What We Look For (WWLF)

Responsive Grants

WWLF in Responsive Grants Proposals

PLEASE NOTE: In additon to the General Guidelines below, we are including some specific information about MMT's funding approach/program priorities April 2012 - March 2013.

Projects – Awards generally up to $300,000 for large-scale, multi-year projects (two to three years) as appropriate for request, and generally with declining annual amounts.
Core Support – Awards generally up to $100,000 over two years, with amounts right-sized to the organization's reach and operating budget. Up to $150,000 may be considered for larger organizations presenting especially compelling cases. Requests from prior core support grantees for subsequent core support will be considered.
Large Capital Projects – Awards generally will be in the range of $300,000 to $400,000; up to $500,000 will be considered for critical projects in which a more sizable award would be particularly meaningful.

Responsive Grants are often substantial and multi-year; therefore, proposals should be strategic and reflect an organization's top priority at the time. Proposals should reflect the organization's mission and capabilities, have clear outcomes, several different funding sources, and a credible plan for sustainability.

MMT is known for extensive due diligence performed during the grant review process. Organizations invited to submit full proposals can expect a site visit and additional questions (provided in advance) by a program officer. Although rigorous, organizations often find this process helpful, whether or not their proposals are ultimately approved. Applicants may find it helpful to review The Due Diligence Guide published by Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO).

A good proposal starts with a good idea that makes sense in relation to the mission of the organization. It can be for a specific scope of work or to help advance the organization's capacity to do its ongoing work. A good proposal is the result of solid planning by both staff and board members that identifies work that furthers the mission, reviews alternatives, addresses details, and realistically maps out the project's future. A good proposal has a carefully detailed, realistic budget and a thoughtful sustainability plan, if appropriate.

Organization, Community Context, and Planning

How important is this organization to its constituency and its community? What is the evidence of community support?
Do the board and staff reflect the community? Does the board or staff include representatives of those served?
What role does the organization play in the community? What do others say about it?
What are its past accomplishments and current services? Does it use generally accepted "best practices?" If not, why not?
Has the organization received favorable licensing or accreditation reviews (if applicable)?
Is there a strong board that provides oversight, in-kind support and financial resources? Do board members raise funds for the organization?
At what point is the organization in its latest strategic plan? How does the proposed project relate to the plan?

Finances and Administration

Does the board receive and review accurate financial statements in a timely manner?
Does the organization receive an outside annual compilation, review or audit? If audited, is it an unqualified opinion?
What are the trends in its earned and contributed income and expenses?
Has it run surpluses or deficits? If there is a deficit, what caused it, how is it financed and is there a plan to eliminate it?
Does the organization have cash reserves? If so, what are they for and how are they managed?
What are the assets and liabilities of the organization? If there is an endowment, how is it managed? If there is debt, is it being repaid? Is there a line of credit? For what purpose?
Is there a contingent liability such as an outstanding lawsuit?
Are there appropriate personnel policies and practices? What is the turnover rate?

Need and Opportunity

What are the issues driving the proposal? Are they clearly defined and expressed both qualitatively and quantitatively?
What are the organization's qualifications to address them?

Proposed Project, Budget, and Outcomes

Is the project appropriate to the organization's mission, capacity, and resources?
Where does the project rank among the organization's priorities?
What is the timeframe needed to accomplish its goals?
Is there a clear and reasonable plan for the project? Who designed it? Who had input?
Are the board and the staff in agreement on the need, strategy, roles, and responsibilities?
Is the budget clear and detailed enough? Is there any revenue for the project in hand (from the organization's own resources, contributions from the board or local sources, other gifts and grants?)
What is the likelihood the organization can raise the remaining resources necessary to complete the project?
How will this project be sustained after the end of the grant period?
What will be different because of this project? How will outcomes be measured?

For additional information about what we look for in specific types of proposals, read the material in the sections below.

View this section as a stand-alone page

WWLF in Capacity Building Proposals

Definition

MMT realizes that one of the most powerful ways to leverage its resources is through making investments that strengthen nonprofit organizations. MMT intends to continue to focus attention in this important area of grantmaking. Capacity building grants are intended to help organizations strengthen boards, realize new efficiencies, increase contributed or earned income or otherwise build capacity to advance their missions. Grants may fund such things as enhancing fundraising or administrative staffing, technology (other than routine upgrades), board development and training, or earned income ventures. Successful capacity building proposals are based on careful strategic planning, multiyear income and expense forecasts, and board and staff commitment to the projects.

Stage of Organizational Development

Why is increasing the capacity of your organization important?
How is the need to do so documented? What will the organization do with increased resources?
Is this a realistic next step for the organization? Is the project appropriately scaled to the problem/opportunity?
What is the external context (barriers, timeliness, positive community supports, etc.) for this effort?

Leadership

Is the volunteer and paid leadership stable? Do they have a realistic view of the organization's strengths and weaknesses?
Does the leadership agree that this project is among the organization's highest priorities?
Is there a champion who will see this project through challenges that may arise?
What new roles, if any, will the leadership need to assume?
Are they aware of and ready for the change?

Planning

Has there been strategic planning to get the organization to this step?
Was input solicited from external sources including those who would be served, and internal sources including those who would implement the plan?
Were the pros and cons of alternatives discussed?
Is there a detailed plan of action with specific benchmarks to determine progress and inform corrective action?
If this project is to increase fundraising capacity, what are the projected sources for increased revenue?
Is this is an earned income project, is there a business plan?

Sustainability

How will the new level of capacity be sustained after the grant period?
Does the sustainability plan appear reasonable in light of the internal and external environment?
What is the role of an MMT grant in this project?

View this section as a stand-alone page

WWLF in Core Operating Support Proposals

Core Support (also known as general operating support) can be defined as investing in an organization's mission and organizational impact, that is, providing funding to support an organization's overall work rather than designating funding for a specific project. MMT has a history of providing core support and anticipates continuing to award this type of funding during these challenging times. Over the next year, organizations displaying the following characteristics will likely be best positioned to receive MMT core support.

The organization is:

Well-established in its community
Plays key roles in and provides important services for its community
Has a demonstrated history of well-managed organizational development (e.g. board development, strategic planning, strong fiscal management)
Has established clear and reasonable organizational goals for the coming year
Has been thoughtful in its approach to the economic downturn
Is requesting support of an amount and for a duration that aligns with MMT's FY11 grantmaking approach (for example, in the Responsive Grant program, generally a total of $50,000 - $150,000 over one to two years; more sizable requests may be considered in special circumstances)

We should also note that we anticipate receiving many more requests for core support through these programs than we can fund, and that we will continue to consider both core support and specific projects.

View this section as a stand-alone page

WWLF in Capital Proposals

Capital funds may be used toward the purchase of buildings, architect and engineering fees, new construction, renovation, expansion, repair, furnishings, equipment, and fundraising expenses. While MMT capital grants are often approved during an organization's capital campaign, grant funds are usually not released until all remaining funds and resources needed for the project are in-hand or committed, thus some organizations use their MMT capital grants as challenge grants. MMT grants generally comprise no more than 10-20% of the project budget. They may comprise a larger share of very small projects by organizations with limited resources, or a much smaller share of very large projects undertaken by large institutions.

Capital requests greater than $200,000 are considered twice annually. Inquiries for such requests should be submitted by May for a final decision in November or by November for a final decision in May. Capital requests for $200,000 or less are considered every month except January, April and August. Inquiries should be submitted at least six months in advance.

Capital Grant Checklist

A clear, compelling need for the project
Evidence that your community as well as your constituency values and supports the project
Site control (ownership of the property, option to purchase, long-term lease, etc.)
A credible project budget based on preliminary architectural drawings with allowances for contingencies and cost escalation
A project timeline
At least 70% of the resources needed (cash and in-kind) have been raised or pledged, preferably from a number of sources
A viable plan to raise the remaining project funds
A strong project team, including an architect with relevant experience, a development consultant or outside developer if needed, and a reasonably experienced board or staff member with lead responsibility to manage the project
A plan to cover the on-going operating cost of the facility (sustainability plan)
The role of an MMT grant in bringing this project to fruition

Meyer Memorial Trust encourages the use of 'green' or sustainable building practices and requests that all applicants for capital projects include information in their proposals about how their project includes those practices, especially how energy saving features are expected to reduce operating costs. There are a number of helpful 'green building' resources on the web. For example, the U.S. Green Building Council website includes a lot of useful information

If an exception to any of these guidelines is requested, include a clear explanation of why in the Project Summary section of your Initial Inquiry

View this section as a stand-alone page

WWLF in Project-Based Proposals

These points are considered in addition to What We Look for in Responsive Grant proposals:

What is the evidence, both within the organization and external to it, that a new or expanded project is needed?
- E.g., in the case of expansion, is there a waiting list for the existing program?
- Is there externally collected data that shows a service gap?
- Does it duplicate other services in the community? If so, what is the justification for this project?
Is the project a logical outgrowth of the organization's present activities and position?
What is the strategy behind the project? Are there external findings that the proposed project approach is valid, supported by research, supported by the community, etc?
How is the proposed project distinct from the organization's general operations? What process led to the adoption of the project by the organization?
How does the project further the organization's mission?
How is success of the project defined? How will it be determined? How will the project's impact or outcomes be measured?
How will the project be sustained after a grant period?

View this section as a stand-alone page

WWLF in Technology Proposals

Meyer Memorial Trust receives many requests in its grants programs from nonprofit organizations for technology upgrades. We are including this information on our website to help organizations understand how these proposals are generally viewed at MMT.

MMT recognizes that technology can be a very useful tool that helps nonprofit organizations do their work more effectively and efficiently and views technology as part of the cost of doing business.

In many cases, MMT feels we can be most strategic in the technology arena by helping increase the capacity of intermediary organizations that assist nonprofits with technology planning and ongoing support, rather than funding individual projects at individual nonprofits. MMT has funded several of these intermediary organizations, including Netcorps, NPower Oregon, Groundwire (formerly OneNW) and Free Geek.

MMT does not encourage requests from individual nonprofit groups to fund the next iteration of hardware and software and/or system upgrades as we expect those would be accounted for as part of an organization's cost of doing business. Many technology requests MMT has funded were for technology expenses that were part of projects or programs that require technology rather than stand-alone requests for hardware and software.

We expect any proposal from a nonprofit seeking support for any technology purchases be based on a holistic technology assessment from one or more unbiased sources (so the recommendations are not written by a vendor who will profit from them). Proposals that are informed by resources like NTEN are usually stronger than those that aren't.

MMT expects that nonprofit organizations seeking its assistance with any technology purchases will take advantage of all opportunities to make the cost of technology affordable and sustainable within the organization's operating budget, including seriously considering the use of Open Source Software.

View this section as a stand-alone page

Program-Related Investments

WWLF in Program-Related Investments

PLEASE NOTE: In addition to the guidelines below, we are including some specific information about our funding priorities/program approach for April 2012 - March 2013:

Loans will generally be up to seven years, at an interest rate of 2.5% and secured where feasible and appropriate based on risk assessment. With compelling, large PRI requests, we may consider making investments from our corpus and not apply to payout.

We follow many of the criteria used in MMT's Responsive Grant program described above. In addition, we spend considerable time reviewing:

The PRI's alignment with the organization's overall strategic or business plan
The organization's financial strength
If there is board and staff with proven skills in managing debt and cash
The suitability of a PRI as a financing tool for the project
The PRI's ability to leverage other sources of capital
Multiyear income and expense projections indicating that the PRI can be repaid
Sources of collateral and secondary sources of repayment

In determining an organization's financial strength, we consider:

Does the organization have a record of reasonable creditworthiness as indicated by its credit history? (A limited credit history does not necessarily indicate a lack of creditworthiness.)
Has the organization shown responsible financial management by budgeting realistically, being able to meet cash flow needs, and keeping timely and accurate financial records?
Does the organization's financial statements indicate:
- An operating history of ending the year with a surplus before depreciation
- A current balance sheet that indicates the organization is current on accounts payable
- Adequate working capital and ability to cover existing long-term debt

To determine board and staff skills for managing debt and cash flow, we:

Consider whether the PRI applicant produces timely and fully reliable financial statements that are verified by an annual audit or review
Inquire about the length of time of service of board members and the board's oversight of an agency's finances
Inquire about the CEO's and CFO's experience in the same field
Research the qualifications of the board and key staff members to manage a project of the type and size proposed

View this section as a stand-alone page

Grassroots Grants

WWLF in Grassroots Grants Proposals

The Grassroots Grants program is designed to give smaller organizations greater access to Meyer Memorial Trust funds than they might have in the Responsive Grants program. This program allows MMT to assist a significant number of worthy organizations in a wide array of projects that are of special importance to applicants and their communties.

Grants range from $1,000 to $40,000, with grant periods from one to two years. If these activities will be ongoing, we prefer not to be the only source of funding for the project during the grant period.

In general, Grassroots Grants applicants should study What We Look for in Responsive Grants above for general guidelines and other more specific sections, depending on the type of GG project (project-based, core operating support, capacity building, capital, etc.)

Two kinds of proposals – Technical Assistance and Start-up Organizations – are nearly always considered through the Grassroots Grants programs, so What We Look For in those applications is outlined below.

For additional information about Grassroots Grants, contact Sally Yee.

View this section as a stand-alone page

WWLF in Technical Assistance Proposals

At this time, technical assistance proposals are considered through MMT's Grassroots Grants program.

Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance (TA) grants are short-term interventions that are conducted by an outside consultant who assists an organization with specific projects. They are intended to increase organizational effectiveness by helping organizations strengthen internal leadership, management and governance, and by developing strategies, systems, structures, and skills. Examples of TA grants would be to strengthen board or paid or volunteer staff leadership (fund development training), conduct organizational planning and assessment (strategic plans) or improve financial management and planning (business plans).

MMT's TA grants have been helpful for organizations experiencing significant transitions such as a major shift in funding sources, the departure of a founder, rapid growth or facilitation of collaborations across organizations and communities.

Strong applications will show organizational investment (staff and board engagement and some form of financial support) towards the project.

MMT does not encourage applications to address multiple areas simultaneously (to support development, financial management, and organizational assessment, for example).

Technology Grants
Technology requests are funded under the TA program when there is a clear plan for the organizational improvements that the technology will yield and for staff to develop new skills and processes along with the technology purchase. See What We Look For in Technology Proposals above.

Consultants
If your organization intends to hire a consultant, we will want to know that the consultant is qualified and has successfully provided similar services in the past to nonprofits with organizational similarities to your nonprofit. The consultant(s) must complete a “scope of work” document detailing project components, timelines, deliverables, and itemized costs before you submit your grant application to MMT. Look over this sample scope of work form to see an example (courtesty of the Ford Family Foundation).

Evaluation of TA Grants Outcomes
A final report of the grant requires you to evaluate the before and after characteristics of your organization at three levels of outcomes:

Grant outputs – were the immediate objectives of the grant met?
Organizational outcomes – did the engagement improve the functioning of your organization?
Mission impact – did the engagement allow your organization to more effectively serve its mission? For instance, in the development of a strategic plan, were the board and staff then able to implement the action plans and what difference did the plan have in terms of organizational functioning and performance?

View this section as a stand-alone page

WWLF in Startup Organization Proposals

We like to see some performance track record for organizations applying for a Responsive Grant. Many start-up organizations first apply to our Grassroots Grants program, and then after some time of producing favorable results, move on to Responsive Grants.

Key issues that MMT considers with start-up organizations:

Why are you starting a new nonprofit organization?
Is there community value in the establishment of this new organization? Does it have a niche, or, if it is duplicating services of other organizations, does the duplication add value to the community it serves? Could there be broad community support for this organization in the future?
Is the leadership strong enough to guide the organization through its developmental phase?
What knowledge, experience, and skills do board members and the founding leader bring to the organization? Is this sufficient to guide the organization through the practical tasks of creating nonprofit governance and management policies and systems? Is it sufficient to establish the subject work of the organization at a high level of quality?
Is there a realistic plan for the current and future work of the organization?
Are the goals and the plan of action realistic in relation to the early phase of organizational development? Are the basic management structures in place to support the work of the organization (e.g. appropriate personnel policies and procedures, etc.)? Are the external relationships and/or requirements in place for the organization to do its work appropriately (certifications, licenses etc.)?
Is there a realistic plan for financing and financial management of the organization?
Is the initial budget realistic, on both the expense and the revenue side? Are there adequate accounting procedures in place to track expenditures and revenues and to protect the organization against mismanagement? Are there a variety of sources of funds that the organization can begin to tap? Is the board prepared to actively seek funds from these sources?

View this section as a stand-alone page

Help Desk

Image Gallery

What We Look For (WWLF)

Responsive Grants

Program-Related Investments

Grassroots Grants