Folly #33: When No is Good

"Send us more info" prolongs the agony

Why do funders encourage a back-and-forth with grantees that they have no intention of funding? As a nonprofit executive, you may think this is an optimistic message about potential funding, a serious one worthy of your time:

Your project sounds interesting. Send us more information.

Too often, this is not encouragement. If “we’ll have an answer for you next week,” really means “no,” then why doesn’t the foundation’s staff just say NO?

Some foundations needlessly build up expectations from nonprofits that funding will follow if they produce the requested information. We’re talking about short-staffed and tight-resourced nonprofits solving big societal problems. They don’t have time.

Plucking away the football is just so AAUGH!

Just like the well-known image of Lucy pulling the football out from a hopeful Charlie Brown (which, sadly, I do not have permission from Peanuts Worldwide to share here), AAUGH! is a familiar sound at too many nonprofits.

Real(ly Ridiculous) Conversations with Funders

One executive director (whom we’ll call ED) reached out to a supporter who made a large donation a few years earlier to help launch the the organization. ED asked: “Would you consider a challenge grant to help us get to the next level of staffing?” ED’s goal was a quick yes or no.

Instead, the donor asked lots of questions about future goals and current challenges. After ED spent hours preparing a thoughtful, well documented response, the donor’s answer was:

We don’t have room in the budget.

AAUGH! Why ask for more information if there’s no funding available??

Another foundation’s program officer ghosted five meetings that they had requested with the nonprofit. ED prepared for each meeting, and pushed other priorities back to accommodate this foundation staff person’s availability. After the fifth no-show, ED got frustrated and asked this program staff’s boss, Can we please have a call? It took another three requests until they answered.

AAUGH! It doesn’t seem like a very complicated question.

A wealthy individual philanthropist offered to make a donation if the founder would honor this request.

Will you go on camera and talk about the day you almost died? How about talking with my kid about your attempted suicide?

AAUGH! Does this donor want to support healing services or a circus performance?

A funder donated use of a venue for a prominent event. At the last minute, the donor demanded site changes that adversely affected other event sponsors and supporters.

Another foundation’s focus is nonprofits incorporated in a specific state. When an organization applied for funding for a program in that state that met the funder’s priorities, they were told:

Only nonprofits with an office located in our state can apply for a grant.

AAUGH! What about nonprofits that transitioned to a remote workforce during Covid? An antiquated definition of “location” excludes nonprofits who’ve realized a smart business strategy that reduces overhead and attracts top talent.

Last story … A foundation encouraged ED to apply for a grant, and said details would be on the website. ED kept checking, but the page still had last year’s application deadline. Keen to submit on time, ED asked when applications were due.

Only partners from 2022 were re-invited to apply this year. Your invitation was a mistake. We refined our strategy to focus on communities that have been historically marginalized [but not your historically marginalized community].

Um, do you think you could have mentioned that in all of your previous conversations with ED?

These are clearly not examples of great grant making.

It’s worth repeating this wisdom shared in an earlier interview: Funders have the power of money to take their own actions to solve a problem, and not just expect their grantees to do all the heavy lifting.

Surely we can get creative about how we connect over shared issues. And don’t call me Shirley.