Category: Financing & Loans

This posting by: Lynn deLearie.

Since Andrew Grant wrote in his post, Impress Funders with Your Grant Proposal: Target Your Outcomes, “funders have become consumed with the notion of outcomes assessment.” (The link to Andrew’s piece is at the bottom of this post.)

I agree, and have found the evaluation section of proposals to be the most critical in winning grants. Potential funders want, and need to know how you will determine if your programs are successful and, by extension, if their money will be well spent.

Here’s how to write an effective evaluation section of your grant proposal:

1. Work with your program staff! As I wrote in last month’s post, “Using Credible Research To Write Compelling Needs Statements,” your program staff members are the experts on what your organization does, and they’ll have the most relevant and up-to-date research related to their programs. Work with them to define the goals, outcomes and metrics for their programs, and then include this information in grant proposals.

2. Include quantitative metrics. Quantitative metrics are measurable, and grant reviewers are increasingly asking for more meaningful data. For example, one foundation requests that, “for an academic measurable outcome we strongly suggest using a standardized test as the instrument to gauge improvement.” Remember that your programs are intended to change behaviors and/or attitudes. Measuring how many people showed up is no longer good enough. However, measuring knowledge before and after a particular program activity (pre- and post-testing) would be a viable quantitative metric.

3. Define whether you will conduct an internal evaluation or hire an outside evaluator. Who will collect the program outcome data, and what records will you keep? Will this be the responsibility of your program staff, your administrative staff, your grant manager, or an outside evaluator? Who will interpret the data and report on the findings? Include this information in the evaluation section of your grant proposals.

4. Use your evaluation findings to modify program design. Your evaluation findings should be used to assess your program’s effectiveness, AND to inform your future work. If your evaluation findings show that a particular program outcome was not achieved, discuss this with your program staff. Why do they think the outcome was not achieved, and what would they change going forward? Include this information in the evaluation section of your grant proposals. This will demonstrate that your organization takes program evaluation seriously. You are evaluating your programs to improve their effectiveness, not just because your grant applications require that you do so.

Impress Funders With Your Grant Proposal: Target Your Outcomes
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lynn deLearie Consulting, LLC, helps nonprofit organizations develop, enhance and expand grants programs, and helps them secure funding from foundations and corporations. Contact Lynn deLearie.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Look for Lynn’s ebook on Grants & Grantsmanship. It’s part of The Fundraising Series of ebooks
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Tony Poderis

We know that a Planning Study (see: What is a Planning Study) is a tool a non-profit uses to determine whether it should go ahead with a Major (capital or endowment) Fundraising Effort.

Such a Study is essential for an organization in order to assess the likelihood of success before entering into a campaign. An organization that does not do so puts the campaign, the project for which the money is to be raised, and even the non-profit itself at risk.

Sad to say, however, when many such studies are conducted, and when the Study Reports are completed and presented to commissioning organizations, all too often their leaderships balk and resist implementing the Study Recommendations simply because the study may tell them what they don’t want to hear.

Those leaders find it so hard to believe, though they must, how their “family-and-friends” — the interviewees they’ve suggested, may actually be critical of the organization’s operation under their leadership.

For those leaders, let me say, “I understand. I do know where you’re coming from – and I empathize, but your rejections of fact can be seriously counterproductive.”

You suggested that those people be interviewed in the first place — you knew they cared and supported the organization, or had influence in the community you serve, and you wanted their input.

The Study Report, then, provided you with their thoughts and perspectives, and you must, therefore, give serious consideration to what they said.

And you must ... make sure that you take the time to go over every element of the Study Report. Don’t skip over any of the negative … that on first reading may seem minor. Be even tougher in your analysis than the person who wrote the Study Report and made the Recommendations.

When it comes to deciding whether or not to go ahead with the campaign, you must give credence to the thoughts/perspectives/recommendations you solicited.

It would be folly to take the time to conduct a Planning Study, spend the money on it, then risk alienating people important to the organization by ignoring their input.

An organization that ignores some or all of a study’s findings makes a mistake that can fatally damage the campaign, the project, and even the organization.

The study might recommend against proceeding with the effort until the nonprofit first repairs the (perceived) “faults” and/or installs new elements of its basic infrastructure – an updated strategic plan, a better defined mission, a strengthened board, or a myriad other things. Diligence is essential in carrying out such recommendations.

I am still awaiting the final payment for a Study from an organization that didn’t like what the 25 people they chose, and whom I interviewed, had to say.

In another instance, I had to fight tooth and nail to get an organization’s executive director and president to share the results of a study with their own board – as they had promised to do going into the process. The more negative a study’s results, the more important that they be heeded.

If the Study’s results tell you so, it is far better not to start a campaign, even if it means postponing or giving up on a project, than to begin a campaign that fails.

The decision whether or not to go ahead with a major effort is one that the organization makes in relative privacy. A failed campaign is a public event that reflects negatively on:

     • Campaign leadership
     • Campaign volunteers
     • The organization’s board
     • The organization’s staff
     • The organization’s image

A failed campaign makes it harder for future campaigns to succeed. People give to organizations they perceive to be competent. The best volunteer leadership for both fund-raising endeavors and governance is drawn to organizations that are perceived to be winners.

If a Study tells you what you don’t want to hear that was said by those having the influence and affluence that would affect your campaign and your organization, don’t blame them or the people who conducted the study and don’t try to hide the results.

Listen to and act upon what your organization’s family and friends tell you. Fix what must be fixed, explain what can’t be fixed, and at least acknowledge and explain what may be mistaken impressions and opinions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Bill Huddleston

Massive CFC Changes Proposed

…Riveting Reading in the Federal Register
I realize I’m mixing metaphors in the headline, but the intent is to get your attention about something that is very important to any nonprofit that is enrolled in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), or is considering applying in the future.

During the 50th Anniversary of the Combined Federal Campaign in 2011, there was a special advisory council formed, named the CFC-50 Commission with the charter to hold several public hearings and make recommendations to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on ways to improve and streamline the CFC.

As I write this (in late January), the draft CFC regulations have been proposed, but they have not yet been published in the Federal Register, which is the government site where all proposed government regulations are posted. The standard window for public comments is 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal register.

By the time you’re reading this, the regulations will probably be published, and I will have information on my website about them and how to comment. As citizens, anyone can comment and suggest improvements or concerns about proposed government regulations, which by law, the sponsoring agency must consider.

I realize that this is different than all of my other postings on how to use the CFC as one of the tools in your development toolbox for generating unrestricted funds, but this is a rare opportunity to make the case about ways to improve the CFC for both charities and donors. Regulations have been updated over the years, with the most recent being in 2007 when the CFC code numbers went from 4 digits to 5 digits and many of the application hurdles were eliminated.

These proposed cfc-50 rule changes are a much bigger deal. They’re on a par with changing the rules of football so that touchdowns are worth 10 points, but it’s now to be played on a 120-yard field.

The proposed regulations print out on 53 pages so I can’t cover it in detail in this post. The intended goal of the proposed regulations is to “streamline the operations and increase the effectiveness of the program to ensure its continued growth and success.”

I certainly agree with that goal, but I do have two types of concerns with the draft regulations, one type is that I think some of the proposed regulations will not have that effect, and indeed will instead have a negative effect, such as the proposal to completely eliminate the printed catalog of CFC charities.

The second type of concern I have, and this is even more fundamental is what is not included in the proposed regulations, and there is no mention about whether it was considered or not. As fans of Sherlock Holmes will recognize from the headline above, in the case of the Silver Blaze Mystery the major clue was the fact that the watchdog did not bark. In the case of the proposed CFC regulations, what’s missing is any consideration or approach for allowing retirees to continue to contribute to their favorite charities through the CFC, if they wish to do so. Given the amount of Federal retirements that have already taken place, and will continue to occur as the baby boomers retire, this has huge consequences for the CFC and the charities the Federal donor supports.

Another proposed rule change is to have some type of application fee associated with the CFC, but the amount and how this would work is not specified.

Another example of something not mentioned, is that when the 2007 regulations were proposed, one of the stated reasons for going to a 5 digit code was so that any Federal employee could donate to any nonprofit, regardless of where he or she lived. For example, if someone living in the Washington DC area wanted to donate to mom’s favorite CFC nonprofit back in Iowa, they could. This is not allowed under the current organization for local charities, and it is not mentioned in the proposed regulations.

I will have a detailed analysis of the proposed regulations on my website by the time you are reading this. Please check it out for both the analysis, and instructions on how to comment on proposed regulations through the Federal Register.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
During his 25-year career in the Federal sector, Bill Huddleston, The CFC Coach, served in many CFC roles. If you want to participate in the Combined Federal Campaign, maximize your nonprofit’s CFC revenues, or just ask a few questions, contact … Bill Huddleston
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Hank Lewis

I received the following email:
I am involved in local education foundations which is a 501(c)(3). We do some really neat things that help to educate kids in our community, and we have a few big fundraisers each year. On our website and in the marketing info for the events, we’ve been using language like…” Funds raised are used for mini-grants for creative and innovative class programs, scholarships, specialized educational equipment and staff training in our schools “.

The fact is that we do use a portion of the funds for necessary overhead – and we recently hired an executive director with the goal of moving the organization forward. Does this “paying of our overhead” need to be mentioned in statements of what we do with income from the fundraisers? Is it illegal or unethical (or misleading) not to mention that a portion of the funds raised will be used to cover overhead, or is this a “given”?

==================
I responded:

I can’t speak to what the laws in your state might require regarding disclosure/transparency; but, I have no hesitation in pointing out the ethical question.

You raised the issue, and there will likely be others outside of your organization who will do the same – “Is all the money contributed to the foundation being used to fund programs and activities to (directly) benefit the students?”

If the answer is, “No,” then you can’t use any wording that would say, or even suggest, that that is the case. At the least, it would be unethical. At the worst it could be construed as fraud.

Use a statement such as: “Over 90% of all funds raised go directly to support programs and activities to benefit our kids.” Or: “All contributions, directly or indirectly, are used to support programs and activities to benefit our kids.”

On another subject, I’m not sure how to interpret your reference to “a few big fundraisers.” I would hope that you are not relying on events to provide all/most of your funding. That, for the long-term survival/effectiveness of your foundation, can be disastrous.

If you’re not securing major gifts from individuals, you’re missing out on the biggest source of funding for nonprofits — 60% of all contributed dollars to nonprofits come from such support.

In addition, I hope that your new Executive Director is well versed in “real development/fundraising,” and will spend a significant percentage of his/her time working with and training volunteers to make it happen.

I’ll add this closing thought, that so much of the fundraising potential of (so called) Local Education Foundations (LEFs) is never realized because the organizers/leaders/board members never get past the PTA and/or Bake Sale mentality.

No matter the state of the economy, there will always be corporations, foundations and individuals that can/would provide significant support … if the approach was based on the development process and not just focused on “fundraisers.” Gad, I hate that word !!
(See: ‘Development’ and ‘Fundraising’ are Not Synonymous)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you heard about The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Tony Martignetti.

Last month I gave you five reasons why you should have a Planned Giving program.

Your organization doesn’t need much to get started, but you do need a few things in place. Here’s what I look for to decide whether Planned Giving is feasible at a nonprofit.

7 years under your belt. I used to say a nonprofit should have a steady 10 years working in its mission, but I’ve relaxed that to seven. You need that because you’ll be asking prospects and donors to include you in their estate plans, which will mean cash to you at their deaths (for the overwhelming majority of planned gifts).

Donors need confidence that your work will survive them. If you’ve been at it for less than seven years, your longevity is questionable. Everyone hopes your good work will live on forever, but there won’t be great confidence if you’ve been working it less than seven years.

Individual donors 55 and over. That’s the age I start promoting Planned Giving. It’s the age at which large numbers of people begin recognizing their will or other estate plan as a method of charitable giving. Before then, it’s much more about guardianship for children and security for college educations and the mortgage, as well as gifts to family.

To be sure, thirty- and forty-somethings include charities in their wills. But not in large numbers. Not in numbers large enough to justify spending your scarce time and money promoting the idea to them. It’s an unwise use of resources.

I also want you to avoid risking the much greater likelihood that those younger than 55 will change their minds and remove you from their wills.

In our twenties, thirties and forties do we know the charities that are close enough to us that we’ll maintain them all our lives next to our spouse, children and grandchildren in our will? With as many as 60 or 70 years to live–no we don’t.

The sole exception to this is board members. As the most invested volunteers, each of them should include you in their will. Some will remove you after their term, but while they’re serving you should be in their estate plan.

The Stelter Company has research that disagrees with me, and encourages Planned Giving promotion at age forty, much younger than I counsel. There’s a link to their research and my response on my blog.

With these two features in place, your organization is ready to promote Planned Giving.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Next month, “Start Promoting Planned Giving: Bequests I.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tony Martignetti, Esq. is the host of Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. He’s a Planned Giving consultant, speaker, author, blogger and stand-up comic. You’ll find him at TonyMartignetti.com.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

A Posting by Gail Meltzer, CFRE

From time to time, we are asked about the advisability of creating a separate private foundation to raise funds for an existing nonprofit. I’d like to offer an example of when such a foundation was a good idea and has provided great benefit.

(Please note – I am not an attorney and this information should not be considered legal advice in any way.)

Years ago, I was the chief development officer at a Jewishly-sponsored nonprofit senior care provider. In its 40th year of operation, the organization’s leadership changed the corporate structure, establishing a nonprofit holding company as the “Corporate Member.” At the same time, four other 501(c)(3) independent entities were created, with their own governing boards and budgets, that reported to the holding company: the nursing home; the independent living community; a licensed geriatric training school; and, the Foundation, the purpose of which, according to the by-laws, was to “provide resources to enhance the quality of life for the aged … primarily through financial support of the nursing home’s system of services.”

While it always served people of all faiths, when the nursing home provider was established in 1946, the by-laws required that only those of the Jewish faith be allowed to serve on its board. Once the above-referenced 501(c)(3) organizations were established and by-laws created, that restriction on religious affiliation no longer applied.

As a result, individuals from the entire community joined the boards, bringing their unique perspectives and wisdom. That diverse group of board members have become champions for the care of and services to older people, and they’ve become long-term ambassadors for the organization. This, of course, is especially helpful for the Foundation and for fundraising.

Those individuals who join the Foundation board know that their primary purpose is relationship building and fundraising, and they bring their contacts and their own philanthropy to the table.

Through their involvement with events such as a black-tie gala and golf tournament, both of which have been ongoing for 20 successful years, they have helped brand the Foundation with a special panache, with a reinvigorated identity and a broader appeal.

Another benefit of having philanthropic funds raised, managed and allocated through the Foundation, which functions as a separate and distinct entity with its own board, minutes, by-laws, articles of incorporation, etc., is that these funds are generally considered to be protected from litigation activity that might occur with the other entities.

If you are considering the creation of such a supporting organization or foundation, let me offer some suggestions.

1. Examine the financial and “emotional” health of the parent organization, the
    history of trust and collaboration between volunteer leadership and executive
    staff, and their mutual commitment to the mission, vision and values of the
    organization. Establishing a Foundation is not the way to heal or overcome any
    troubling issues in this regard. Deal with those issues first if needed, and allow
    the organization to strengthen.

2. Clearly establish the purpose of the Foundation — where its funds are primarily
    to be allocated, job descriptions for board members, how the board members
    are selected and elected (in the above example, the board members are
    elected by the corporate member and can be removed by same, and there is
    little overlap of membership among the five boards).

3. Ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that the parent organization
    will commit to continued involvement in friend- and fund-raising.

4. Engage legal counsel right from the beginning to assure all legal issues are
    addressed, especially with regard to the purpose of the fundraising (i.e. to
    support the work of the parent organization) and how Foundation board
    members are elected and/or removed.

Putting a separate entity such as a foundation in place with the responsibility to raise funds for a parent organization can be a wise idea. However, you must commit to doing your due diligence to determine why and how, in order to protect the precious philanthropic assets and reputation of the organization.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Gail Meltzer is a founding principal of the Miami-based full-service consulting firm CoreStrategies for Nonprofits, Inc. and can be reached through the website Corestrategies4nonprofits or by email at Gail Meltzer
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Click this link to find descriptions of all the titles in
    The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Jayme Sokolow

Being a Success
According to Dr. Heidi Grant Stevenson, a blogger for Psychology Today and the author of an intriguing new book, Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals (2011), even very bright people are often clueless when it comes to understanding why they succeed or fail. Recent research on achievement shows that successful people reach their goals not because of any inborn traits or extraordinary IQs but because of what they do.

Dr. Stevenson identifies nine things that successful people do differently from their less successful peers. How many of these traits do you have as a grant proposal professional?

1. Get Specific
When you set a goal, you are specific as possible. Being concrete gives you a clear definition of success.

2. Seize the Moment and Act on your Goals
Because we are all very busy, we often routinely miss opportunities to act on our goals. To seize the moment, decide when and where you will take action to achieve a goal.

3. Know Exactly How Far You Have Left to Go
To achieve your goals, you must candidly and regularly monitor your progress and determine what remains to achieve your goal. “It will take 15 more hours to finish producing our grant application” enables you to adjust your behavior and strategies so that you are likely to succeed.

4. Be a Realistic Optimist
Positive thinking is very important in achieving goals, but you must be realistic about how likely you are to achieve them. Simply telling your proposal team that the “first draft must be finished today” is meaningless unless there is a high probability that this is possible.

5. Focus on Getting Better rather than being Good
Our talents and skills are very malleable. To improve, you should focus on getting better at doing something specific rather than just being good. This is a more realistic and motivating goal than trying to achieve some abstract standard of excellence.

6. Show Grit and Determination
Grit and determination are common characteristics of successful people, especially in the face of difficulties. By planning, by developing good strategies to accomplish difficult tasks, and by sheer persistence you often can succeed.

7. Build your Willpower
Successful people have strong willpower. They are determined to succeed. Identifying difficult challenges and satisfactorily addressing them will increase your sense of willpower and enable you to be more successful.

8. Have a Sense of Limitations
Today, it is fashionable to say that we all have unlimited potential. This is simply not true. We all have limitations, and we must understand and respect them.

9. Focus on What You Will Do, Not on What You Will Not Do
One of the best ways to succeed is to ask a simple question: “What can I do differently?” Focus on behavioral changes you realistically can make rather than on simply avoiding unproductive behaviors.

I think that Dr. Stevenson has identified nine important things successful grant proposal professionals do differently. As he concludes, “You usually do not have to become a different person to become more successful.”

All of us, however, need to do our grant proposal development differently – and better.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dr. Jayme Sokolow, founder and president of The Development Source, Inc.,
helps nonprofit organizations develop successful proposals to government agencies. Contact Jayme Sokolow.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Look for Jayme’s ebook on Finding & Getting Federal Government Grants. It’s part of The Fundraising Series of ebooks
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Hank Lewis

An issue was raised on a listserve:
“I have become more and more concerned about the exploitation of clients and “their stories” as fundraising tools.” “How do you counsel clients about the ethics/morality of using client stories as appeals?”
=========================
Whenever a question is posed about ethics/morality that includes the words “using” and “exploitation,” it’s a pretty good bet that the writer has already made a judgment.

“Exploitation” was/is a favorite word used to describe/condemn how employers who use young (physically attractive) women to generate business. The word was never used by the employers (who increased the bottom line), the employees (who were being paid for their labors), and the patrons of the businesses (for their own reasons).

The word was only used by outsiders who did not and/or could not agree with the perspective of either of the three participants.

I am commenting, remember, on the use of a word, not on the writer’s discomfort.

Before using the word “exploit,” one should ask oneself what, if any, harm is being done. If no harm is being done… that’s your answer. And, if only an “outsider” is seeing the “harm,” is there really any harm being done?

In the case of using the story (with or without photos or live appearances) of a consenting adult (client-of-a-nonprofit), it would be incorrect to attach the emotional content of “exploitation” to the transaction — because it is, indeed, a transaction.

The client would agree to having his/her story told in exchange for something that makes him/her feel good — be that gratitude, a desire to give back, the understanding that s/he will benefit when the nonprofit benefits … or any other reason s/he might have.

That does raise a few questions: Have (for example) those starving, barefoot children in the tv solicitations given their consent? Are they capable of giving “informed consent”? Are they being harmed by having their stories told and their faces “displayed”? Do they benefit by having their stories told and their faces “displayed”? Are they being exploited?

What do you think ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? With over 30 years of counseling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, I’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Contact me at AskHank@Major-Capital-Giving.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Click this link to find descriptions of all the titles in The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting is by Lynn deLearie.

I initially want to refer all readers to an excellent post about Needs Statements written previously on this blog by Andrew Grant (see the link at the bottom of this post).

In that piece, “Impress Funders With Your Grant Proposal (Writing a “WOW” Needs Statement),” Andrew said that, “the Need Statement must be well structured and supported by research to make the case.” He went on to say, “depending on the subject, citations and data can be used as long as they don’t disrupt the narrative flow.”

I agree wholeheartedly, and almost always cite relevant research in the Needs Statements that I write.

I have done most of my recent grant writing for a private middle school that serves impoverished, African American students and families living in North St. Louis. The other accessible educational option for these students is the unaccredited St. Louis public school district, which had an average 2012 graduation rate of 64%. The need to provide a low-cost, quality education to the students that this middle school serves is obvious and compelling…

So, why did I cite research in these Needs Statements? Because, as Andrew states, it helps to build the case for support, and “captures and holds the attention of the funder reading your proposal.”

In addition, citing credible research adds to the credibility of your organization. It shows that you clearly understand the needs of your target population within the broader context of your community.

Citing credible research can also demonstrate that your program staff has done its homework, and use evidence based methods when implementing the programs that meet the needs of your clients.

Now that you know why to cite credible research in your Needs Statements, where do you find the research to cite?

Start with your program staff. They are the experts on what your organization does and will have the most relevant and up-to-date research related to their programs. You can ask them for data and statistics to use to make a strong case for supporting what they do.

Also look at what your competition is saying… on their websites, in their newsletters, in their annual reports. It’s a good bet that they have also applied to the same foundations you are writing to, and you need to be aware of the research they are citing, as well as the results their programs are delivering.

A Google-Search will also turn up other sources of citable research; but not every source that such a search turns up will be credible – double check. The last thing you want to do in your Needs Statement is to cite an unverifiable source.

Impress Funders With Your Grant Proposal
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lynn deLearie Consulting, LLC, helps nonprofit organizations develop, enhance and expand grants programs, and helps them secure funding from foundations and corporations. Contact Lynn deLearie.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Look for Lynn’s ebook on Grants & Grantsmanship. It’s part of The Fundraising Series of ebooks
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Tony Poderis

That riveting question was actually written in the marginal notes of a proposal asking for funding for an orchestra; and, it was written by a trustee of a grant-making foundation during a meeting to review the proposal in question.

Another trustee of the foundation, the one who presented the proposal on behalf of the orchestra, later showed that note to me and asked what I could do help counter his colleague’s questioning remark.

Arts and cultural institutions are often forced into such defensive postures. They’re accused of only benefiting the elite. The needs of the hungry, the homeless, the physically, mentally/emotionally challenged are cited as so great that something as “frivolous” as the arts should not be drawing from the pool of available support for non-profit organizations.

Those of us who work with … and passionately support the arts, are asked how we can justify “diverting” funds to the arts when such needs exist.

The arts community rightfully provides data showing its economic impact and benefit to the community—statistics tabulating the number of people employed by arts and cultural organizations, tourists attracted to the area, money spent on purchases from vendors, etc. Those facts deliver a true story, but they are not always compelling. Then there is the “quality-of-life” argument, but it, too, does not always convince. We’re told it is too subjective, too broad, too general.

I believe the answer is to stop defending the arts. We must step out of the defensive postures our critics would-and-do force us into. We need to start asserting the value of the arts with some questions of our own.

Would the community be a place that draws the successful people able to support other needs, if there were not an orchestra, art museum, ballet, opera, theater, etc.? Without the quality-of-life amenities that arts and cultural organizations provide, would private companies, corporations, and firms be able to retain and attract key employees—the very people who keep business thriving and civic endeavors moving forward?

• Without the draw of arts and culture organizations, how many individuals of affluence would there be in the community?

• Would as many new enterprises choose to make the community their home?

• Without the retention of “old money” and the creation of new wealth, where would the philanthropy to support all those “more worthy” institutions come from?

• What would happen to the hospitals, schools, and social-service agencies? To me, the gist of the argument to make when the value of the arts is questioned is simple. Without the arts, without cultural institutions, the people who make up the strong backbone of support for civic and social needs would be far fewer in number.

It would be as if the community was trying to stand upright with vertebrae missing from that backbone of support. That leads to one last question.

How many vertebrae would have to go missing before that backbone collapsed under the weight of the load it was being asked to carry?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.