought about the process of making a grant, nor did it really dawn on me that so many people are involved and that there were different kinds of grants. You could potentially risk your entire grant by asking for more than what’s needed (as deemed by the one giving the grant). You can put all this time and effort into a grant you truly believe is worth every penny for all the right reasons, but if the people you’ve applied to don’t agree, your entire organization could be no more. You’re essentially at the mercy of those with the money, no matter how you feel about your grant. It must be hard to determine how much financial assistance you need, who you’re going to submit the proposal to, and how you’re going to write it. When you write a grant, you have to find the perfect balance between being compelling with your cause and backing it up with facts and data. You have to find the most professional way to say “please give us money, I promise you it’ll be worth it” within a specified word count. With the added challenge of word counts, every sentence is precious and must be absolutely necessary information for the people reviewing your grant to know and read. Although, researching funders is also a crucial part. Finding a corporation or individual that has values that seem to align with your nonprofit organization’s is the third step in the process, and an extremely important one. Though, it doesn’t necessarily mean that if the funder you’re applying to believes in your cause that they’ll automatically be more inclined to approve your grant. There’s a lot you have to put on the line to write a grant: time, people, and possibly the entire organization. I would imagine now with the internet, the grant writing process has gotten a lot easier. It’s easy to investigate people and organizations online in order to determine who you want to submit your grant application to. Their records and annual reports (I think) have to be publicly available, so you don’t have to go through any awkward process of requesting documents, as then you would establish yourself as an applicant. The funder could then further investigate your organization, and may develop a subconscious bias which could make or break your grant application when it comes time to submit it to them.
One thing I found really interesting was the “Reality Check” section that expressed that not every organization is ready to pursue or receive grant funding. I would have thought, as I did previously, that effectively all institutions in this world could always use more money. In this way, I reasoned that all companies should always be looking for grant funding. However, it had never occurred to me that there needs to be an infrastructure in place beforehand, so that the company can effectively and appropriately use the grant. The principles outlined by the author are fivefold: a clearly outlined mission and purpose; good financial procedures in place; necessary staff in place; adequate organization leadership; and access/understanding of technology. Building off of this point, another component I found interesting was the idea of reputation building while seeking grants. This is outlined in the text when the author writes, “In many instances, a well-prepared and clearly articulated grant proposal can build an organization’s credibility with Grantmakers, whether the organization is initially successful in securing funding or not” (3). In other words, how one writes a grant, and presents their institution during the grant-seeking process, can build a reputation amongst funders thus opening the door to other potential funders or potential funding. This relates to the first point in the sense that having the proper infrastructure in place, and therein effectively using funding, is also a form of building reputation and relationships amongst funders.
Right off the start of the article, I found it interesting that one should write a proposal first, and then look for potential funders. This is expressed in the text when Geever’s writes, Once you have drafted your proposal, you are ready to develop your prospect list of foundations and/or corporations that might be interested in funding it.” (103) I would have thought that you would first look for possible grants, familiarize yourself with the application process, and finally write a proposal that is both specific to the demands of the application and specific to the goals and mission of the funders. Secondly, I found it interesting that Geever’s says that a grant proposal doesn’t necessarily need to fit the exact guidelines stated by the funder. As Geever expresses, these guidelines indicate a particular area of interest, but are not exclusionary documents. And moreover, a funder may be considering changing its areas of support at the time the proposal arrives. Herein lies a responsibility of the grant writer to determine what the values of the funder are, and to use common sense to determine if the grant proposal is applicable to the grant.
11 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 2”
Pt.1 What I found most interesting about this reading thus far is that there are numerous types of grant writing/many categories of support that can help depending on their needs. From program funding to research funding, there are many opportunities to get the money your team/company needs. I am also curious as to if these categories are flexible or if more than one program can be used at once. Another thing I found most interesting was the idea of it being a team-based form of collaboration. There are multiple levels to the team. The lead program staff, a finance person, a grant writing staff, and an executive director. I thought originally that a grant writer was just a solo act and that programs/companies hired them. However, while reading, this is new information to me and very interesting. Along with that, a lot of research has to be done in order to make a grant or proposal to be appealing to whoever is going to read it.
Pt. 2 I think an important takeaway from this is that research is critical in order to make a grant/proposal. Getting numerous sources and then investigating them is crucial to making the right decision for the company/project. The sources can be a wide range and variety to the compilation process. Another interesting process is the idea of refining who you choose based on collaboration/research is another key factor during this process. But what is even more important is that each organization needs different things so having a full understanding of what you need to research is a major key in order to hopefully get the money you need for you project.
PART 1: When reading the first chapter of WG, I found myself being surprised at a number of different things, and ultimately realized that I don’t know very much about grant writing. The thing that surprised me first was simply the amount of people that are involved with the creation and the acceptance process of a singular grant. The lead program staff, finance person, grant writing consultant, and executive director are just a few of the ones that are listed in this chapter. Each one has a very specific job that is vital to the grant writing process, and that is entirely something that I had not known about before. Another aspect of this chapter that surprised me was the amount of different types of proposals one can make. When I thought of grant writing in the past, I truly believed that there was only one correct way to do it, while this book describes the concept paper, letter proposal, and full proposal all as their own individual type of writing. While it does say in the book that the full proposal is the most commonly asked for from companies, I would like to know more about the uses of the other types and if they are still used often.
PART 2: This reading I found to be particularly interesting. After reading the textbook about how to write a grant, I didnt even begin to think about how one goes about finding the funder for the grant itself. I found the Compile, Investigate, Refine method to be very interesting and well thought out. The act of actually compiling a list of trustworthy people to essentially convince them to give you money is one that I think I will have fun with. The deep dive into companies and finding which ones have the best credibility, I feel like will be a rather eye opening and informative experience. Another aspect of this process that I found to be particularly interesting was the use of the internet. The internet is definitely a very powerful tool that is used for an endless amount of things. In the grant writing process it makes it easier to connect with people all over the world, but it also makes it easier to fall for scams or the spread of false information. When it comes to educating oneself on a potential funder, the article discusses the levels of research one must do in order to make an informed decision. This article showed a completely different part of the process than the textbook did, and I really liked being able to see the contrast.
Pt 1:
Overall, I felt the first chapter of our textbook had a lot of important information. One thing that I found particularly interesting was how many components are essential to include and consider while writing a grant. For example, when I think of cover letters, I think of job applications and resumes. So, the fact that grants often require cover letters came as a surprise; it makes sense, however, I would have never assumed that to be the case. The second thing that stuck out to me was how similar grant writing is to news writing. Elements like a strategically timed follow-up, collecting personal and professional information about specific individuals, and tailoring the writing to an audience all double dip. In many ways, grant writing seems to be a mixture of journalism, PR, and marketing. As such, I am very excited to dive further into this course, with the hope that I will be able to learn about grant writing and news writing.
Pt 2:
The first thing I found interesting in chapter 10 was the last paragraph of the internet section. When researching what organizations to ask for a grant, this paragraph advises readers to only use the internet as a supplement. The author explains a plethora of other ways to learn about various granters without using a web browser. I found this interesting because other sections of the text seemed dated, such as the discussion about CD-ROMs. Assuming this edition is a decade or two out of date, would the comment about limiting online research still apply? As we are in a very technologically driven world, would it even be possible to find more information about an organization offline than online? The second thing that caught my attention was the discussion on guidelines for sending a request to an organization. The specific nuance that interested me was in a paragraph discussing that, occasionally, proposals that fall out of an organization’s scope are still funded. This can happen for various reasons and is often due to individuals in the organization supporting causes from a personal standpoint. I was curious about how one would begin to research a member’s individual passions, interests, etc. My first thought was to use sources like LinkedIn. However, because this article suggests that internet use should be finite, then I’m unsure how someone would learn about such information.
1. The biggest idea that I found interesting is the number of roles and amount of responsibilities that come with the grant writing process. The lead program staff appears to take on the bulk of the responsibility for the grant writing, as they provide the program plan and establish the goals and objectives of the program for requesting the grant. They can even take on the duties of being the person of contact and the one who does the actual grant writing. Another key person in the process is the one who handles the finances, ensuring that the proposal displays sustainability and a solid budget for effective persuasion to obtain the grant. I also found it really interesting that there are so many ways for nonprofits to fundraise and that foundational grantseeking is a relatively less popular way to obtain funding compared to from individuals. The power of social media today is something that must be considered when it comes to implementing various methods of fundraising, as a mass audience can be reached effectively and quickly. It is also important to consider as an organization the types of foundations to seek grants from, as larger foundations tend to fund larger organizations while smaller foundations fund organizations of various sizes.
2. What I found very interesting was the fact that the IRS requires these private foundations that give grants to file a 990-PF form annually. This form that the IRS requires is published for public access on the internet, which allows for something to consider when researching each potential source for grant writing. This form gives an idea on the amount of grants and other charitable donations that these private foundations are giving. It is useful to consider and investigate as the size of the grants should be appropriate for the grant writing organization’s needs. Further investigation can provide insight into whether these foundations have already allocated future grants and how willing they are to grant to new organizations. I also found it interesting that the Foundation Center has a website that provides a list of information of private foundations and corporations that are offering grants. It is sort of a database that provides the websites of these foundations, which can thus provide use information to grantseekers to assist in finding the foundations they are looking for. This information includes annual reports and application guidelines. The Foundation Center’s website provides direct links to the foundations that have online presence, even though many foundations don’t have websites yet.
The first interesting thing that I picked out from the textbook reading was how much really needs to be in place before an organization is ready to apply for a grant. The textbook walks us through five steps that organizations should ask themselves before applying for a grant, including questions about the establishment of a main mission for the company, financial procedures, leadership and many more factors. I always imagined a company applying for a grant to help them to expand, and never expected that many grants are not awarded to new companies, rather to older, more experienced companies. I found reading about questions asked to organization to be very interesting, and I feel like I understand the work that goes into grant writing in a better way.
Another interesting thing that I noticed was how many grant categories exist. I didn’t think that income that an organization receives from a grant would be so limited and have so many possible restrictions. For example, I found it interesting that some grants allow the organization a large amount of freedom, while other grants are given for very specific projects and only allowed to be used for certain costs.
The first interesting thing I found about the handout reading was the process of compiling a list of potential donors, and the challenges that might come along with that. The handout describes the type of process that one might need to go through to find possible donors, involving a lot of research and networking. Personally, I have never considered the work that might go into this process, and the luck that someone may need to have to even find an applicable grant. While I may have considered the time it takes to write a grant proposal, this is a piece of this process that I have not previously given much thought.
A second part of this reading that I found interesting was the piece about investigating the past decisions that foundations have made in regard to awarding their grants. Specifically, I was not aware that so much information about the financial movements of foundations was available to the public, although after reading, it does make a lot of sense. It is crucial that grantseekers use all this information while doing their research, and that the knowledge of how much is truly available online to them is made widespread.
Part 1: I know virtually nothing about the process of grant writing, and reading this introductory chapter gave me a lot of insight into how the system works. Firstly, I was amazed by how many people it takes to write the grants. The book indicates that 3 to 4 people should be involved for different aspects of the grant writing process. I understand that this divides the labor and allows people like those who do organizing or financials to use their expertise, but I have spoken with professors and other professionals who have done this project on their own. A team seems almost mandatory for larger grants and even the smaller ones seem rather overwhelming to take on alone. Secondly, I really enjoyed the “reality checks” in this chapter. I think with the overview and tips for the proposal process it is important to keep reassessing and reorienting oneself to their actual capabilities. This reminder I feel is especially important for smaller organizations or NGOs looking to start looking for grants. What good is a grant won if you cannot complete your objectives because of lacking infrastructure in place. This unfortunately is a very chicken and egg dilemma as many organizations write grants to expand, and do not necessarily have the funds to set up the best systems and most comprehensive infrastructure.
Part 2: I found this text a good supplement to the first chapter as it goes into the refined details of one of my favorite things- research. Specifically the research that needs to be done to accumulate a suitable list of potential grant funders. I was really interested in the “Investigate” subsection of the paper. Geever suggests grant writers should look back at past funding foundations have given out, but also recent mission statements from foundation leaders, and 990-PF forms. All of these areas can reveal the potential grant funders philosophy, past and future mission directives, and cashflow. I think these are very creative and skilled methods of research, but do take a lot of time and effort that some organizations might not have. However, O’Neal-McElrath et al. posit that this in depth initial research is what can really improve organizations’ chances of receiving a grant. Secondly, I found that this article emphasizes the importance of print media, especially locally printed media to find avenues of funding. In the age of increasing digitalization, more print resources are not being utilized to the fullest but can include valuable community connections. I believe that visiting chambers of commerce and town or city records can provide a lot of information that is not as readily available online.
1. The biggest idea that I found interesting is the number of roles and amount of responsibilities that come with the grant writing process. The lead program staff appears to take on the bulk of the responsibility for the grant writing, as they provide the program plan and establish the goals and objectives of the program for requesting the grant. They can even take on the duties of being the person of contact and the one who does the actual grant writing. Another key person in the process is the one who handles the finances, ensuring that the proposal displays sustainability and a solid budget for effective persuasion to obtain the grant. I also found it interesting that there are so many ways for nonprofits to fundraise and that foundational grant-seeking is a relatively less popular way to obtain funding compared to individuals. The power of social media today is something that must be considered when it comes to implementing various methods of fundraising, as a mass audience can be reached effectively and quickly. It is also important to consider as an organization the types of foundations to seek grants from, as larger foundations tend to fund larger organizations while smaller foundations fund organizations of various sizes.
2. What I found very interesting was the fact that the IRS requires these private foundations that give grants to file a 990-PF form annually. This form that the IRS requires is published for public access on the internet, which allows for something to consider when researching each potential source for grant writing. This form gives an idea of the amount of grants and other charitable donations that these private foundations are giving. It is useful to consider and investigate the size of the grants that should be appropriate for the grant-writing organization’s needs. Further investigation can provide insight into whether these foundations have already allocated future grants and how willing they are to grant to new organizations. I also found it interesting that the Foundation Center has a website that provides a list of information on private foundations and corporations that are offering grants. It is sort of a database that provides the websites of these foundations, which can thus provide useful information to grant seekers to assist in finding the foundations they are looking for. This information includes annual reports and application guidelines. The Foundation Center’s website provides direct links to the foundations that have an online presence, even though many foundations don’t have websites yet.
Chapter 1: The first thing I found interesting about this chapter was the section on fundraising plans, partnerships, and events. It states how one should look at the various fundraising strategies in mind and aim to incorporate multiple into the overall plan. Having a diversified fundraising plan increases the amount of networking opportunities with other groups while also (likely) gaining more funds. On an even bigger scale, diversifying one’s plans contributes to the overall function of the nonprofit. Allowing for new and more diverse supporters, increase awareness of the organization toward funders and public works, and building shared ownership with supports or other group. Reading this made me thinking about the phrase “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” If you do (in the case of grant writing) it likely lead to decreased support and engagement. I say this because if an individual exclusively works with the same three funders or partners, it doesn’t display a want to diversify or increase support.
Another aspect of the chapter that stuck out to me was the categories of support, specifically the program one. It caught my eye because it was something I could relate to hearing at my current internship. One of the main efforts at The Telling Room is hosting in school and after school programs centered around writing. As a nonprofit, these programs need to be supported by members of the community, donors, and fundraisers in order to be possibly. This past week, I was able to sit in on conversations about program planning specifically related to how they decide on what programs run versus face discontinuation. It was fascinating to see the background of why organizations choose to work with different groups based on either grant funding that group has received or if it considered a pro-bono program. I agree with the chapter in stating that programs sometime receive restricted income because of witnessing tough decisions being made that may have been based on grant funding. I’m curious to learn more about the aspects of program funding and how to maintain a good financial balance while also serving the promised communities in one’s nonprofit mission.
Geever’s Article: The first part of this chapter that sparked by interest was within the research section, specifically the compilation portion. I thought the way Laura Gilbertson suggested research and compilation as “casting a wide net” was helpful in imaging what research will be like. I say this because I find that guidelines, whatever they are for, always read or feel more concrete than they actually are. They typically are to the point in terms of what foundations or corporations interests are. In the realm of job applications, even more so. Therefore, when it comes to looking for possible funders, it can be difficult to compile a list confidently. This section of the chapter opened to my eyes to see that it doesn’t have to be so difficult or to the point. That being more inclusive rather than exclusive can be beneficial in finding a group that aligns. I also found it helpful that the chapter mentioned awareness as the other key component to compilation. Thinking of compilation as an equation, you could say the two factors are awareness and inclusivity. Of course, this becomes more narrow with time.
The second portion of this chapter that stuck out to me fell under the guidelines section. It expresses how guidelines are essential factor when considering whether or not a foundation or corporation aligns with what the grant-seeker is looking for. Reading that set alarm bells off in my head about the equal importance of intentionality. One can take a foundations guidelines almost as an outline or wish-list of what is expected or sought after when choosing who to fund. So, when it comes to writing the proposal, there is the intention behind the words of aligning with said group. Another factor that makes my analogy tricky is what I mentioned earlier. Guidelines are not always the hard definition of what a group os looking for. They can sometimes bend and change with time. This then also puts emphasis on what the chapter later describes under the research section.
I had never really thought about the process of making a grant, nor did it really dawn on me that so many people are involved and that there were different kinds of grants. You could potentially risk your entire grant by asking for more than what’s needed (as deemed by the one giving the grant). You can put all this time and effort into a grant you truly believe is worth every penny for all the right reasons, but if the people you’ve applied to don’t agree, your entire organization could be no more. You’re essentially at the mercy of those with the money, no matter how you feel about your grant. It must be hard to determine how much financial assistance you need, who you’re going to submit the proposal to, and how you’re going to write it. When you write a grant, you have to find the perfect balance between being compelling with your cause and backing it up with facts and data. You have to find the most professional way to say “please give us money, I promise you it’ll be worth it” within a specified word count. With the added challenge of word counts, every sentence is precious and must be absolutely necessary information for the people reviewing your grant to know and read. Although, researching funders is also a crucial part. Finding a corporation or individual that has values that seem to align with your nonprofit organization’s is the third step in the process, and an extremely important one. Though, it doesn’t necessarily mean that if the funder you’re applying to believes in your cause that they’ll automatically be more inclined to approve your grant. There’s a lot you have to put on the line to write a grant: time, people, and possibly the entire organization. I would imagine now with the internet, the grant writing process has gotten a lot easier. It’s easy to investigate people and organizations online in order to determine who you want to submit your grant application to. Their records and annual reports (I think) have to be publicly available, so you don’t have to go through any awkward process of requesting documents, as then you would establish yourself as an applicant. The funder could then further investigate your organization, and may develop a subconscious bias which could make or break your grant application when it comes time to submit it to them.
One thing I found really interesting was the “Reality Check” section that expressed that not every organization is ready to pursue or receive grant funding. I would have thought, as I did previously, that effectively all institutions in this world could always use more money. In this way, I reasoned that all companies should always be looking for grant funding. However, it had never occurred to me that there needs to be an infrastructure in place beforehand, so that the company can effectively and appropriately use the grant. The principles outlined by the author are fivefold: a clearly outlined mission and purpose; good financial procedures in place; necessary staff in place; adequate organization leadership; and access/understanding of technology. Building off of this point, another component I found interesting was the idea of reputation building while seeking grants. This is outlined in the text when the author writes, “In many instances, a well-prepared and clearly articulated grant proposal can build an organization’s credibility with Grantmakers, whether the organization is initially successful in securing funding or not” (3). In other words, how one writes a grant, and presents their institution during the grant-seeking process, can build a reputation amongst funders thus opening the door to other potential funders or potential funding. This relates to the first point in the sense that having the proper infrastructure in place, and therein effectively using funding, is also a form of building reputation and relationships amongst funders.
Right off the start of the article, I found it interesting that one should write a proposal first, and then look for potential funders. This is expressed in the text when Geever’s writes, Once you have drafted your proposal, you are ready to develop your prospect list of foundations and/or corporations that might be interested in funding it.” (103) I would have thought that you would first look for possible grants, familiarize yourself with the application process, and finally write a proposal that is both specific to the demands of the application and specific to the goals and mission of the funders. Secondly, I found it interesting that Geever’s says that a grant proposal doesn’t necessarily need to fit the exact guidelines stated by the funder. As Geever expresses, these guidelines indicate a particular area of interest, but are not exclusionary documents. And moreover, a funder may be considering changing its areas of support at the time the proposal arrives. Herein lies a responsibility of the grant writer to determine what the values of the funder are, and to use common sense to determine if the grant proposal is applicable to the grant.