Working With New Clients

There are two kinds of new client. There are those who are new to me and there are those that have just been born. I'm concerned with the latter.

I get calls from people who have ideas for enterprises and they want to know if they should become a non-profit or take the for-profit route. I always meet with them to hear their ideas, the way they're expressed, and the hopes and dreams of the people involved.

If their goal is to enrich themselves, then the answer is obvious. But if they want to add something to the community, help people, maybe even save people, then the issue becomes one of credibility. Do they have the money and the time to get started on their own? Better, have they already got a start of some kind, i.e. do they have community interest? Is there an established need for what they're proposing? Or are they looking for a grant to get them started? Probably the latter, I've found so far. They want someone to hand them a pot of money so they can go realize their well-meant dreams.

The trouble with most of the organizations I've encountered to date, if you could call them organizations (are they organized?), is that the people involved have not established much credibility.

For instance, one group approached me to help with a project to educate Americans about how they could live longer if they had healthier life styles. They had an interesting approach: they would teach the message of nutrition and healthy living via cartoons, because they figured that most people would not read, but almost everyone will watch a cartoon. I listened and then I asked (when I could get a word in...they were very talkative) "do you have a business plan?" No. "do you have a timetable?" No. "do you have a budget?" No. and so on.

Then I asked them if they wanted to get paid for doing this, and they made it clear that they did.

There were three people sitting at this table, eating, drinking coffee and talking. Plus me. One was the leader and she did most of the talking. A Ph.D. psychologist. The second person was an older man who was also a Ph.D., but not in psychology. And the third person was a man who came out of technology and was going to manage the animation. They all three wanted to quit their jobs and work on this project. I advised them to start a for-profit organization because I didn't see any way they were going to find enough money to do what they wanted to do and come out owning the product and earning good salaries.

Unless they could find backers. Backers, I said, might give them money to get started but they would want to see results. They said they wanted about $20 million over the next couple of years. I told them that they were dreaming if they thought any non-profit would fund it. But maybe government would if they could connect it to a government program. With any luck, they could get an earmark.

I think I was more exhausted when I left than when I came in, and I was finishing a ten hour day.

Another man came to me with a way of generating electricity from water.

He had found an invention on the Internet that he had perfected in his garage and shown to his satisfaction that it could generate electricity from water. He wanted money to scale up. He asserted that he was a religious man and he did not want to make money from this technology, because money would change him. Instead he wanted to form a nonprofit that would build the technology and give it to underdeveloped areas that needed electricity.

I listened to him as he explained the physics and chemistry of the device. Then I asked him if he owned the patent on the technology. He showed me a print out from a W\website and this print out depicted the machine. "Here's the patent," he said.

I read the first page. The patent had been issued to a man in California. I asked if that man had given permission to use his patent. My religious friend said he hadn't talked to him, but since the inventor hadn't built the machine yet, he figured that the patent holder didn't want to use the patent. I told him that nonetheless, the inventor still owned the patent, even if he never used it, and he would own it for years to come (it was issued in 1999).

I told him he couldn't do anything with the technology until he got permission from the patent holder. He said he'd look into it and that ended our meeting. He did not seem happy with my advice. I suppose he wanted to be told to just start up a 501(c)(3) and go ahead with helping the world.

I've got other stories I could tell. But here's what it comes down to: people come to me looking for approval and advice. I can't give them approval. I'd help anyone with any project short of criminal activity or something that would hurt people. But when these potential clients haven't thought it through or when it's clear they are foremost interested in making money from the project (including high personal salaries), I tell them not to bother. I think some people want non-profit status so that they can elude taxes and get a lot of free money from grantmakers who have nothing better to do than give it away.

Not by a long shot.

The TGCI Workshop - Program Planning and Proposal Writing

What follows is a day-by-day chronicle of my experience in a workshop on program planning and proposal writing, aka grant writing.

Introduction
TGCI holds workshops throughout the United States and charges about $900 pre person to attend a five day workshop led by a seasoned grantwriter. I signed up because I’d heard it was a good workshop and because I have committed myself to learning as much as I can about the field. I’ve found that most of these professionally-run workshops are quite useful. Most define a particular approach to writing grant proposals for one or more of the three branches of funding opportunities: government, corporate and foundation. In this case, I found that the emphasis was on foundation funding, with acknowledgement of government and corporate. Actually, government was covered nicely by a lengthy discussion of how to search for opportunities and how to apply for them. More about that later.

Summary: TGCI compares well with other grantwriting workshops. It is thorough and stimulating and it is led by an effective, energetic and knowledgeable grantwriting professional.

Monday, June 19, 2006
Introductions around the room from 28 attendees showed that school districts, faith-based organizations and museums predominated. The workshop leader, Susan Chandler, a consultant and trainer from Portland, Oregon who leads workshops throughout the country, was both patient and forceful (without being overbearing). She took us immediately into Grantsmanship, which means the integration of project and organization with strong relationships with grantmakers. I noticed that many people in the workshop were uncomfortable with the emphasis on relationships, less so with the responsibility to make sure the proposal is right for the grantmaker. This was clarified soon enough. I was impressed with the emphasis Ms. Chandler placed on defining the problem (or need). There’s no magic to it, but the logic of the definition is often missed. It really has to do with how the grantee fits with the community’s needs, and the grantmaker’s agenda. A strong discussion of the problem, how to define it and how to state it. We looked at Outcomes in terms of objectives and here I learned another way of defining objectives, i.e. in terms of outcome objectives (which I took to be objective outcomes) and process objectives, which were defined as objectives for establishing methods to solve the problem. These issues would later relate to the evaluation.

Next, Methods. The method is defined as a response to the causes of the problem and is the longest, most detailed part of the proposal. It is also where Ms. Chandler suggests we begin to formulate the Budget..

Then the discussion turned to Outcomes, which can be defined by the problem/need. What are the solutions you will pursue. This is where one of my favorite acronyms comes in. Outcomes must by SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-limited. I found myself referring to this throughout the week.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006
I'm now at the TGCI Grantsmanship Workshop, second day. The first day was spent orienting the class of 28 to the PPPW method, meaning the proposal planning and proposal writing method TGCI recommends. It consists of a technique for placing the parts of a grant proposal in a logical order and then using a similar format to order the contents of each part. This creates a logical flow that is complete and satisfying to the reader.

The instructor is knowledgable and we're covering the same ground as usual, in good depth and at a good, comfortable but aggressive rate. The most challenging thing so far is the focus on the problem, a subtle moving away from a focus on the project. TGCI teaches that starting with the problem will lead to a better understanding of the other parts of the proposal.

Day Two is committed to the evaluation of the proposal, or rather the project outcomes or results. The evaluation is linked to the methods and the objectives, so that the project can be viewed in logical order - from need to how to meet the need to how to assess the success or otherwise of the project.

Evaluation. This is a topic no one likes, covered in interesting depth here, with the instructor demurring that she has always hired someone to do this for her.

At lunch with several of my fellow students, the conversation ran from the intricacies of the logic model to San Miguel de Allende to Pilchuk to talking to the dead. I enjoyed it and felt like it was only warming up when the group finished its Subway sandwiches and went their separate ways. The afternoon session beckons in about 20 minutes. We will be discussing? I didn't look. The work's intensive and I'm verging on lazy - manic. Too much coffee, I'm guessing.

I think about the work I've taken on with Aquaculture and all the grant writing at the Museum. Plus my short stories. And my recreational reading. The grants class helps me focus on grants. I know all the grantwriting contributes to writing logically.

The discussions in the evaluation group were not very effective. We needed a facilitator to keep us on track. There were too many questions about capacity building, establishing the problem, discovering evaluation techniques. Not enough answers.

All of my fellow students have their own takes on this. What will unify the vision of the best practices? Will the instructor come in and straighten things out, or will the class reach some consensus?

I see the method now. Throw a lot at the class, let them sort it out, then bring it all together for them at the end of the week. We'll see if that's the case.

Wednesday, June 21
Class today about researching grant sources and relationship building. Good, with tips on finding the right sources by drilling down into the databases, 990s and online guidelines. Reduce 50 sources to 5-10. Apply to those using PP/PW, get results from most if not all because the source is project-appropriate, the proposal is well designed to follow the guidelines, and all procedures followed. Use of the 990PF was particularly interesting because I have not been using that enough in my consulting work; in fact, I have not been doing enough research to eliminate the chaff from the wheat. Question: corporate foundations vs. corporate giving. How do you tell the difference? Again, research. The Corporate Foundation will submit a 990, but corporate giving comes directly from the corporation, usually reflecting the interests of the corporation and the giving meant to enhance the corporation's standing in the community. The Corporate Foundation will be more about philanthropy, with giving according to the interests of the board, established by the board, and money distributed to organizations that both represent the board's interest and enhance the corporation in the community. In sum, the corporate foundation will be an active community participant along thematic lines and enhancing the corporation only because their largesse is notable; corporate giving comes from the interests of the corporation and usually enhances the corporation directly. Eg. Marlboro cigarettes supporting NASCAR because their demographics indicate that the NASCAR fan is a smoker. So, the corporate giving is like advertising.

Relationships discussion. Here we get on more slippery ground, in that the use of the relationship is clear: to get your project under the eyes of the foundation project manager and decision makers. But relationships are external to the grants process, and the grants process may be entirely tangential to the purpose of the grant. For instance, your board of trustees may include someone who is related to a board member at the foundation; or, the board member for the foundation may share a common interest with the foundation. The connection is the thing. So it follows that if a connection has been established through previous grant making, then that should be continued through regular communication. This may be in the form of a quarterly phone call, a mailing of a newspaper article about the project the grant funded, or a thank you note for some help given by the project manager.

I asked about federal grants and stated how discouraging it was to apply again and again but never receive one. The advice was to make sure that the application was done correctly down to the last comma, because grants have been lost on a single point. 95 vs. 96 percent, and correct proposal form can make the difference, given that more important matters are correct.

What I have always considered important, the sniffing around part of research, was de-emphasized in favor of the deep drilling method, which is still sniffing around, but on a more sophisticated level. The important thing here is to have a clear idea what the project is and to go for it directly, with few diversions. Spending a lot of time on research will save a lot of frustration and hurt relationships if grants are pursued that are inappropriate, and this could have been determined by more diligence.

Thursday, June 22
This morning the draft proposal is submitted. We've written it by committee, so there are the usual symptoms of that flawed method of arriving at a finished document. I'm sure all the flaws could be corrected with enough editing, but we only had less than 2 hours to edit a 6 pager. The subject was capacity building for a small organization called Middle East Media. The idea is to grow the funder base by investing grant money in donor management and fundraising. The goal is to develop the organization from a $350,000 organization to a $500,000 organization in three years. I did the budget, which was certainly a draft because the project leader was less than enthusiastic about the process. She didn't seem to trust the "what if" method. I worked it out with her and did the best part of the work at home, including a budget narrative. She was much more comfortable with that. After a few minutes, she signed off on the budget and a few minor corrections to the narrative. The budget, I'm afraid, does not match the narrative because the narrative mentions the $350,000 current revenue/expense, whereas mine is less than $200,000. By the end of three years it is up to about $275,000. The grant amount, however, is $163,661. Nice, neat number, no?

This whole process was to lead us through what the workshop leader (and TGCI) called the PP-PW method, meaning the programl planning, proposal writing technique. Namely: start with the problem (or need) and work forward from that, developing the narrative around method and outcomes/objectives. Then the budget, finally the introduction. I like the method. Anything to avoid starting at the beginning (Statement of Purpose, Summary, Introduction, and so on). I despair of getting the necessary overview before the outcomes/objects and especially the budget, although I'm a little obsessed at present by the budget. I claim it clarifies the mind and makes the writer respond to the truth of the proposal, whereas other sections can easily become flights of fancy. And flights of fancy mean overwriting and overwrought writing. The passion quickly drains out of it because of bloat. The end is a thoroughly unreadable document.

Where concision? Where logic? Where clarity? These are all writing problems; not so much organizational problems as rhetorical and stylistic problems. The document has to be persuasive, yet it has to be organized, logical. Often the two motives compete. The fiction writer tries every trick to get the reader hooked, and to keep him that way. The insight is that the ticking clock of the thriller is hard to establish in a didactic document - one that is filled to capacity with factual information (exposition) and description. There is the so-called narrative, but it is hard to make it flow with passion when it is top-heavey with facts to be matched to numbers. In my experience, there is an implicit conflict between expression in terms of the passion of the cause and expression in terms of an analysis of the cause.

The tricks of dialog, or of scene and situation, change of POV are unavailable to the nonfiction author. Maybe the way to go is to maintain a straight face and not interfere with the emotions. Like a meditation where a mundane phrase focuses the mind.

Friday, June 23
A wrap-up, a time for consideration, remembering, criticism, contemplation and discussion. We had created proposals from real projects. The proposals contained all the ingredients of the proposal ideal we had been taught, including the summary, introduction, statement of need or problem, goal/objective/outcome, method and evaluation. And budget. The day before (Thursday) we had divided into groups to critique one proposal and read all five others in preparation for the group discussions that would follow. This gave each of us an opportunity to compare our work to that of other students: a peer review. When the class re-convened, one proposal was analyzed by a group of four or five class members, then by the whole room, then by the workshop leader. As usual, she had good insights and led us once again through the discipline of logical arrangement of content to follow from problem to goal/objective/outcome to method to evaluation to budget to summary and introduction.

You could see the possibilities for variation, but we tried to stick to the rules.

Today we went through five proposals, one after the other. My opportunity to review came fourth. Our group (reduced to three by the absence of one of our members - gone off to be with her daughter) went through the positive aspects of a proposal for $200,000 in funding for a language curriculum in Alaskan public schools. The proposal was good, solid and we struggled to find something not-so-strong about it. I think the best criticism was that the students were not properly motivated by anything the proposal had to say. Another criticism, perhaps not so apt was that the budget did not provide for continuing the project beyond the one-year grant period (sustainability was dubious). But in the group critique that followed our comments were shot down and the issue of logic was brought up again. All in all, this was the winningest proposal of all six, at least it seemed so. I thought the discussion was a little defensive.

Faith-based programs were dominant here, and I had for the first time the insight that all social services program have an implicit element of faith, if not based on God-worship, then on a belief in the innate goodness and improvability of humanity. I wonder how well I will write such proposals when my turn comes. I have a mixed reaction to religious causes, even when they are merely charitable. On one side I feel a fundamental sympathy for the motivation to serve God. On the other I feel that the faithful are often pushing a dogma, even if it is implicit. A form of propaganda, which implies a lie told to persuade. Which is disturbing even when what you're trying to persuade people to believe and do is a good thing, a good causes, helpful to people, and good for the world. But that said, it is part of my job to persuade and as a professional I should restrain my personal opinions.

In the end, we gathered in groups to discuss what the class had brought us. We all agreed that it had been good, it had taught us one thing or another (logic, organization, ordering information) and we all felt we would go back to our work better prepared to deal with the expectations of our employers. Some people worked alone, with many other responsibilities, and I felt for these people because they might not get to apply the lessons learned here until long after the good effects had worn off. Others might get to apply them under the pressure of their board or their executive director to get a lot of proposals out and bring in a lot of money in a short period of time.

I'm confronted by some of the same issues. Fortunately for now, I run my own ship. I will go back and tackle five proposals, three enormous ones, and two smaller ones, all in the next month to six weeks. This course will add to my confidence and my organizational capacity. It will make me fit the parts of the proposal together more logically, and it may even help me smooth out the rough spots in my style. But will it help me get my point across to the people I have to work with? Will it help me convey the important parts of the grant proposal - the organization, the budget, the guidelines, the deadlines? That's all on me, and only time will tell if TGCI has given me some foundation for authority. This workshop has added to my arsenal of weapons I will use to drive back the dark forces of disorganization, vagueness, and information bloat. Henceforth, I will not let the preconceptions of my peers inhibit me from enacting best practices.