Communications Blog

Okay, so we are puzzled about something and need to level with you and ask for your feedback.

It seems that, despite our best efforts to communicate that it's not necessary, grant applicants are afraid that if they don't meet with us before submitting a proposal, they will be at a disadvantage. Folks tell us they feel they need to establish and nurture a relationship with a program officer. They report they believe they need to cultivate a program officer, who will then shepherd their proposals through the grants application process.

We'd like you to know that just isn't so. And we're worried that nonprofit organizations are spending time trying to do something they don't need to do. We're worried that they are worrying about things they don't need to worry about.

Here's the truth: Program officers at the Meyer Memorial Trust do not provide special access to any organization. We all work hard to consider each proposal equally. Organizations are not assigned a program officer at MMT. All proposals are read by all program officers, and we discuss them at first review. Although each proposal is assigned a program officer, we work as a team in identifying important issues to investigate during further study, and all findings are discussed in a peer review meeting with input from all other program officers and our executive director. You might be interested to know that program officers are now rarely assigned subsequent proposals from organizations they were assigned to in the past so we avoid "special" relationships or even the appearance of "special" access.

We don't want to appear rude or inaccessible, but we want you to know you don't need to present yourselves in our office to get on our radar. We give as much consideration to proposals from groups we don't know as we give to organizations we already know.

The truth is, given our workload and staffing levels, we simply aren't able to routinely meet individually with all nonprofit organizations. And when we meet with one group, we worry that makes other groups feel left out if we don't meet with them as well. We have spent a lot of time and energy trying to provide a complete view inside our grantmaking process on our website. We actually include on our website the list of criteria we consider when we review grant proposals. In addition, we have compiled Frequently Asked Questions and archived Less Frequently Asked Questions. We provide you with the opportunity to submit questions online.

We respond to specific inquiries by email and over the phone. Often, questions can be resolved quickly and easily that way. Sometimes there are particular circumstances where it's mutually beneficial to meet to discuss a specific problem or dilemma. In that case, we are happy to meet. For example, if an organization is in the middle of a crisis or major transition, it might be helpful to meet to discuss what's going on. Sometimes it's useful to meet when a proposal addresses an issue no one has heard about. But we want you to know there are no "obligatory" meetings.

And don't forget, every Responsive Grant proposal that passes the first review stage at MMT gets a site visit, where organizations have as much time as they need to tell and show us anything and everything they want us to know about who they are and what they do.

We hope this clarifies our program staff's role and the challenges we face in dealing in a timely manner with the large number of grant inquiries we receive. We think we hold ourselves to a high standard when it comes to being accessible and sensitive to needs of nonprofit organizations, and we hope we are effectively communicating that value. Of course, we worry that expressing our dilemma in public will seem insenstive or even rude. We hope not, but if it does, we want you to let us know...

In addition, maybe you can shed some light on what we may not understand about how nonprofits see this issue? We invite your comments...

Comments

Posted by: Pat Stryker | November 22, 2005 08:53 AM

I beleive you and will rely on putting together the best initial proposal possible. Most of the trainings I have attended for fundraisers do emphasize getting to know, and be known by, the grantor's staff. So, I think many of us are trying to do that.

Posted by: Tom Brady | November 22, 2005 09:14 AM

What I expect is consistency. I sometimes feel that the bigger well established Portland agencies may have advantages because they are a better known quantity and because of existing successful relationships.

If there are pre-grant meetings for some, they should be available to everyone. You could also have some internal guidelines for determining the value of a meeting, but this will probably be figued out by agencies and you'll be in the same boat as everyone will position for a meeting.

Flexibility is a wonderful thing and I hate to say toss it. In tight times though, people may look at every detail of a decision to find some inconsistency in treatment, and you have to prevent that inconsistency from occuring.

Thanks for asking!

Tom Brady

Posted by: Gillian | November 22, 2005 09:15 AM

No I don't agree, but a large number of grant seekers do just that. If one reads guidelines clearly and responds appropriately, a grant should be able to stand alone and have enough merit to be considered. Although some times things do get passed over. Gillian

Posted by: Brian Cole | November 22, 2005 09:19 AM

While I have found that having a grant proposal with high merit is essential, I also find that grant making, like other endeavors, is a very human process where trust and emotion are also essential components of the process. Such trust gets built with such contact.

Better understanding your process will likely build efficiency for both MMT and the grant seeker.

Posted by: William Lay | November 22, 2005 09:21 AM

Our program has applied for a grant from the Trust many times over the last 12 years and have been consistantly turned down. We have met with a Program Officer at times and others we have just submitted the grant without the meeting. I have not seen any difference. I understand that sometimes a grant is turned down because it does not fit the board's vision at the time but if there could be some feedback if there had been some other issue that caused it to be turned down it might be helpful to future applications.

Posted by: Sue Metzler | November 22, 2005 09:29 AM

I've been a communications professional first in the computer industry for many years and then as a development director also for many years. Though you would like to believe that a well-conceived and presented "product" is all you need to make a "sale" - in almost every other experience a trusting relationship has never hurt and has often helped. How could it be otherwise? We are humans.

Though it is a noble goal in your case, I'm not sure if it is possible to give the same treatment to someone you don't know as you do to someone you know, like and who has performed well for you in the past. You've got a tough job to communicate otherwise especially if you interacting with new directors on each project. You might try embracing the realtionships and making them strong enough to endure a "no" answer and to be confident enough to believe that no extra "smoozing" is necessary or will change the outcome.

Posted by: Marvin Kuperstein | November 22, 2005 09:30 AM

Actually we're about to submit a proposal to MMT. I believe it's become an assumption in dealing with most foundations. By that I mean that agencies assume they have to make a connection either through a board or staff member of a foundation to have a real shot of getting a proposal approved. I do think that there's a misunderstanding of what "shepharding' means or can mean. Shepharding does not include a guarantee for approval or that the "shephard" will advocate approval of the proposal over other proposals. It can include advice about the proposal both it's strengths and weaknesses by requesting some initial feedback from the shephard before the proposal is submitteed. As proposals are reviewed the shephard can speak positively about the proposal, however he or she will do so for other proposals as well.

I hope this is helpful and doesn't sound too convoluted!

Posted by: Natalie | November 22, 2005 09:38 AM

Dear MMT,

Thanks for bringing up this topic. I too have been to those development trainings in which they emphasize "getting to know" foundation staff so that (all other things being equal), they will remember you and more favorably consider you. And if you think the "competition" is setting up meetings, you feel obliged to do so as well.

Having been awarded both small grants from the Trust, and now a General grant, I can see both sides. For the small grants we received, we never had a site visit concerning a proposal we had under consideration, nor chose to ask for one.

Maybe you can clearly state, for those applying for small grants, that the Trust doesn't desire meetings unless they are initiated by the Trust, for the purpose of clarifying a point of a current proposal. Since small grant proposals may be more numerous, that might eliminate a lot of people who feel like they are not doing their development job unless they ask you for a meeting.

I felt that having a site meeting for the larger Community grant process is more appropriate, and as well, it only comes after a few stages of review, so less time demands for these.

Thanks!

Posted by: Cora Davidson | November 22, 2005 09:39 AM

I have attended several workshops on grant writing and foundation funding, and ALL presenters have encouraged the attendees to form personal relationships with program officers, board members and directors of the foundations they solicit. I couldn't ever get a straight answer as to why this strategy was being suggested or how to best implement it, in light that everyone at these workshops were going to be contacting several of the same foundation employees. As more nonprofits and causes spring up every day, it gets harder to attract the attention of donors or stand-out from the crowd and receive some of those limited resources.

Posted by: Reg Bradley | November 22, 2005 09:41 AM

After 35 years of begging for money--- I will simply agree with Sue Metzler's comments--- and underline, there is no substitute for human interaction to create confidence and clarity. So much $$$ is wasted on programs that don't produce, the human exchange-- and ongoing relationship is a good investment practice

Posted by: Barbara Wade | November 22, 2005 09:42 AM

I'm new at this grant writing business and our organization does depend on grants for an important part of its annual budget. A large grant writing workshop I recently attended stressed the importance of establishing a working relationship with each grantor before applying....hundreds attending heard the same message. So it appears that in some cases this is a must, and in others like MMT, it's not. It would appear that each foundation must put out the word as to what it expects. My organization really can't afford to send me to foundation headquarters all over the state.

Posted by: Lindsey | November 22, 2005 09:56 AM

I looked over your FAQ and LFAQ and did not see a question in there that specifically asked "Can I set up a meeting with you?" or "How can I set up a meeting with you?" or something to that effect. I saw something in an answer under PRIs. Am I missing it somewhere else?

If not, a first step might be to include that specific question in all of your FAQs and and answer that MMT does not have the resources to meet with each request and that a personal meeting does not affect the outcome of rewarding a grant.

Maybe you could address some of the concerns you've heard here. Point out that there is not favortism; repeat that is a group process deciding which grants go forward; acknowledge that fundraising training does encourage applicants to "get to know" their program officers but again repeat that MMT simply doesn't have the resources to meet with everyone and that it has very little impact on the outcome of awarding a grant. Also, if you frame the answer so that it discourages people from asking for a meeting they probably will hesitate for fear that it could reflect poorly on them as an applicant and affect their grant application.

Maybe it's just basic communication messaging--consistent and repetitive. Perhaps consider putting the message in other appropriate places in FAQ/LFAQ to reinforce your message.

Just some general ideas. Hope you have great success!

By the way, I think your site is a really great resource for grant writers and students. Thanks!

Posted by: Angela Crowley-Koch | November 22, 2005 10:01 AM

Our program officer made it clear that the purpose of the site visit was so she could relate information back to the decision makers, and that she was not an advocate for our organization. I appreciated that distinction.

I think face to face meetings are very useful- I know my program forward and backward but MMT might have questions beyond what's in the proposal. It's helpful to be able to explain the finer details in person.

Posted by: Michael Roth | November 22, 2005 10:12 AM

Perhaps a reason that grant seekers seek a relationship with program officers is that books, class materials and guest speakers in fund raising and nonprofit management training repeatedly suggest that it is "people who give to people" and building a relationship with a grantor or program officer can be an important aspect of building support for a program or project.

Some grant seekers are very passionate about their mission and others are less confident in their writing skills.

Posted by: Alfie Linn-Ortiz | November 22, 2005 10:17 AM

I am a believer that it is best to meet with a representative from a foundation to where I am going to submit a grant if at all possible. Questions can be asked over the phone or via email, which I do on a regular basis. Still, the best is a person to person meeting. I don't do this with the expectation that it will increase my opportunity to receive a grant. It may, but my primary motivation is professionalism and thoroughness. I want to always put my best foot forward, as well as, give the foundation's themselves to present to me. I don't believe in chasing money. If your program or project complements the mission of a particular foundation, than you will usually get funded. My particular experience with the Meyer Memorial Trust has satisfied the aforementioned. I will continue to honor their preferences and respect that they do not have time to meet with us all.

Posted by: Allanya Guenther | November 22, 2005 10:47 AM

You will be happy to know that I have successfully secured grants from MMT for many years and have never met with a Program Officer to discuss a proposal or cultivate a relationship.

I have gotten to know Program Officers from time to time at public meetings and workshops, and always appreciate their participation. I have also called occasionally to ask questions.

I think MMT is perhaps suffering from a new generation of grantwriters who are eager to do it "by the book," and unfortunately, grant writing workshops often do emphasize building relationships with foundation staff.

What trainers should be emphasizing is to find out what the foundation''s policies are and how they make decisions and honor that.

Posted by: Marie Deatherage | November 22, 2005 10:53 AM

We do have a FAQ about this topic:

http://www.mmt.org/support_for_grantseekers/faqs/gpg/#0000103

Posted by: Sara Miller | November 22, 2005 11:34 AM

After reviewing the online materials, if folks are still wondering about a specific detail or how their project fits with the objectives, it is good to feel comfortable about contacting staff with any questions.

We have hosted MMT staff visits in our area to help local folks have a "face" to go with the organization and I do counsel grantseekers in my region not to be afraid to contact MMT.

I have not felt that a formal meeting with program staff is a requirement for success. An informal conversation, generally by phone, has often provided useful information.

Posted by: Tom Welsh | November 22, 2005 11:49 AM

This kind of information exchange is precisely what we need more of in this grantseeker/maker equation in order that our relationships become more transparent. Thanks for asking this question.

I agree with most others' comments here - from my very earliest training in sixteen years of grantseeking, to the most recent literature I have read, "getting to know a program officer (or some other foundation rep)" is cited as being important to a grantseeker's effectiveness. Is it any wonder then that those of us "in the trenches," when we report to our superiors, always include information about how many meetings we have had with program officers as a means of demonstrating our efficacy?

And, too, precisely because grantmaking and the deliberations surrounding it seemingly occur in mysterious chambers we are not privy to, we seek to obtain some sort of control, some kind of an "edge" - however chimerical - over a process we cannot otherwise influence. After all, it might just be that human connection that tips the scales in our favor in a close decision.

From the standpoint of the MMT, I can see your dilemma as well for the reasons posted in the original query. Hopefully through this and other exchanges, everyone's level of understanding can be enhanced.

Posted by: Susan Whitehouse | November 22, 2005 12:23 PM

We at Volunteers In Medicine Clinic in Eugene have enjoyed our relationship with the program officer. On a personal level, a face to face meeting has been helpful to me as I am new in my position as Executive Director and to the world of grant writing.

However, in appreciation of the demands we all face and knowing that we have the opportunity to discuss issues by phone, we support this as a time saver for all concerned. We might want to review how this is working in 6 months or a year.

Meyer Memorial Trust is an organization we value a great deal. You make a difference in the lives of many people through the agencies you support and we appreciate your straightforward approach to this issue.

Posted by: Adrianna Carr | November 22, 2005 12:45 PM

Thank you SOO much for addressing this issue. It is exactly what I needed to hear. It relieves a lot of pressure, I can tell you that.

Posted by: Tom Cope | November 22, 2005 02:22 PM

I appreciate the question and the opportunity to participate in this blog. MMT is unique in my eyes given that open dialogue with potential partners (applicants) is near the forefront of making decisions to better our communities and the Trust's constituencies. Although not a program officer, I have met and interacted with several over the past seven years. I can understand and empathize with any program officer’s dilemma related to workload and at the same time a fundraiser’s dilemma of having to get the funds. As a proposal writer, I would advocate that personal interaction would always influence decision-making in some way – either to one’s advantage or disadvantage. Trust is built through interaction and as a grant writer, I often hear and read that people give to people.

MMT statements related to pre-submission meetings like “it is not necessary�?, "We typically do not meet with... " “we simply aren't able to routinely meet individually with all nonprofit organizations�? implies that it is however okay, can happen, and might not hurt one’s chances for success with a given proposal. As also noted, “And when we meet with one group, we worry that makes other groups feel left out if we don't meet with them as well.�? Other group’s could very well feel left out and at less of an advantage how could they not when the perception is meetings and personal interactions are vital and helpful for partnerships and trust building?

Generally I would advocate for an either or approach to this to limit any potential perception of favoritism or advantage gained through meetings or one-on-one personal contact. I am wondering however if there might not be another approach like having 1 or 2 roving MMT grants specialists circulating about the state making presentations to groups on grant application processes, fundraising and what is and is not expected or essential. Although this would be an additional up-front cost to the Trust, an investment like this might actually streamline the review and other essential processes now done by often over worked program officers.

Posted by: Francis Van Ausdal | November 28, 2005 11:06 AM

I have colleagues who stress the importance of contacts. I have found this to be true with some foundations and not with others. We have received support from MMT for projects and when we are seeking that support I will apply and not seek individual contacts, as I have in the past. It is nice to know the rules up front. Otherwise, we are always wondering how much effort should be wasted pursuing a contact who would rather we just do it by the book.

Posted by: Larissa Golden Brown | December 8, 2005 06:15 PM

I'm so glad you wrote about this. I am one "grant writing" trainer who stresses that you do NOT necessarily need a meeting to get a grant. And every time I say this in a training, I have students challenge me on it.

In fact, I discourage clients and students from asking for meetings as a matter of course, because it doesn't respect everyone's time to have a meeting unless there is a good reason--something that cannot be accomplished by writing, or phoning with specific questions.

Of course, this applies to 90% of everyday grant proposals. Certainly there are instances where a proposal is especially complex (for example, one I just completed working on with you for The Library Foundation). But in those cases it's been my experience that MMT asks for a meeting, and all we need to do is wait for you to ask.

However, you should also realize you are unusual among funders, because you follow up so thoroughly and ask so many good questions. I've seen MANY over the past couple of years especially, turn down a proposal without asking any questions. The applicant only learns later that a simple misunderstanding of a single fact lead to the turn-down, which might have been avoided with a meeting. But in writing a proposal, it's hard to anticipate every question that a funder may have. We grant writers try...

Commenting on this Blog entry is closed.