In Praise of the Open Grant Cycle

Yield Giving—a charitable entity established by MacKenzie Scott, a philanthropist and the ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos—recently opened a call for proposals. The call will result in 250 unrestricted grants of $1 million each. Interested organizations must register to apply by Friday, May 5, 2023.

Until this open call, Yield Giving had been operating as what we at GrantStation sometimes refer to as a "closed shop" funder. They gave grants, but you couldn't just send them an application. The organization managed its own research into potential grantees, then reached out to them with an invitation to apply.

GrantStation has a policy of only listing funders that accept unsolicited proposals, letters of inquiry, or some other form of unsolicited outreach, such as introductory emails. So my job as a researcher here is somewhat dependent on open grant cycles. But my appreciation of open grant cycles goes beyond my desire to keep my job and, relatedly, keep the lights and heat on at home. I believe these types of cycles are key to making the philanthropic field more open and equitable.

I occasionally get emails from GrantStation Members asking if I can look into a funder they heard about but which isn't listed in our database. Maybe the Member saw the funder in an annual report for a different organization, or heard whispers at an event of someone who knew someone who may have gotten a grant. When I try to do research, I find the funder is a ghost, a few occasional blips in the entirety of the internet. They exist in some capacity, but there is no information about reaching out. Sometimes the funder isn't its own legal entity, but an unpublicized fund at a different organization. I get a sinking feeling of disappointment when I follow up with the Member. "You can try reaching out to the funder," I say, "but there is no guarantee of a response." I've learned over the years that what a lot of organizations are looking for is just a glimmer of hope, any chance to potentially get a foot in the door to be considered for funding.

Open grant cycles are that feeling of hope made manifest. They come with the belief that if your program is good enough, and your application is good enough, you can acquire that grant.

While funders that work on an invitation-only basis often perform diligent research, catching their attention is somewhat of a game of marketing and connections. If your name is out there, you are more likely to be noticed by funders. Similarly, your chances of an invite can go up if you have a connection to a board member. However, these aspects of the process can be more challenging for small and new funders, those organizations that haven't had much time to spread the word or make connections, and whose budgets may not have much wiggle room for marketing their work.

In a recent article about the closing of the AmazonSmile program, I mentioned that the grocery chain Kroger allows shoppers to link their shopper's card to a charitable organization. So I decided to do that. Presented with a huge list of organizations, I thought I'd just choose the local animal shelter. My partner stopped me and mentioned that they already get quite a few donations; maybe we should choose an organization a little more under the radar. The challenge for smaller, lesser-known organizations is very real.

In that same article, I also mentioned another interesting trend pointed out by a director of a business coalition: when companies start their corporate giving programs, they often have a wide-open approach, accepting applications from a variety of organizations. As time goes by, they close those flood gates to focus on narrower strategies.

The same thing happens with many other young funders. We've had several new funders reach out to us for help broadcasting their programs. One fairly niche funder only had a couple applications last year and wanted more this year, so requested our help.

But as some of these organizations grow in name recognition, suddenly they have more applications than they can handle. Instead of hiring more program officers to handle the influx, they decide to keep their costs down in order to funnel more dollars toward charities. So they close the application process down, which I always find a little heartbreaking. In an already competitive field, one less option is always a bit of a blow.

The philanthropic sector in recent years has increased its focus on equity and equality. I believe that those concepts should also be applied to the process of applying for grants, allowing a range of otherwise overlooked organizations to be considered. While even an open process has gatekeepers (the folks who write the criteria, the application review committee, etc.), organizations are given a venue to allow their voices to be heard. These opportunities are a key factor in keeping the charitable sector more open and fair. If you are a funder, I hope you will consider keeping or creating an open grants process. If you are a grantseeker, we wish you the best of luck on your search and applications. May the open call be ever in your favor.