Grant Proposal Makeover

So this book was fairly useless for where I am currently in the process of writing my paper. It contains a lot of specific information and examples of how to refine grant applications. But it doesn't really talk at all about the level above that--issues with the organization or the system itself. So I guess I'll just write off the hour and a half I spent reading this book as good life experience. And if I end up doing some kind of appendix, I know where to go for mock grant applications. *sigh*

Up next: Secrets of Successful Fundraising by Carol Weisman. It seems to involve cartoons...

Reliable Fundraising in Unreliable Times by Kim Klein

I thought this might be a good book to get right at the heart of some of the issues I'm examining in my paper--both difficulties and coping strategies in trying financial environments.
Unfortunately, Klein talks a lot about private funding sources (foundations, corporations, and individuals) as opposed to public (government grants) or income from interest or services. I know from ALA's 2009 financial statements available online as a matter of public record that ALA received all but $1200 of its income in 2009 from grants. I don't know if that has changed, or if there is a particular rationale behind that, but I don't want to write a bunch of things in my paper about private funding sources if ALA has absolutely no interest in hearing about it. I plan to write only a page or so about the effects of a recession on private giving and some complicating factors. Klein lists the following:
Competition: Basically, there are a heck of a lot of CBOs out there. "For your organization to be chosen to receive a donation, you need to have a very clear and compelling message and current examples of your work" (125).
Collaboration: In contrast to what one might expect, collaboration with like-minded organizations is a positive sign for your potential donors.
Communication: You have to "get information out about your organization" somehow--be it through the Internet, fliers, mailings, etc (125).
...
Public confidence: In this usage, Klein means "a very high degree of transparency" with donors' money (126).
Changing demographics: "The racial makeup of the entire organization...should reflect the racial composition of its community" (126).
....

Then, to drive a nail in her already-slightly-less-than-incredibly-useful-coffin,  Klein had to go and reference "the University of Indiana." Which does not exist. There's Indiana University and the University of Indianapolis. Sensitive subject. :-)
She does bring up an interesting point about taxes (pp. 11-14). She claims the failure of the US public to understand the role of taxes in providing non-profit funding puts community-based organizations and non-profits at the mercy of each succeeding administration, as each is confronted with pressure from constituents to lower (or at the very least not raise) taxes despite a critical lack of revenues. This is part of Klein's argument about the importance of civic/government engagement for non-profits to function efficiently. Thus, in her view, part of enabling a non-profit or C-B org. to flourish in less-than-ideal conditions is to address the systemic factors leading to economic downturn.
Klein also advocates the return to an organization's case statement in the event of internal or external crisis. She recommends revisiting it annually at the very least and making sure critical staff know the mission statement and goals by heart.
She also makes a distinction between "message" and "mission," saying "Mission is forever, but message is more urgent and immediate" (175). The mission stays the same, but the message is tailored to be compelling in the face current reality.

Next book up: Grant Proposal Makeover by Cheryl A. Clark and Susan P.  Fox

Outline for Le Papier

As discussed in last week's post, my semester paper will be divided broadly into two sections: 1) Economic hardships faced by non-profit and community-based organizations (especially in the last decade) and 2) Best practices/responses to those difficulties.
I. Economic hardships
1. Decreased availability of federal/state government funds
2. Increased competition for those funds
3. Decreased availability of private/foundation funds
4. Loss of value of investments
5. Increasing demand for services
6. More to come as I continue researching

II. Best practices in response to difficulties from part I
1. Overcoming problems at the organization's level
a. "wishful thinking" and money "taboo"
b. Planning for the future
c. More to come as I continue researching
2. Overcoming problems at the systemic level
a. Engaging actively in government
b. More to come as I continue researching

The text I am currently working though is Reliable Fundraising in Unreliable Times, a 2009 book by Kim Klein. As I finish I will post my notes.

Timeline for the Rest of the Semester

There is officially less than a month left in the semester. With that in mind, and now that I've begun to "tickle the surface" of fundraising and grant-writing issues in non-profits, here is my proposed timeline for the next month (key dates).
Week of 4/7: Research and writing (about 10 pages)
Week of 4/14: Research and writing (about 10 pages)
4/21: Rough draft sent to professor for reading and follow-up discussion
Week of 4/21: Revision and editing
Week of 4/28: Revision and editing
May 5: Turn in

This timeline is reflective of the fact that I have started gathering sources and data, and have been made to see how little I know about this issue. I have been working on an outline as I've completed my preliminary research, and I will post that tonight. 

Explore UT Mega-Post Part 4

So with a few weeks passed since the event, I feel like I can finally analyze what lessons Explore UT taught us without falling victim to my crazy emotional responses.
Explore UT was the first time I was part of organizing something more labor-intensive than a dinner party. I think. Nothing else springs to mind, anyway.  Dinner parties are fairly straight-forward. You decide to have a party, you decide when, you decide on the guest list, you decide what food/drink to provide your guests (and how much to spend on them). You are in control. And still, it can be frustrating. Some people who said they were coming are no-shows. Uninvited guests show up. Food burns. Someone ends up being allergic to the pine nuts your great-aunt Angie's chip dip. But unless you're hosting a dinner party for the Joint Chiefs of Staff or your future in-laws (whom you've never met), these obstacles are but minor annoyances, unlikely to change your friends' opinions of you or whatever you may represent. Furthermore, you are firmly in your own domain. Everything is "known"--you are familiar with your house, your kitchen, your friends...
The planning of Explore UT was quite different. We had to contend with a lot of unknowns. We had only a passing acquaintance with ALA staff, besides Keepin' it Real leaders and our professor.  We had no familiarity with the event or its organizers. We didn't know the kids that well, either; what they liked, if they'd even come. We didn't know how much money we had to spend, or, more accurately, we didn't have any to start out with. We didn't have control over timing (a few more months to plan would've been nice) :-). On some level, we didn't know if we were going to be able to pull this off.
We had no choice but to fumble through things as best we could. Of course, we were able to gain information to fill some of the gaps. We trolled the Explore UT website extensively. We polled the kids about which events throughout the day were most interesting to them. We threw together a fundraiser and submitted a budget proposal to the Dean's Office.
Ultimately, I think we did the best we could with the information and time available to us. In the process, we learned some valuable lessons for next time--if there is a next time.
Lesson 1. Communication is key. This is a fairly obvious concept. What's not obvious is that every person we interacted with had their own communication system and preferences. The person in charge of Explore UT parking arrangements was reachable only through a third party by phone, but responded reasonably promptly by e-mail. Some people we contacted for donations simply never returned calls or e-mails. We suspected the van rental place screened our calls as we sought to get a special discount on van rental (no manager is out of the office that much).
Lesson 2. Sometimes the best info you've got isn't good enough. Despite our constant monitoring of the Explore UT website, and perusal of the booklet provided the day of the event, it escaped our notice that some events required getting tickets ahead of time due to their popularity. Even in hindsight, I really don't know how we were supposed to know that. Having encountered this phenomenon once, I ventured ahead of the group later in the day to ensure that we'd be able to attend the chemistry demonstration as planned. I spoke to a young man who was running the demo, and he assured me that no tickets were needed and if we arrived at the classroom 15 minutes before the start time, we'd have no problem getting seats. That, of course, turned out not to be the case. I don't blame that young man personally. It's just that we got information from the best source we could think of and it turned out to be bad info.
Lesson 3. Communication is key, part 2. It's nigh on impossible but vital to keep everyone involved on our end on the same page. This, I felt, turned out to be the major weakness of our efforts. The six of us communicated relatively effectively through hours-long class sessions and hundreds of e-mails. Miscommunications were relatively minor and remedied before they became disastrous. Communications with ALA staff were a different story. We might ask for a form to be e-mailed to us in person during Keepin' it Real on Thursday, and send follow-up requests by e-mail, text message, and e-mail, and finally get the form weeks later. We'd be asked questions in person that clearly indicated that staff had not been reading our e-mail and text updates. We later found out one staff member had given us their "brush-off" e-mail address, which the person never checks. Conflicting information came at us from every corner. We ended up relying most heavily on the staff that we could actually communicate with, which resulted in skewed information, but we didn't really have much of a choice.
Of course, we could have done better. We could have been more "in your face" during the "meat" of the planning, rather than having one face-to-face meeting at the very beginning and one face-to-face meeting at the end. On the other hand, we could barely get in touch with staff to arrange those meetings, so maybe having more wouldn't have been feasible.
Next: Explore UT Mega-Post Part 5: the Conclusion. Phew.