Folly #4: Against All Odds

Why re-apply when you're 1 of 569 proposals?

We’ve been working with several nonprofits to identify new sources of grants.

Our team loves to work with smaller organizations that have 0-1 fundraisers on staff. Mindful of their limited resources, we pride ourselves in preparing funder guidelines that really dig in.

We start by reviewing hundreds of private foundation and corporate giving guidelines. Then we sift through individual foundations’ IRS Form 990s and look for evidence of funding to similar nonprofits in terms of program, location and amount. By the time we apply, we know the funding focus matches our nonprofit’s mission and can solidly recommend the grant opportunity as a good use of their time and resources.

Except when it isn’t.

In late April, we applied to a foundation that was an excellent fit on mission and program. Past grants looked a lot like our client’s program and funding need. In mid-August we received this response, a “personal” note from their program officer, formatted in a e-news blast:

The email went on to encourage us to apply, “Especially since we will have some exciting changes to the program next year!” And, the clincher: ”Please note: At this time we are unable to provide details on why your program was note [sic] selected for the 2022 award cycle.”

Is this against all odds or fatal attraction? Am I the only one thinking it would be insane to reapply with a playing field like that? (And I’m using Einstein’s definition here: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.) I mean, were we close? Should we change our “ask” next time or just resubmit with more or less the same request? So many questions. So few brass tacks.

In past years, about five or six organizations were funded in each grant cycle. So that’s about a 1% chance of actually getting a grant from this foundation.

This foundation’s email is filled with exclamation points and enthusiasm. Clearly they think this is really terrific news. From the nonprofit side of things, I’m still trying to figure it out. What is so exciting about attracting 100 times the number of applicants that they really intended to fund?

With absolutely no feedback or context and a 4-month decision process, it’s difficult to share the program officer’s zeal for re-applying. I think we’ll pass on the 2023 grant cycle. More on stats and averages in our next Funder Folly.

Next week… Folly Take 5: Batting .100.