Reaching out to foundations that have predetermined your organization is outside their area of interest can be challenging, and doing it wrongly can close doors forever. Private foundations are mandated by law to give away a certain percentage of their assets each year, but they can give their money how, when, and where they choose. That’s why some foundations can have a “give only to preselected charities” policy. It’s their money.
As fund-raisers we need to honor the wishes of these “walled-off” foundations. Yet, for the good of our organizations, we find ourselves searching for ways to form relationships with these “potential” donors in hopes of becoming one of their accepted few. As we attempt to span the gap between their giving policy and our need, we have to do so with integrity and delicacy. After all, we’re trying to build a bridge not burn one.
A major complaint I have heard from foundation officials over the years is that grant seekers are often either oblivious to a foundation’s established grant eligibility requirements or they ignore those guidelines. Those are both big mistakes.
So, what can you do when face to face with a wall built by a foundation to keep organizations like yours out? Is there a way you can make justified and meaningful contact with these grant makers and not violate their rules? The answer is yes. It has been done. How do you do this?
Use Direct Leverage of Key Stakeholder Associations
While some grant makers deal only with their favored, preselected charities, even refusing to accept proposals from others, you can be pretty safe in assuming that they make grants based on personal association. Like many things in life, finding a grant is often about who you know. Members of your own board may be closely associated with the decision makers at a walled-off foundation. In fact, you and such a foundation might actually share a board member. Your friends may be their friends. You won’t know until you find out.
First, compile a list of the “give to preselected/no proposals accepted” foundations, and the names of all of the staff, officials, and volunteer leaders you can find. Present those names to your organization’s leaders and others to see if they have connections which could help you gain a hearing for or at least provide an awareness of your organization. Then have individuals associated with your organization make informal contact/inquiries through their personal association with people from the walled-off foundations. The result may yield the potential for developing an organizational relationship, and do it without the foundations perceiving you as having violated their rules.
But, what do you do when such personal associations are not available to begin to wedge the door open?
Approach in a Unique and Respectful Way
One thing that you shouldn’t do and one of the things foundation officers really dislike, is send a letter that reads something like this: “We know your foundation gives only to preselected organizations, and that you do not accept proposals, but …”
It’s the but that annoys them the most. The grant seeker is seen as trying to work an angle—trying to “but in” if you will. It is the apparent disregard for the guidelines and rules, the attempt to solicit money in a way that appears thoughtless, patronizing, or offhand. “We know…but” is a seen as little short of a slap in the face.
Better to, with great care, send a simple one-page letter asking for clarification on the specifics of to whom and to what purpose the organization will make grants.
Such a letter validates your understanding and acceptance of the foundation’s policies, yet respectfully asks for clarification of its practices in support of those policies. The letter should read something like this:
“We recognize and appreciate that your foundation provides its generous support to preselected charities, as we have learned from your published guidelines. Please accept this note, not as a means for us to solicit funds, but simply as a letter of inquiry to respectfully ask the following questions:”
- “What would it take to enable (name of your organization) to be considered to be on your list of preselected charities?” (From this you should at least get a sense of the type of disconnect, unless they are really throwing a polite but total smokescreen.)
- “How often do you add new grant recipients to that list?” (You may find that they have a pretty stable list and that you would have to work your way up over a long time, if at all. Or, you may find that on occasion they like to look for new opportunities, but you just haven’t connected yet.)
- “With our pledge that we will not ask for money, would you be interested in learning more about (name of your organization) directly, with additional information we would be pleased to provide through an informal, information-only, meeting with you, or perhaps you may be interested in visiting us to see our organization in operation?” Also we would welcome any advice you might be in a position to give as to granting organizations that might be suitably aligned with our mission. (If they are open to a relationship, their response to this should help to let you know.)
Use one, two, or all three of these questions in your letter depending on your comfort with them and the knowledge you have about the foundation.
I always gave this type of communication about ten days or so to be in the hands of the recipients for a possible response, then if none came , I followed up with a phone call to ask the exact same questions—never deviating in the slightest from the strategy of the initial letter or its content.
Remember, this is not a communication about soliciting a gift. No matter how tempting it may be to stray from that promise to not solicit, to do so is to run the risk of poisoning that particular philanthropic well.
Is It Worth It?
Some might say, “Leave those grantors alone. They said no proposals are invited. They said they give only to preselected institutions, and we are not one of them!”
Maybe so, but things sometimes do change. A preselected institution or two, having received grants previously, could this or the next year not have available the types of programs and services favored by a grantor. And preselected, favored institutions that they may have been, it is possible that a grantee could very well fall out of favor with the grantor for any number of reasons. There just may be an opening for your organization.
So, there is always the time and the chance for that opening, and you could very well be there at that time.
The Strategy At Work In Real Life
This suggested exercise had me thinking about when I first met my wife, Joyce. It was at a party, and she was there with a date—a preselected commitment. Right off, I wanted to get to know her better, and I told her so. It was not easy to get a first date with Joyce because she had preselected interests, and was generally not accepting new proposals.
However, convinced that I had no initial expectation of a commitment on her part, she eventually did grant that first date. There was no mention of relationship or marriage from either party that evening. It was an information-gathering-only event. Information sharing led to further interest, then to involvement, and finally to investment. Relationship with a granting foundation determined to maintain its distance can be developed in the same way. Maybe not for life, but certainly for well into the future.
Whether it’s looking at a new potential grantor of interest, or looking at someone new in whom we are interested, from cultivation to courtship, even when the pursuit is not encouraged initially, we basically follow the same process. As you well know, nothing much about that process has changed over countless decades.
Marianne,
I’ve been following the conversation in which you and Tony have been engaged and thought I might add a couple of thoughts. First in regard to having earned income responsibilities assigned to you when you are primarily a specialist in seeking contributed income, I am probably not as directly concerned about the concept as Tony. I have worn both hats and been the executive director assigning such responsibilities.
However each organization and the amount of responsibility is an individual question. It all depends on the individual who will be asked to carry out the responsibilities. Earned income implementation and management requires knowledge, mindset, and commitment. If any one of those is lacking then the endeavor is likely to fail. Not to mention take needed energy away from seeking contributed income.
When it comes to introducing or reintroducing your organization to funding sources, I strongly advise against sending a packet of information. I have found it better to always ask for a meeting–one on one–just the program officer (PO) and me. The reason for my meeting being to ask for help in understanding organizations such as his/hers so that I can better do my job. In a letter/email I would give the name of my organization, what it does, my experience and a sense of what I want to achieve by talking with the PO. I also would make it clear to the PO that this meeting would be part of a larger effort, telling him/her that I plan to speak with a number of people from which I would seek guidance. I would pitch this first meeting as being principally about me, not my organization.
In such a situation, I am asking for help on a personal level, not an organizational level. The last thing I would want to do is bring my executive director. Also my request would be to meet over lunch, coffee, or in the PO’s office–whichever is more convenient for him/her. Before sending the letter, I would also look for some points of life overlap that might exist and I could include in the letter–anything that would make me more of a human being to the PO. By the way, I have also carried grant making/recommending responsibilities within a foundation.
Three final points: (1) never lie about anything and keep all your promises; (2) Never use documents alone to introduce you organization if that can possibly be avoided; (3) Always show that you have great interest in the funding organization itself, not just in the narrower area of self interest your organization is likely to have.
Okay, two more points. The more printed material you put into someones hands the less likely any of it will get a through reading. Your first meeting with the PO is about introducing yourself; the second will be about you organization unless of course the PO wants to learn more about your organization.
I just discovered your wonderful website today, and found great back-up for my explanation of “letters of introduction” to closed foundations to my boss. He prefers to include every detail and statistic on our accomplishments and how great we are, as well as a host of reports and attachments. Dry, impersonal, and soul-less. I’ve suggested that relying on the support of the government and financial institutions isn’t really sustainable, so he’s turning his attention to earned income as a way of expanding and diversifying revenue streams. Since he’s been here for 37 years, and we’re financially sound, successful, and true to our mission, he must be doing something right, I guess. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
Marianne
Marianne,
We are happy that you can get your boss to take seriously the explicit edicts from those granting foundations which put up such “walls” as described in the article.
Using those unwanted materials in spite of what the grantors want, as steps to climb over the wall—so to speak—is a thoughtless thing to do, and in some cases, could damage any future entry attempt, even when the time is right.
You are correct to strive for additional earned and contributed income for the always-present possibility that you will need “life” after foundations and governmental sources dry up or even disappear. And the best other source would be donations from individuals.
Most any organization, not having at least sixty percent of its annual support coming from individuals, will be in trouble in time. The national average of such support from individuals is always in the mid to high eighty percent range for most successful organizations.
And, it is indeed a good thing for your boss to maximize earned income. Doing so, makes for a far more compelling case for support from philanthropic sources. As well, such funds can help to lighten the stress and demand when the annual funding need grows each year.
On that last note, regarding the application of marketing techniques to raise earned income from fees or other client/user charges, just be sure that, if you are primarily responsible for fund-raising, that you do not get saddled with additional marketing, PR or communications duties.
Hi Tony – Many thanks for your words of wisdom! I hope my ED will read and be receptive to some version of your brief, respectful letter of introduction. I write grants all day, every day, day in, day out, mostly using recycled earlier grant language as source material. Hence, my search for getting my foot in the door of foundations and corporations that haven’t been inclined to support us in the past. Institutional funders have been very generous to us over the years, but anyone who knows anything about development understands that sooner or later this money will be cut or go away altogether.
I’m a seasoned fundraising generalist with 30+ years and millions of dollars under my belt. The subject of individual giving has come up here, with zero results. That, I suppose, is another post for another day elsewhere, maybe under “Donors”, “Policies & Practices”, and/or “Trustees & Volunteers”…
Best,
Marianne
Hi Tony – and so the “Letter of Introduction” process begins! There is considerable pushback on several items:
*my ED feels that the pledge that we will not ask for money amounts to lying
*he wants to include more detail about our programs, accomplishments,and other funders – a 1-pager seems too sparse
*he thinks that sending along our current Annual Report, in all its voluminous detail, will be more effective than a simple tri-fold brochure
*he admits that he is accustomed to “selling” our organization at every opportunity
I continue to make the case, and the result will no doubt be some sort of compromise. I can’t send correspondence out over his name if he doesn’t agree to it.
Best,
Marianne
Marianne,
It’s a lie if you do not keep your promise.
What’s so hard about that for your boss to understand?
He needs more experience in the process of simply having someone come visit to look and learn.
I conducted such exercises more times than I can count over my long career. I kept the promise every time. Invariably, when the guest was leaving, he or she would say that we would be hearing from them, or they even on their own invited a proposal. Or they just said thanks. We made points every time, regardless. But we kept our promise, and that was greatly appreciated.
No, you send nothing.
That’s the point of my suggestion that you are only, and simply, asking if things have changed to allow for new recipients—exactly the words I have in the article.
You are not to make a proposal or even give a hint of one. You are asking for the current status of their stated policy, and if there is any chance for change in the future.
Your boss is to be commended for trying to “sell” the organization at every opportunity.
A good boss must be institution-centered.
However, being so far institution-centered in this case, when he should be donor or prospect-centered, is dangerous when he wants his needs met at the expense of the wishes of the prospect.
Stick to the bullet-point suggestions. Nothing more.
He needs to read the article again. He needs to put himself in the chair of the recipient foundation executive and imagine how that person would react when being asked the questions I posed, as opposed to being sent all sorts of unwanted material—in effect ignoring and flaunting what the foundation has made quite clear.
If your boss wants to deal in for-profit business terms, tell him that you are not ready to “sell.” You are testing the market.
This is a great piece of writing. Every single word makes a lot of sense to me. How I wish I had known about this much earlier. Its not believable that we have been struggling to solve related mystery for over 10 yeras.
The writer is godsent.
I'll also add that foundation strategies and principles can change from year to year as well. So, just because you may not receive or be eligible for funding at a certain time, don't assume that will always be the case.
Don't be afraid to reach out! Find out what the foundation's mission is, invite them for a site tour (as mentioned above), share outcomes–inquire about its giving strategies and how often (or ever) the strategy changes. The odds of your organization receiving a grant may be 50:1 or worse, but the odds are impossible if you never try!
I loved every word that was writen. I am also a non-profit organization struggle to open in May 2012. I am targeting the underpreviledge, low-come disadvantage community fighting for literacy. My next step is to launch a website and microgifts would be beneficial.
Thanks
Cornelia
Cornelia,
Good luck with your nonprofit. Last year I wrote an article about Micro Gifts and Impulse Giving Online that you might find helpful. If your nonprofit is localized, you probably should take a look at some of the local social media available to you. Yelp, Facebook, and other sites come to mind. Getting an online micro-giving program up and running, especially for a new organization, will require that you have compelling stories to tell about actual people and how other people can help the human subjects of your stories. When it comes to micro giving, it’s all about touching the heartstrings of others. You need to have great authentic stories and tell them well. When I was running the online operations for the anti-hunger philanthropy Heifer International, stories about real people in real situations helped bring in many millions of dollars.