Access Philanthropy

Recent Posts

News & Resources

Grant Writing Tips

by

Last updated on December 29th, 2024

A Social Psychologist On Five Elements Of Good Writing

grantmakers become more isolated from most grantseekers, and most grantseekers become less visible to grantmakers, the art of writing becomes more and more critical to relationship-building success. There are a thousand good articles on good grant writing. Joachim Kreuger, a social psychologist from Brown University, offers these universal writing good elements:

  • Relevance: A good text conveys the information that matters, although a few exceptions can spice things up without much distraction.
  • Economy: Wordiness debases writing by diluting it. I began this post with the sentence “Good writing is hard,” when I could have written, “It has long been recognized that writers must overcome many difficult challenges before they can deliver an appealing and comprehensible body of text.” Look out for boilerplate and run-on sentences! Even if a sentence is sound, most adverbs and adjectives can be stricken without loss of information. Strong action verbs communicate better than noun-heavy phrases.
  • Vividness: Good writing evokes images in the reader’s mind. It is perceptual and hallucinatory. A poor text allows readers to hear the words in their minds without evoking images. Again, action verbs help.
  • Coherence: The text must hang together, tell a story, and follow a narrative arc. Lists don’t do this, and this post is playing with fire. Each part of the text has its own mission. Section headers can help, but an elegant text won’t always need them. When the writing is good, readers know where they are in the story.
  • Humor: A good text is entertaining, and humor is a spice that keeps boredom at bay. Good humor is subtle and not thigh-slapping. Good humor lets the reader in on a joke without being condescending or obscure.

What’s in Font?

The Washington Post has a couple of tests you can take to determine which font is right for you, your organization and your prospective donors. It’s probably not what you think.

Grant Writing 101: Know Your Impact

Grants consultant, Barbara Stratton, recently did a piece for the Chronicle of Philanthropy that  critiques “faulty” grant requests to illustrate “How to Write Grant Proposals That Get Results“

Fundraisers aren’t afraid to ask, it’s because*:

by

 

  • They know success is dependent on putting the donor in charge of the pace and the donor is in no rush.
  • There’s no real urgency they can point to.
  • They don’t feel like they have the right project to put in front of the donor.
  • They don’t want to blow a bigger opportunity
  • The donor has asked for something that the organization hasn’t provided.
  • Something about the project doesn’t seem quite right (e.g. they don’t feel the organization can deliver on the promises being  made.)
  • The donor is asking for more that the organization can deliver on.
  • The donor’s cognitive or physical health is  questionable.
  • They sense the donor needs more time, information, or interaction with project leaders.
  • They know the donor is distracted by some other life event.
  • They just can’t tell where the donor is, but the vibe isn’t one of great interest.
  • The donor has brought a new person into the equation (a spouse, child, financial advisor, etc.)
  • Some pre-existing issue the donor had with the organization hasn’t been worked out.
  • The donor has expressed dissatisfaction with the leadership of the organization.
  • (*First published on Linkedin by Langley Innovations, commented on by Council for Advancement and Support of Education : https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7073992379359252480?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios)

New Terms: 2023

by

  • Social Impact Infrastructure Organizations (SIIOs) Propel Philanthropy uses the term to identify groups they call “the indispensable backbone for the philanthropic, nonprofit, and civil society sectors”. They are resource builders, conveners, networks, platforms, trainers, educators, researchers, media outlets, and advocates.
  • Race Equity Glossary: Maintained by MN Education Equity Partnership, used by several national organizations, coalitions and higher education groups.
  • Definitions of Empowerment Language Borealis Philanthropy has published their Glossary Definitions.
  • This guide from Disability: walks through the general dos and don’ts when interacting with individuals who identify as disabled
  • Racial Equity Tools Glossary SOURCE: Project Change’s “The Power of Words.” Originally produced for Project Change Lessons Learned II, also included in A Community Builder’s Toolkit – both produced by Project Change and The Center for Assessment and Policy Development with some modification by RacialEquityTools.org.
  • Meanwhile spaces: Disused sites leased or loaned for a certain period of time by the public sector or developers to local community groups, art organizations, start-ups, and charities. These sites may be vacant or under-used shops, buildings, open spaces, or land. Temporary contracts allow community groups, small businesses, or individuals to pursue economic activity at below-market rates to generate social value for the neighborhood and its inhabitants
  • Diversity Dishonesty:  hiring a ton of diverse people, putting diverse people on company photographs and advertising assets, but not valuing them in the organization, and then gaslighting when the issue is raised (from According to stylist.co.uk)
  • Houseless, unhoused, unsheltered:People are turning away from the most common term, “homeless,” in favor of alternatives. Each one has a slightly different meaning.
  • Generosity Experience: your new term for the online solicitation process, as in How to Design a Magical one on Your Nonprofit’s Website
  • The Communications Network (the association of grant maker communications people) has a dedicated website directed at how foundation and nonprofit communicators can improve racial equity through their work. The site includes tools to craft relevant messaging that centers diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the results of the 2019 survey of DEI experts. Some of the findings:
    • The terms “race” and “racism” rarely appear in organizational DEI definitions, even for organizations focused on justice and equity.
    • Respondents rated their organizations’ staffs as more diverse than their boards, and their boards as more diverse than their senior leadership.
    • Less than half (42%) of respondents said they had a strong understanding of DEI concepts.
    • Over half (57%) saw the impacts of implicit bias present in social good communications.
    • Almost half (46%) recognized unintentional reinforcement of stereotypes and an overall lack of understanding of what language should be used in racial equity messaging.
    • About one-fifth (21%) of respondents said there was a lack of support for DEI initiatives within the organization.
  • BIMPOC – Black, Indigenous, Multiracial, People of Color. This more inclusive term is becoming more popular in philanthropy trade journals
  • Third Places – Read the Walton Family Foundation’s opinion piece on funding “third places,” including non-work and non-home places, commercial and public indoor places like bars, restaurants, cafés, barber shops, beauty salons, museums, and libraries, as well as outdoor places like trails and bike paths.
  • Latine – There’s a growing debate about the use of “Latinx” as an all-inclusive term for people of all the folks who used to be included in “Hispanics” and “Latinx”. We each get to choose our own names.
  • Canopy Gap and Tree Grief – The Star Tribune recently had a piece on how poor neighborhoods have so many fewer trees and shrubbery than wealthy neighborhoods. Evidently, there are some very serious problems when we don’t have enough trees which we call “canopy gaps” or “tree grief”.
  • Virtue Signaling – Another old term that’s resurfaced – Mostly intended for corporations or powerful people, “virtue signaling” implies actions taken only to improve their moral reputation. In the early 1990s, it was overused by folks who were pointing out politicos or businesses who did something that looked great that was also hugely visible. It’s back and for good reason.
  • Revisiting Capacity Building and Strategic Philanthropy – Sara EchoHawk wrote a nice piece for Nonprofit Quarterly in 2019 on “capacity building” and how many funders use “strategic philanthropy” as code for “overly prescriptive grantmaking”. Both capacity building and strategic philanthropy are back in style. Maybe it’s good to think what each term really means.
  • Narrative Change – We debated whether to put this item here, in the Toolbox section or the Survey Says area. Narrative change is a becoming more popular as a distinct and successful tool for advocates and human service people alike. Critical Race Theory and Climate Change stories are two key examples of narrative change. This report, Funding Narrative Change, defines terms, delineates benefits (e.g., funders want to learn), and provides “how to” examples. An important read for people who need to open minds.

Native American Funding

by

Inside Philanthropy Sites Six Funders (including 2 Minnesota Funders) As Stand Outs in Native American Funding
Inside Philanthropy reports Native Americans represent 2.9% of the U.S. population and receive just 0.4% of philanthropic support. But, according to the Funding Map at Investing in Native Communities, that’s improving.
The map is a data visualization application developed by Candid in partnership with Native Americans in Philanthropy. It launched three years ago and averages 5K visits per week.
According to the Funding Map, six foundations stand out:
  • Ford Foundation provides funding for a wide range of organizations that support Native Americans, including specific support to Indigenous land protection
  • W.K. Kellogg Foundation has made grants to several Native-focused orgs, including Native Women Lead, which works to improve pay equity for Native women
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds a range of Native American causes that tackle issues like food and housing insecurity, unemployment, and poor healthcare, and- in one case- to restore Lakota language and traditions
  • Northwest Area Foundation directs 40% of its annual grant dollars to supporting Native-led organizations, with funding focused on efforts that produce good jobs, thriving businesses, and restructured systems to strengthen Native communities
  • NoVo Foundation has provided $110 million to 362 organizations since 2016 (the most current data is from 2019). The Foundation has been thinking about/planning new funding priorities, though
  • Bush Foundation started issuing Native Nations Investment Reports in 2017 that review its investments in the 23 Native nations in MN, ND, and SD. Among its support: improving the juvenile justice system in Ramsey Co.; working to restore the buffalo population on an SD reservation; and addressing the racial wealth gap across the region. Also a funder for the Funding Map.

7 Mistakes New Philanthropic Foundations Make

by

Kris Putnam-Walkerly writes in her “Confident Giving” Newsletter: “Drawing from my conversations with thousands of foundation leaders, spanning 23 years, here are seven prevalent missteps. By paying attention to these mistakes, you can avoid them and ensure your foundation’s success.”
  • Being stuck in overwhelm
  • Restricting your potential through a mindset of scarcity
  • Letting it go to your head
  • Assuming you have all the answers
  • Operating without a strategy
  • Failing to hold yourself accountable
  • Not seeking help.

Small Family Foundation Workshop ’23

by

Date: June 15, 2023
Time: 1- 4 PM
Price: $75
Where: Virtual (live)
Register  Now

Now in its 11th year!

Small family foundations are defined as giving less than $1M, annually. More than 1,000 of these foundations support Minnesota nonprofits.

The Small Family Foundation Workshop is a three-hour Virtual Live/Online Event with Access Philanthropy president Steve Paprocki.

Steve will deliver information and insight on Small Family Foundations that fund in MN: What they are funding. What they want from you, and how to approach them – first steps, strategies, and building relationships.

This event includes:

What Past Workshop Attendees Had to Say:

“Steve had a lot of great knowledge and expertise that really helped me understand the position and thinking of small family foundations.”

“I am always impressed with Steve’s (and his team’s) depth of knowledge of the various foundations.”

“Wide ranging content!”

“The best part was learning the nuances of connecting and maintaining relationships with small family foundations.”

“I liked the encouragement to keep it simple and keep going! Be personal.”

“I like getting the booklet of information on small family foundations, and the conversations about how to gain the attention of small family foundations and maintain a relationship.”

“Everything was valuable. I enjoyed listening to and learning the details of each family foundation, including their priorities, giving history, and background on the individuals who run them.”

“The book and the verbal info about specific foundations is pure gold, saves so much research time.”

“I took lots of notes, which to me is one sign of a worthwhile webinar.”

The Latest on Mackenzie Scott: A Web Database with Mixed Applications

by

Mackenzie Scott’s new website Yield Giving is now accessible to the public. A cumulative gift database, it gives us a great deal of information the $14,000,000,000 she has given to 1,600+ non-profit teams… though 28% of the grants are missing key data points.

But let’s take a look:

In November 2022, after facing criticism about the secrecy of her gift giving, Scott promised a searchable gift database that would allow for more transparency in her philanthropy. Other third party websites like The Chronicle of Philanthropy had previously created databases, painstakingly constructing them from Scott’s blog posts (now also hosted on her website rather than Medium) however such databases were flawed from the start.

The information given in those blog posts was minimal and the effort required to make data points like geographic region and focus area took large swaths of time. By contrast, Yield Giving’s database simplifies the process while also providing some additional insights.

As promised, the site hosts details of each gift given by Mackenzie Scott, with filters and sorting by focus area, geography, and keyword. The database also details the gift amount and year. One of the best features is the ability to download the entire database as a CSV, allowing for much more granular analysis than what is offered on the more user-friendly web version.

Focus areas are divided into ten, color-coded subsections Geographic data can filter as specifically or generally as you like: identifying all 233 gifts to the Midwest or the 1 gift to a nonprofit in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

Using the sort feature provided some insights. For example, 53% of all gifts went to education (844), with the majority heading to the South at 36% (305);  just less than half of the environmental gifts went to nonprofits located in the United States.

Everything is self-identified by the nonprofits themselves, keeping with Scott’s assertion that the control should always remain in the hands of the nonprofit.

Disclosure Delays

There is at least one large limitations to this database, however.  Many of the gifts from 2020 to present feature the note “disclosure delayed for the benefit of recipient” in the grant amount field, which accounts for more than one-quarter of all the Foundation’ gifts.

Examination of environmental grantmaking practices reveals disparities

by

“Examining Disparities in Environmental Grantmaking: Where the Money Goes” examines the environmental grantmaking practices of 220 foundations that distributed more than 30,000 grants totaling $4.9 billion that were distributed over three years. 

The study, conducted by Yale School of the Environment professors Dorceta E. Taylor and Molly Blondell,  reveals disparities in environmental grantmaking that are related to region, the size of the grantees’ revenues, the sex and race/ethnicity of the grantees’ chief executive, and the type of organization being funded. 

The study also found that environmental justice organizations and those focused on people of color were at a disadvantage in the number of grants received and the grant dollars they were awarded.

The report argues that foundations must identify inequities in their practices and develop more equitable grantmaking processes.

Below is a copy of the Report’s Summary

Download the Report

  • Foundations are unevenly dispersed across the country, as is the funding awarded to grantees.
    The Northeast region has the densest concentration of foundations (87 were based there). However, most grants and grant dollars originated in the Pacific region; the Northeast region was second.
  • About 60% of the grant dollars originating in the Pacific region are awarded to grantees in that region. A similar percentage of the grant dollars generated in the Northeast stays in that region. Roughly 29% of the grant dollars generated in the Midwest stay in that region. The pattern reverses itself in the South-Central and Mountain regions. Most of the grant dollars generated in the Mountain and South-Central regions are sent to grantees in other regions.
  • The fewest foundations were based in the South Central and Mountain regions. Moreover, the two regions generated the fewest awards and the lowest grant dollars. The fewest grants were also disbursed to grantees in the two regions.
  • The study also found that foundations tended to fund organizations in their home state. Since most of the foundations were located in California, most of the grants and grant dollars originated in that state. Most of the grant dollars ended up going to California.
  • At a micro-scale, there is an urban bias to environmental grantmaking. That is, grantees in large cities and cities with dense clusters of foundations receive the most awards and the heftiest grant dollars. Ergo, the most grants and the highest grant dollars were generated in New York City. San Francisco was second in both categories.
  • Organizations’ revenues matter in their ability to attract funding. Foundations prefer to direct funding to organizations with significant revenues. Consequently, more than half of the grant dollars go to organizations with revenues of $20 million or more. Organizations with revenues under $1 million receive less than 4% of the grant dollars.
  • Funding to organizations was so lopsided that several environmental organizations obtained more funding than all the environmental justice organizations combined. For instance, the Sierra Club received more than $200 million in grants, almost five times what all the environmental justice organizations combined received.
  • Large mainstream environmental organizations are active participants in the process of hyper-concentrating grants. They have grant-writing teams that apply for many grants and build robust funders networks. They typically have scores of funders they rely on for grants. In contrast, smaller organizations tend to have fragile funding networks with few funders.
  • The organizations studied were split into 59 categories and two tiers. The 14 categories constituting Tier I received 64% of the grants and three-quarters of the grant dollars. Natural resources and conservation protection organizations were the most prolific grant-getters. The 45 categories of Tier II organizations received a mere 25% of the grant dollars. In other words, they received fewer grants that were smaller in size.
  • Foundations preferred to fund organizations working on the following issues – conservation, education, energy, ecosystems, and water resources. Though foundations lavished funding on these core topics, philanthropies also funded other issues such as social inequality, justice, empowerment, Indigenous rights, environmental justice, disaster preparedness and relief, housing and homelessness, food assistance and food insecurity, faith and religion, movement building, voter mobilization, workplace and workforce issues, and institutional diversity.
  • General support grants, highly coveted by grantees, were awarded frequently. However, over 80% of the general support grants went to White-led organizations. Moreover, less than 10% of the general support grants go to organizations focused on People of Color.
  • Male-led organizations obtained about 54% of the grants and more than two-thirds of the grant dollars. White-led organizations obtained more than 80% of the grants and grant dollars. Hence, White-male-led organizations received the most grants and grant dollars. White male-led organizations obtained about 48% of the grants and roughly 61% of the grant dollars awarded.
  • Though 56% of the foundations funded organizations primarily focusing on People of Color, less than 10% of the grants and grant dollars go to such organizations. Female-led organizations were more likely than male-led organizations to focus primarily on People of Color.
  • Roughly 46% of the foundations supported environmental justice organizations. People-of-Color-led environmental justice organizations obtained 71% of the grants and about 77% of the grant dollars.