Shooting from the hip here somewhat, but I feel the need to vent about something. A trend I’ve noticed while communicating with charity leaders lately is a growing dependence on grants.
Whether it’s a habit they developed during the pandemic or another reason, a disturbing number of executive directors and board chairs seem content to place the fates of their organizations in the hands of detached ambivalent funding bodies.
Viewing grants as a perpetual “silver bullet” is dangerous, irresponsible and violates a charity’s commitment to the people it serves. Funders are not a panacea, nor do they wish to be regarded as such.
Government agencies, foundations, corporate social responsibility programs and other grant-makers are supposed to be a tentative solution. Grants are intended either as a “start-up” or a bridge to the future. That is, they can kick-start a program or strengthen its capacity within a short timeframe.
Please understand that I am not referring to core funding that organizations commonly receive from government agencies or other institutional sources. My issue is with granting bodies that provide periodic support for specific projects or initiatives that organizations undertake. Too many non-profits embrace a “wag the dog” approach with these granting opportunities by developing projects only after learning of requests for proposals. Do they not realize that once you hop on the granting carousel, it’s next to impossible to disembark?!?!?
Before your charity falls into the granting vortex, I wish to share five (5) things about grants that drive me insane:
You have no influence over the final decision. Very seldom do we have access to the people who actually have final say regarding grant allocations. Between 1 and 10 individuals may stand between ourselves and those in charge of the purse strings. This is problematic since the key to funding sustainability is cultivating direct relationships with decision-makers.
You are never certain when decisions will be made. Government granting decisions can sometimes take more than a year to reach. Meanwhile private foundations may only require a few days. In the end, your charity’s timetable rarely corresponds with a funder’s.
Huge investment of time and energy in a “maybe”. Grants are a lot of work. I mean, LOTS OF WORK! Some can take more than 100 hours to complete and involve the efforts of more than 20 staff or volunteers. Yet there is no guarantee that you will make “dollar one”. Preparing funding proposals are a huge drain on resources and can be devastating for morale when they are unsuccessful.
It’s very difficult to get constructive feedback following a rejection. When attempting to follow-up with a contact person from a funding body after a rejection, it can be very frustrating to obtain any useful guidance as to how to ensure success with future submissions. Often the individual with whom we are connecting is a frontline person who is only vaguely familiar with their fund’s current granting priorities or practices.
So many reasons for a rejection. Whether it is having large cash reserves, unrealistic project outcomes, or highly competitive funding cycles, there is a plethora of reasons why grant proposals are not approved. Some are within our control, some aren’t. In any event, it is high stakes fundraising. With this many pitfalls, it’s absurd why anyone would view grant writing as the path to greener pastures.
Adopting grants as an ongoing answer to your charity’s sustainability issues is embracing a gambler’s mindset. You can make a lot of money, however, you’re most likely to depart with zero dollars. What is certain is organizations that fall into this financial deathtrap are avoiding conventional fund development approaches while exhausting critical resources in the process. Ultimately, it is the people in need of their help who pay the price for this recklessness.
