You Worked So Hard – But Didn’t Get the Award

Last month I wrote a blog about debriefing if you receive a rejection letter from a grantmaker.

In that blog post I talked about working with Arianne Benedetto, Lead Grant Writer for Portland Rescue Mission, and her grants team to develop a template that we can all use to help us debrief. Arianne, her team, and I have worked on a document that I think might be useful for many of you. I also asked you, the reader, to send me your thoughts and comments regarding ‘debriefing’ so I could share your ideas with others.

Let’s start with a few of the comments that I received after my post.

Grant Denial Monitoring and Evaluation

Arianne and I initially talked through what we felt a good debriefing document should include. There were a few email exchanges and then Arianne sent me this draft document for my review and comments:

Portland Rescue Mission
Grant Denial Monitoring and Evaluation (DRAFT)

Foundation/Proposal Purpose/Date: [Name of Foundation/Name of Project or Program/Date]

1. Did the foundation give any specific feedback in their response (aside from a standard denial response)?
2. If not, do they seem open to a request for feedback? List any reasons why we would/wouldn't want to reach out.
3. Reviewing again the foundation's stated values/focus/giving pattern, do they still seem like a good match with our organization?
4. Were there any problems or concerns with the proposal itself that may have had an impact (i.e., something not as strong as we’d like, was handed in later in their cycle, etc.)?
5. Is there still encouraging potential for future partnership with them? If yes, describe what steps have been taken to begin efforts towards future partnership opportunities.
6. What's the takeaway from this proposal and denial? Any valuable lessons learned (either for this foundation in particular or in general)?

This was a very good draft, and it certainly helped me focus my own thinking around this topic. I thought it might be smart to break the debrief document into two sections:

1. If you have talked with the grantmaker already.
2. If you have not talked with them, or think you won't be able to.

I re-organized their document, added a few edits and thoughts and came up with this:

Portland Rescue Mission
Grant Denial Monitoring and Evaluation

Foundation/Proposal Purpose/Date: [Name of Foundation/Name of Project or Program/Date]

If we have talked with the grantmaker use this set of debriefing questions:

1. What specific feedback did the grantmaker provide?
2. How can we best address the grantmaker’s feedback/concerns?
3. Are there specific steps we can take to position ourselves for future funding from this grantmaker?
4. What's the takeaway from this proposal and denial? Any valuable lessons learned (either for this foundation in particular or in general)?

If we have not talked with the grantmaker use this set of debriefing questions:

1. Did the grantmaker give any specific feedback in their response (aside from a standard denial response)?
2. Reviewing again the foundation's stated values/focus/giving pattern, do they still seem like a good match with our organization? If so, can we identify our weak points and are there ways to strengthen these areas?
3. Were there any problems or concerns with the proposal itself that may have had an impact (i.e., something not as strong as we would have liked, was submitted late, etc.)
4. Should we apply again to this particular grantmaker? (Have we checked with other successful grantees to determine how many times they applied before receiving an award?)
5. What's the takeaway from this proposal and denial? Any valuable lessons learned (either for this foundation in particular or in general)?

Arianne agreed that breaking this into two sections made sense. So she took this draft document to her team and the only additional thing they added was a line about specific steps to take going forward, which makes total sense. Arianne's team then used the final document to review a denied request, and according to her it worked very well as a debriefing document.

Our Readers Have Something to Say

Several of our readers responded to that first blog post in February and I wanted to share their thinking with you, as it might influence how you construct your own debriefing document or the work you do before you submit a proposal.

Julie Delano, Development Manager at Page Ahead Children’s Literacy Program in Seattle, said:

“Some of this is really prior to and not so much debrief. For example – (do you) know who their Trustees are and do you know anyone that knows one of them? Do they accept letters of support?

1. Ask if there is a list of who was funded and review that list to see what they DID fund.
2. I ask them what things are important to the board and how is the board diverse in their decisions? You can better identify if there are one or two members that have more weight than others.  
3. I always ask was there something missing that they wanted or did they have unanswered questions about anything. Sometimes they will voice to me – that something was a concern that can help me highlight that piece better the next time or “they weren’t sure how something specific worked.”.  This allows me the opportunity to focus on that or add that in next time I write the grant.”

I think Julie has some very good points here, particularly finding out as much as possible about the grantmaker, their process, and their history ahead of time.

I also received an email from Mary Ann Cooper, MD, Managing Director at African Centres for Lightning and Electromagnetics Network. Her comments were very helpful as she ‘shoots down’ the idea that you can actually talk with a program officer at one of the foundations. She said:

“You suggest talking with the grantmaker/officer prior to sending in the letter of intent/first round submission. I am finding more and more that contact information is left out of grant announcements and is not available regardless of how you search their website and grants call. In fact, in the international grants I search, that seems to be the rule rather than the exception.”

And she is spot on when it comes to interacting with grantmakers. It is extremely difficult to get past the reception desk, so to speak. What do you do in a case like this? I have decided this is going to be the topic of my next blog post because it deserves that much attention! So, again I ask you, the reader, if you have suggestions on how to successfully communicate with grantmakers please send me your thoughts: Cynthia.Adams@grantstation.com.