On the topic of the quality of nonprofits, I think it is important to remember effectiveness can have several components. One of the things we have run into is culturally based self-help organizations serving new immigrants. In terms of human services delivery, we have any number of highly effective organizations that deliver services, meet needs, provided supports if you are a member of the dominant culture. On the other hand we have dozens of fledgling culturally based organizations which, in terms of nonprofit standards and best practices, are disasters. Governing structures are lacking, funding sources are sporadic or nonexistent; basic niceties of nonprofit management are all but missing- however, these are the groups that meet the needs of the target population. So the debate rages on…do we push everyone into the mold of the “effective” organizations or support organizations that “suck” but touch target populations albeit imperfectly.

Our answer has been to push from both ends, supporting culturally based groups when the programs are strong and pushing more established organizations towards cultural competency.

During those calls, the lead reviewer takes the time to discuss in detail the reasons why their proposal was not funded. We see it as a valuable way to build relationships as well as improving transparency with respect to our review process.

The calls can be uncomfortable (applicants sometimes try to get us to reconsider their application on the phone), but it helps both parties understand the other better.

At the same time, I am convinced that the messenger needs to deliver the ‘bad news’ with tact and grace.

As I am just the lowly Program Associate I had the responsibility of proofreading the little blurbs that the Program Officers wrote for each decline. I ran into something that really irked me. There was a phrase that was repeated in many of the declines. The Program Officer wrote something to the effect that the case for support “was not very strong.” Then they gave 3 or 4 really good reasons why the proposal was uncompetitive, a bad fit or just plain wrong. Instead of saying “not very strong” why didn’t they just write “weak?” Why use 3 words when one will suffice? “Oh, weak just sounds too harsh” they told me.

Some of the Program Staff were so worried about offending the applicant that what they wrote in their decline rationale was so vague and useless it was no more informative to the nonprofit than the form letter they used to get saying we get more solicitations than we could ever fund therefor we must decline you, etc.

Maybe I am unique, or maybe it is just because I used to be a fundraiser, but if my proposal gets declined, I would want to know why. That way I can take steps to fix the problem.

Why does the foundation world (or at least what I have seen so far) seem so reluctant to give honest, straightforward feedback to applicants? If somebody sucks - tell them so they can fix it.

We don’t have to be rude or mean, and I certainly respect all nonprofits enough not to actually use the word “suck”, but I am still going to decline you. If your case is weak, I’m going to call it weak. Then I will tell you why it is weak, so next time you can be more competitive. If your governance structure is inappropriate, I will tell you why so that you can come in line with best practices.

I know as foundations we are seen as being the ones with “the power” in the relationship between grantmaker and grantseekers. But with that power, don’t we also have the responsibility to help nonprofits better themselves? We exist solely to benefit the nonprofit sector they comprise.

Great post. Agree with everything you said. And you’re right, I think Grassroots.org is a terrific organization from what I know of them. I was pushing them to think about economic sustainability by working with organizations that can pay them (some small amount) to use their hosted software applications. I also appreciated the Grassroots’ team’s tenacity in pushing back. That was exactly the purpose of trying to make for a provocative session.

-Mike