1. Grants Development PBS 136 – Grantsmanship November 17, 2008 Chapter 8 – Organizational Information and Conclusion

2. Today’s Agenda Review Chapter 7: 6:00 – 6:15 Go over Chapter 8: 6:15–8:00 Lab: 8:00 – 9:00

3. Future Presenters December 8 th : Michelle Jones - Associate Director, Office of Community Capacity Building, Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. December 15 th : Jeffrey Mansour - Senior Program Officer, The Harvest Foundation.

4. Organizational Information & Conclusions: O.I. 1st sell the project then sell the organization. What to discuss (in 2 pages or less): –Date founded. –Mission and how project fits the mission. –Organizational structure. –Programs offered. –Staff and their expertise. –Board (#, how recruited, participation). –Volunteers. –Audience served. –Agency expertise

5. Organizational Information & Conclusions: O.I. Clearly establishes who is applying for funds. Briefly addresses the rationale for the founding of the organization. Describes applicant agency's purposes and long-range goals. Describes applicant's current programs and activities.

6. Organizational Information & Conclusions: O.I. Describes applicant's clients or constituents. Provides evidence of the applicant's accomplishments. Offers statistical support of accomplishments. Offers quotes/endorsements in support of accomplishments.

7. Organizational Information & Conclusions: O.I. Supports qualifications in area of activity in which funds are sought (e.g. research, training). Describes qualifications of key staff members. Provides other evidence of administrative competence. Leads logically to the problem statement.

8. Organizational Information & Conclusions: O.I. Is as brief as possible. Is interesting.

9. Organizational Information & Conclusions: Appendix Contains: –Board members with affiliations. –Annual budget (2-3 years). –501(C)3 determination letter. –Audited financial statements. –IRS 990. –Annual report. –Certificate of/in Good Standing. –Staff resumes. –Brochures/supporting materials.

10. Organizational Information & Conclusions: Appendix Appendix info: –Support letters. –Support materials: newsletters, brochures, etc. –Special project budget (if applicable). –List of clients served (if appropriate). –List of other current funding sources. –Biographies of key personnel (only if requested). –Articles/endorsements (no more than two). –Diagrams for equipment or building requests. –Organization's by-laws.

11. Organizational Information & Conclusions: Conclusion 1-2 paragraphs. NEVER introduce new concepts. Final appeal. Thank you. Can be somewhat emotive. Tightly sums up project. Reiterates funding need and why your organization. Make “look forward” statements.

12. Organizational Information & Conclusions: Conclusions In summary, a proposal should reflect planning, research and vision. The importance of research cannot be overemphasized, both in terms of the funders solicited and the types of funds requested. The appropriate format should be used, and the required attachments should be included. The most successful proposals are those which clearly and concisely state the community's and organization's needs and are targeted to donors which fund that field, a reflection of careful planning and research.

13. Organizational Information & Conclusions: Conclusions In writing and/or evaluating a proposal, the following conclusions were drawn from a University of Pennsylvania study. A study team investigated the criteria foundations and government agencies consider most important when reviewing proposals for community-based projects. They concluded that there are five factors all funders consider "highly important": –Project purpose. –Feasibility. –Community need for the project. –Applicant accountability. –Competence.

14. Organizational Information & Conclusions: Conclusions Other factors also considered “somewhat important” include: –Project logic. –Probable impact. –Language. –Money needed. –Community support.

15. Organizational Information & Conclusions: Conclusions Although there is some disagreement about the factors which are considered unimportant, funders generally agreed that the “least important” factors in assessing a proposal are: –Working relationships. –Advocates. –Minority status. –Social acceptability. –Prior funding. –Influence of acquaintances.

16. Web Resources http://www.mcf.org/mcf/grant/writin g.htmhttp://www.mcf.org/mcf/grant/writin g.htm http://www.writingcenter.emory.edu /grant.htmlhttp://www.writingcenter.emory.edu /grant.html http://www.blackbaud.com/files/New sletters/FundraisingWell/2006/Fundr aisingWellAugust2006.htmhttp://www.blackbaud.com/files/New sletters/FundraisingWell/2006/Fundr aisingWellAugust2006.htm http://www.hotwinds.com/Grant_Pro p.htmlhttp://www.hotwinds.com/Grant_Pro p.html