Q.

We’re having a huge budget shortfall and need to get money from anywhere we can in order to keep current programs in place. How can we get grant funds to help?

A.

Basically, you can’t. Grants should be used to keep the organization moving ahead, not to keep it from sinking. If you have programs currently in place (for which you currently have funds allocated), using grant funds to continue is supplanting--- a practice that is most frequently not allowed. Grant funds are also time-limited. The organization is better served by realigning resources, or redesigning programs that can be sustained. The organization will also be “hard pressed” to provide a sustainability plan to the funder, which will reduce the probability of being funded.

Q.

Why is it so important to determine whether a grant funding
opportunity aligns with the organization’s mission, and its strategic plan?

A.

Grant funded programs generate a lot of work for multiple departments within an organization (administrative oversight, fiscal management, implementation, monitoring and evaluation).

Programs funded merely to bring in “extra” money often end up making “extra” work and costing more than they’re worth.  Staff are taken away from critical work in order to accomplish “random” activities with minimal positive impact. In fact, in the worst case scenario, such grant projects end up being counterproductive to organizational priorities.

Q.

Why must we do a needs assessment? We already know what are needs are.

A.

In order to be competitive, it’s critical to establish a strong case for the organization’s need to the reviewers scoring your application. Reviewers don’t have any prior knowledge of your organization. Quantitative and qualitative evidence demonstrating your need, and how it aligns to the priorities specified by the funder must be provided.

A clearly articulated “need statement” is also key to proposal development. It establishes the foundation on which the rest of the application will be developed---goals and objectives must directly address the need---activities must support achievement of the goals---and an evaluation must verify progress made in addressing the need through achievement of goals and implementation of activities.

Q.

I’ve heard grant professionals caution organizations not to “go too big or too small”--- Is there even such a thing as a grant that’s “too big”????

A.

Absolutely. In fact, there’s nothing worse than a grant that’s “too big.” Both the funding amount and the scope of the project should be big enough to support the organization’s progress toward its strategic goals--- without changing the organization’s course. A grant that is too big can also be one with funder requirements that are simply unattainable.

The funding request should also be “spendable” within the project period. Multi-year projects that don’t spend their funds in a timely manner (for example, a one- year budget amount within a one-year period) may find the second year’s allocation reduced by the amount left unspent during the first year. This can lead a funder to more closely scrutinize progress toward implementation and the organization’s fiscal management.

“On the flip side”, it’s unproductive to go after a grant that’s “too small” --- one that isn’t big enough to effect change, address the need--- or be worth the time and effort required to develop, submit, implement, and evaluate the project.

Q.

Aren’t grants designed to put something into place that isn’t in place currently? That doesn’t seem to align with the fact that most grants these days also require a sustainability plan or cost share. Why is that?

A.

You’re right--- in today’s grants world most funders require a sustainability plan or some form of cost sharing or matching. Most federally allocated grants are designed to provide for the start up costs associated with implementing a new program--- professional development, personnel costs associated with developing and writing associated materials, and non-consumable materials that can last for a number of years. Once programs are established, these costs should no longer be required--- staff have received necessary training to continue on their own, materials have been developed or purchased, and processes have been established. These start up costs are one-time costs, and the organization is expected to sustain the program once external funding ends.

A sustainability plan is also merely good practice. Why dedicate time, human resources and energy into developing a program that meets a critical organizational need--- only to lose it when grant funding ends?

Q.

We’re applying for a grant and are being asked for details about how it will be administered….who will lead it, what their qualifications are… and for a very specific timeline for when activities will occur. We might not even get the grant. Why waste time on those details now?

A.

It’s to your advantage to have a well thought-out, detailed management plan, for three main reasons: 1) Your application will be much more favorably scored by reviewers. Such a plan reflects an organization that will use the funds wisely, and have processes in place to assure its success. 2) During the actual process of developing a management plan, staff may discover a way to achieve part of the project’s activities, even if funds aren’t awarded. 3) If funds are awarded, in most cases the organization is expected to “hit the ground running.” Such detailed preparation often establishes a clear “roadmap” to follow which leads to successful program implementation.

Q.

Grant funds are “found money.” Grants provide extra resources that help our organization meet critical needs through innovative programming. Even so, we’ve been told not to apply for every grant we’re eligible for. Why not?

A.

 Not all funders are the same. Some funders tie requirements to their grants that do not serve the organization, such as those in which the organization’s proposed activities or evaluation components will be subject to change upon funding. Some funders require all grant related hiring be placed under the direct control of the funder, and not the organization. The funder’s hiring practices may not be in alignment with the organization’s legal requirements or values. Other funders may be at odds with the organization’s mission. For example: it would not be beneficial to a community alcohol and substance abuse treatment program to seek funding from a corporate foundation for liquor distributors.