Stanford Social Innovation Review

Ms. Ni’s point is a good one; and the smaller the nonprofit applicant or the grant sought, the truer it is.  Large foundations making small grants can benefit from (a) fast-track procedures and (b) authorizing staff to approve grants up to a certain level.  Corporations offering employee-matching grants serve their employees like a community foundation serves donor-advisors: “if it’s an eligible recipient, we’ll cut the check.” We can make it simpler.

»» Posted by: Reed Morgan on April 12, 2007 03:32 PM

Glory hallelujah for the concept, Ms. Ni. The only problem I see is that there is a big difference between a proposal for general operating support and one for a project or special initiative.  The CGA’s I’ve encountered have been geared toward the former and are more than adequate to the task. In fact, for many of my clients who lack full-time development staff, these applications provide good guidance on how to define a need and structure a request.  On the other hand, trying to describe a project or initiative in the confines of a CGA is often like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.  I have seen few cases in which a CGA or online application form allows the flexibility (and often, space) needed to make a convincing argument.  This concept can work if the application questions are carefully thought out and written.  I especially appreciate ones that ask specifically why you think this funder would be interested in the project--something that often has to be articulated in order to make the connection to the foundation’s interests and the applicant’s intent.  A common grant application form is a great idea, and a common letter of inquiry form an even better one.  I encourage foundations and grantmaking associations to adopt them, but to also recognize the need to account for the specific attributes of an applicant organization and its project.

»» Posted by: Jan Marks on April 13, 2007 07:16 AM

Great point,
Also how about some common metrics? Every funder eventually has the same measurement objective.

»» Posted by: narendran ramanathan on April 13, 2007 08:55 AM

While Ms. Ni is absolutely on the mark about the need for common apps, she mistakenly castigates NYRAG, who has been a leader on this.  I have worked with a small family foundation for 7 years that relies upon the NYRAG Common Application Form and also uses NYRAG’s Common Report Form.  It’s a wonderful tool, and very helpful for the Foundation’s New York-based grantees.  Come on NCG members - let’s follow suit, and better yet, make it web-based and/or make it easy to customize for funders who need one or two pieces of additional information!

»» Posted by: Stephanie Gillis on April 13, 2007 09:46 AM

This subject came up at the table yesterday when I was urging a friend who manages a foundation association to work to provide this service for her members. I’m in a one person development office and cannot justify the time for many opportunities because of the time commitment. I would add that it should be encouraged to consider common applications for unique sectors, i.e. as education or environment protection… the list might be long. The metrics for unique program types are likely what causes roadblocks for foundations adoption of common forms. The best service will serve both the foundation and the non profit organziation and lighten the load for both. I was encouraged to see these exist and will encourage quick adoption of at least a basic form in our area.

»» Posted by: Rebecca Bridges on April 13, 2007 11:20 AM

Great conversation, but I would suggest we go even further. The Grants Managers Network (GMN), in partnership with seven other national organizations is in the early stages of an effort to develop standards to support more efficient and collaborative grantmaking practices, from application through reporting. 

The partners include a list of organizations that represent both sides of the aisle (Foundation Center, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, the Council on Foundations, the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers, the Association of Fundraising Professionals, the Association for Small Foundations, and the National Council of Nonprofit Associations). 

As a matter of fact, the project was birthed out of a conversation between me and Sara Englehardt, Executive Director, for the Foundation Center.  Sara was a Grants Manager at one time for Carnegie and now gets to deal with up to 800 foundations a year for her funding!  So I got an earful!

We all know there is waste and no value added to some foundation requirements.  We also know foundations get a lot of stuff that doesn’t allow them to make fair assessments of projects either before they are funded or at the end of the grant.  (I have been at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for over 28 years and have seen it all!) In addition, my head just spins at that the thought of an organization like the Foundation Center having to develop special reports and budgets for each of the 800 or so grants they get a year. 

The trick will be to get the nearly 70,000 foundations and countless nonprofits to agree on what is needed to reasonably assess a proposal and the outcomes of a funded project.  We really hope to build on the many efforts already in place around the country.  We are just about to embark on a fairly extensive scan of the field.  It will include surveys, focus groups, sessions at the partner’s annual and regional meetings, and some in-depth case studies.  The next session on the project will be at the May 16 Grantmakers for Effective Organizations conference in New Orleans.  We will also be working on other efforts to get as many people are input as possible soon. 

Widespread adoption of procedural standards for the grantmaking process would have an enormous impact.  Standards can be the jumping off place for common applications and reporting. Thanks for raising the issue. 

Richard Toth
Chair, GMN Committee on Standards

»» Posted by: Richard Toth on April 13, 2007 04:25 PM

I think it’s a great idea, though Mr. Toth’s description of “the trick” is right on. 

Personally, I don’t find it all that troubling to have to cater to a prospective donor’s idiosyncracies, special preferences and unique capabilities for review.  But could we start with a true basic?  Right now I’d be happy if I just never again had to use a typewriter to fill in an application or cover sheet.  It’s especially frustrating to have to type onto a hard copy of a downloaded form: if a form can be put on the Web as a pdf or Word document, it can be put there as a template document that the applicant fills in using a computer.  And, of course, I’d love it if all government agencies would use the most common on-line application programs rather than one that seems to have been developed solely for them, and thus didn’t “come with” my computer.

»» Posted by: Kathy Isdale on April 16, 2007 09:26 AM

Thanks for all the great comments you guys!  Richard - I’m really delighted to hear that you’ll be taking up this effort.  And the The key challenge I see is that while universities - even Harvard which signed on to the common university application - want more applications, I’ve never come across a foundation who has said that they want more applications.  What kind of levers or incentives do you think could put pressure on foundations to sit down in a room, roll up their sleeves and not leave until they hammer out a common form?

»» Posted by: Perla Ni on April 16, 2007 09:42 AM

Stephanie,

Thank you for correcting me on NYRAG.  I apologize for my error and I’m glad to be corrected on this!  Yes, I’m with you on the web based application.  The beauty of the common university application is that it’s totally web-based and a one-stop shop for applicants, thereby eliminating all that fun work of addressing 30 envelopes, stamps, as well as separate letters of recommendation, records and essays. 

And being web-based, it would be easy to enable some customization (although the extent should be limited just so that it doesn’t obviate the benefits of being a common form). 

The technology is simple if we can rally a couple of foundations to agree to participate.  The common university applications started off also with a small percentage of colleges and are now getting more colleges everyday.

»» Posted by: Perla Ni on April 16, 2007 09:59 AM

Kathy, I can’t agree with you more that it no longer makes sense to ask people to roll a form into a typewriter!  I also have to confess that RWJF still has such a form but it will be going away before too long.  My apologies to all until then.

Perla, the incentive for foundations to agree to a set of standards is that it will really make both their lives and the lives of their grantees easier.  We would all rather see non-profits focusing on their mission instead of trying to comply with a wide range or requirements that have questionable value.  There is a growing pressure for foundations to be more responsive, transparent and to incorporate quality improvement as part of their day-to-day business.  All one has to do is take a look at some of the survey results from the Center for Effective Philanthropy to see that the time has come for change. 

I keep returning to the concept that what we need is a set of standards or as someone else referred to them “the basics.” Beyond the basics foundations can customize their indivudal processes to meet their needs.  If we can just start with the basics we will be heading in the right direction.

»» Posted by: Richard Toth on April 19, 2007 08:18 AM

And when you do agree on the basics, leave it alone.  Any form that professionals are likely to develop will be good enough.  Don’t change it just when people have gotten used to it!

»» Posted by: Dennis Fischman on April 23, 2007 01:35 PM

I completely agree with the above comments. Although in the interests of full disclosure I now have a vested interest in the topic I started a family foundation (http://www.thelawrencefoundation.org) in 2000, and by 2006 was receiving hundreds of grant applications per grant cycle, all paper. It was taking our grantseekers and us huge amounts of time and energy to submit and process applications. To make things easier, we developed our own online grant application. The commercial products that were out there were too complicated and expensive for what we needed. After using our online grant application for some time my son applied to college and used the Common App. I wondered why the same thing didn’t exist for the non-profit world. Being the geek that I am we took what we had done for our foundation and generalized it for the non-profit world. It allows many grantseekers to apply to many grantmakers, and the information and documents they load up stays there and can be reused. It saves grantseekers huge amounts of time and energy, and makes the whole grantmaker process much more transparent to them. As we approve and reject applications, they find out immediately. It saves us huge amounts of time and energy and more importantly, the applications we are reading are entirely in the voice of the grantseeker. We don’t have to review and edit things down. My executive director is in Colorado, and I’m in Santa Monica. All we need to access and manage our grant applications is a browser. The geographic limitations have been removed. If you’re interested you can check it out at: http://www.commongrantapplication.com.

P.S. The results of the initial phase of the Project Streamline report that Richard talks about has been released.

»» Posted by: Jeff Lawrence on August 19, 2008 01:39 PM