This week I was reminded of the power of the old truism “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”.
An organization with whom I’m associated had recently submitted a proposal to a private foundation that is governed by the family of a longtime board member. The foundation has supported this organization steadily with 5-digit dollar gift amounts for the past 4 years for different projects.
For the most part, the organization cultivated and enjoyed a highly amicable and transparent relationship with this institutional fundng source. The staff and board did a great job of keeping the foundation’s trustees abreast of the impact that their investment has had on the greater community. Conversely, the trustees seemed very satisfied with how their gifts were used and the positive change they created.
On this occasion, however, the trustees felt compelled to take a closer look at the organization’s latest T3010 returns on the Canada Revenue Agency website (even though they had the most recent audited financial statements). To their dismay, it appeared to the trustees that their foundation was the organization’s only significant donor beyond the core government funding that was annually received. Did this organization not have a solid base of donor support? Did no other foundations, service clubs, companies or major donors believe in this cause strongly enough to offer any meaningful financial support?
When the trustees expressed their disappointment of these findings with the organization’s leaders, they were relieved to hear that the information did not accurately reflect its true financial position. The organization received an extraordinary amount of unreceipted monetary support from companies and third-party sources. Many donations made through CanadaHelps were also not represented in the T3010 records. More importantly, the organization had made substantial progress since the start of the pandemic of establishing a fundraising strategy that focused on building a solid and sustainable donor base.
The foundation’s trustees’ initial fears that they were the only major benefactors of the organization’s programs were allayed by this news. No longer were they worried about allocating their funds in programs that were doomed to failure. They realized that the organization did not merely view them as a “piggy bank”.
Rather they were sufficiently convinced that the organization’s leadership regarded them as fellow community partners who were equally committed to addressing issues that affected the well-being of the society. The trustees felt assured that their gift indeed would be used to optimize available resources that would make the world a better place. Ultimately the trustees elected to approve the grant for a fifth consecutive year.
Despite this happy ending, this incident is proof that grant-makers want to see that other funding sources are willing to support our projects. Charity representatives constantly ask me if it is wise to mention the names of other grant-makers when listing the project revenue sources in the budgets of their funding proposals. Many fear that if the prospective grant-maker sees the names of other funders listed, they will reject the proposal because their support isn’t needed.
In reality, the opposite is true. Commitments from other funders is testimony that credible people outside of your organization recognize the value of your project and believe that their investment that will safely yield the aspired results.
Thus, as you seek granting support for your projects and programs, be sure to identify as many prospective sources as possible. Seldom do major funders want to be the first or the only ones who come to the table. As my experience validated, some may even be deterred by the lack of support garnered for your initiatives.
