May 9, 2017
Fact: we are living in the social media era.
Whether the question is how to engage with your supporters, raise the visibility of your programs, market your event, or bring in new donors, more and more data seems to suggest that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are at least a piece of the solution. But what does the role of social media look like for your grants program?
While we at Elevate love our long, detailed how-to posts, the topic of social media and its role in the grant writing process requires much less space. The short answer – which we want to be unequivocal about – is that social media outreach is not a part of your grants program. It is not a part of your cultivation strategy. It is not part of your grant writer’s job description.
Let’s dig into this a bit further.
To be clear, here are a few things we are not saying:
1. We aren’t saying social media is a waste of time.
And for that matter, we’re not saying that social media shouldn’t be part of your broader development program. Targeted engagement on the right social platforms could be very effective strategies for engaging with individual donors or volunteers, or simply communicating with the general public. But while those efforts are certainly related to development, we do not want to suggest that they deserve a place in your grant strategy.
2. We aren’t saying that you can’t have a development associate who does your grant writing and your social media.
However, keep in mind that if you are hiring a grant writer and you want to really maximize that person’s time spent on your grants program, any dedicated time spent away from grant writing and instead on social media is likely diluting the strength of your grants program.
3. We aren’t saying there’s no value in engaging with funders on social media.
Connecting with the right people and organizations online can actually be a great source of information about prospective funders, their deadlines, their giving priorities, etc. Moreover, if you’ve found success through tweeting at program officers, we’re not about to stop or discourage you. (We’ve seen crazier things work!) But again, this should not be where you’re focusing the bulk – or even a significant portion – of your attention.
As you can see, we’re not about to deny the potential benefits of leveraging social media as a means of communicating with the public, gathering information, or even engaging with stakeholders. However, if you’re routinely spending time, energy, and/or money trying to fold social media into your grants strategy – to that we say, no. Stop. Because not only will it fail to result in more grant funding, but your resources are also better spent elsewhere.
Rather than inadvertently wasting valuable time and energy on a social media strategy that will likely have limited ROI for your grants program, we strongly believe that you’d be better off investing that same time and energy in the kinds of activities and programmatic enhancements that are proven to compel funders and ultimately win you money – things like program design, strong outcomes, and meaningful cultivation.
In other words, social media should be, at most, a strategic supplement to a substantial grant strategy, to the extent that is feasible for your organization without compromising the quality of your grants.
A few ideas of social media tactics that are worthwhile:
- Tweet and/or post on Facebook about your work, to highlight your programmatic successes.
- Share photos of your staff and programs in action.
- Publicly thank funders whenever you have an opportunity.
- Follow funders and engage with any relevant content, including though the use of likes and retweets.
- Participate in any Q&As, Twitter chats, etc. your funders host on social platforms.
Throughout Elevate’s blog, we like to hammer home the key idea that funders care about substance – and the role of social media in your grants program is no exception. It’s our position that the substance of your proposals and your programs are paramount, and more deserving of your time and energy when it comes to your grant strategy. If you still feel strongly about spending time and energy on social media, treat your engagement on social platforms as strategic supplements to a substantive grants program – your bread and butter – and allocate staff time on those platforms accordingly.
March 10, 2017
This week, individuals and organizations nationwide have been celebrating AmeriCorps Week, recognizing the service contributions of over 80,000 members and 1 million AmeriCorps alumni in their communities across America.
AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps VISTA members add critical capacity to the nonprofit sector by volunteering their time, skills, and energy to creating change and, as their tagline emphasizes, getting things done.
Elevate works closely with a range of nonprofit clients who benefit from AmeriCorps members’ service and dedication, including: Food Recovery Network, Teens Run, The Literacy Lab, Edu-Futuro, Critical Exposure, See Forever Foundation, Capital Partners for Education, and Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King County. Through our work with nonprofit organizations like these in the DC region and across the country, we see firsthand the impact that AmeriCorps members have in their communities, as their work helps move the needle in a variety of high-need areas, and ensure that organizations of all kinds can continue making meaningful change.
In addition to adding capacity to organizations in the nonprofit sector and beyond, AmeriCorps also opens doors for its volunteers by providing pathways to employment. At Elevate, several members of our staff came to us from after serving with AmeriCorps. These fundraising professionals are now leveraging the skills and experience they gained through their AmeriCorps experience to help nonprofit organizations in DC and beyond creating meaningful, lasting social change.
Below, Elevate staff share in their own words about their experience with AmeriCorps, and its impact on their personal and professional trajectories.
EMILE DAWISHA
“The hardest part about shifting career paths is simply finding that first springboard opportunity. In 2009, I was a former English major with a journalism-heavy background, looking to shift gears into the nonprofit sector. AmeriCorps VISTA turned out to be the perfect opportunity for me. At the time, I wasn’t qualified for a full-time salaried position; and I didn’t want to take an internship or part-time gig. Through VISTA, I accepted a grant writing position at Sarah’s Circle, a women’s daytime shelter. Like most VISTA experiences, I took on a lot of responsibility and learned a lot of foundational skills in the process. Looking back, I was a bit over my head. But it was a heck of an education; and it ultimately sprung my grant writing career, which is now nine years and counting.”
Annelise Osterberg
“After moving to DC, I took a position as an AmeriCorps member at Manna, a local nonprofit that has been building affordable housing in the community since the 1980s. During my year as an AmeriCorps, I not only had the opportunity to see the inside-workings of an effective community development organization, but also gained valuable grant writing experience that prepared me to succeed in my role as Senior Grant Writer at Elevate.”
JONATHAN AYALA
“When I was an AmeriCorps volunteer – first as a City Year corps member, then as a member of the Washington AIDS Partnership – I quickly had to learn that effecting change would not be simple. In many cases, it would not even be probable. At least, not in the immediate sense I had been hoping for when I first signed up for my years of community service. AmeriCorps helped me rethink metrics of success. Did I close the achievement gap for middle school students in Washington, D.C.? No, not likely. But I did provide hundreds of hours of literacy tutoring for students across the academic spectrum. Is the rate of new HIV infections still stubbornly high in our city? Certainly. But, I did facilitate many workshops and testing sessions aimed at increasing young people’s awareness of how to prevent transmission.
At Elevate, we like to say that progress is possible. It’s an important thing for folks working toward justice to remember. We know that not every single grant we submit is going to be funded, nor are our clients going to become as efficient or effective as they would like overnight. Yet, we still celebrate successes when they occur, no matter how small, and continue to keep faith that the hard work we do on a daily basis will pay off.”
January 12, 2017
THIS POST IS PART OF A SERIES.
YOU CAN READ PART 2 HERE.
If you’re the leader of an organization, one of your key responsibilities is to predict the future—and prepare your organization to respond.
While this probably feels semi-impossible on many days, you’ve certainly been asked to predict—and prepare for—your revenue and expenses during annual budget season. And if you’ve ever been in a cash crunch, you might have wished you’d planned a little more rigorously earlier in the year.
Therefore, we want to share some tips and tools to make this process easier for you. Below is Elevate’s Guide to Creating Forecasting Charts, which we produce annually for our clients.
Forecasting v. Cash Flow
Before we dig in, we want to remind you that a forecasting chart is not the same as a cash flow chart, which is also a tool nonprofit executives need. Essentially, a forecasting document helps predict what funding you will receive, and a cash flow document records when you expect to receive your funding (as well as when that money you will need to spend throughout the year). You should plan to do your forecast document first and cash flow second.
What are revenue projections?
It’s all about probability! Simply put, a revenue projection is the probability that you will receive a certain amount of money during your fiscal year (or some other timeframe). To get a reasonable projection, we estimate the likelihood we will win a grant and then we multiply that probability by the amount of money requested.
For example, if we submitted a renewal request that we believe we are likely to win again, we might say that we have a 90% probability. If we submitted a cold proposal to a funder who has never given to us before, we might think we only have a 5% or 10% probability.
Here’s the math:
$ ask amount x % probability of winning = $ expected revenue
For example:
$100,000 request x 50% probability = $50,000 expected revenue
We add each anticipated proposal’s expected revenue together to create a forecast and get the total expected revenue from grant funding for our organization, and then update this throughout the year.
Why should you forecast?
The best expense budgets are based on reasonable projections of revenue; therefore, there is a high burden on you to ensure that your projections are reasonable, if not conservative. If you create an expense budget and then hope you can raise that amount of money, you are going to be absorbing a lot more risk than if you create your projections first and then create your expense budget based on what you can raise.
How often should you forecast?
Most organizations forecast annually and revisit their forecast before Board meetings. You should be regularly updating these as you win and lose grants, and tracking your progress to ensure you are going to meet your revenue goals. Just make sure there is a balance between the difficulty to project and the value you get from your projections.
How do you create a forecast or projections chart?
STEP 1:
Define set percentages based on the type, tier, and history of the funder. There are a few pretty standard percentages. For example, a nonprofit with a consistent strategy and leadership can assume that most private foundations that give annually will be renewed at least 90%. However, in general, these percentages will depend on your sector, funders, context, and leadership. For example:
If your executive director has recently changed, you might not renew all of your past funders.
If the broader context of your issue-area is changing, or public priorities are shifting, the funding landscape might be changing too—with public agencies making less funding available or harder to secure.
If your executive director is skilled at cultivating relationships with funders, you might win a higher percentage of cold proposals than an organization whose executive director does not cultivate or is new to it.
STEP 2:
Modify as few percentages as possible based on your knowledge of the funder. For example, if something has changed that makes you want to be more conservative or ambitious. We encourage you to stick to a set methodology though, both because it is easier, and also because you are least likely to insert your own bias (or unreasonable hopes!) into the process.
STEP 3:
Stay in the middle. No projections should be 100% unless the funding has already been awarded and no funding should be 0% unless you will not submit a request that will be awarded during the time period.
STEP 4:
Input your actual best estimate of the ask amount, ideally based on research.
STEP 5:
Set up your projection chart to calculate expected revenue from each funder and then the total (sum) of all opportunities. If you’d like to, you can create a lower-risk forecast and a higher-risk forecast. We generally think this is a good practice and does not require much more work.
We understand if you are skeptical. After all, when you put a 90% probability on a $100,000 grant, and then win it, your projections are off by a full $10,000! Even worse: when you put a 10% probability on a $50,000 grant and win it, the difference is a full $45,000. So, what’s the point?
Your goal is not to get everything about every funder right. Instead: it is to play the averages and get your total projections as close as possible to reality.
All grants, by the end of the fiscal year, will be either 0% or 100% — so when you project a 10% probability, you are not estimating that only 10% of your ask amount will be granted. (Most likely, you will win most of what you request.) Instead, your goal is to win ONE out of every TEN funding sources that have a 10% probability in your projections. The same is true with renewals: if you plan to renew all the money you won last year at 100%, you are taking on too much risk – if a single foundation chooses to change priorities, and not fund you again, having a 90% projection will allow you to absorb that loss much more easily.
THIS POST IS PART OF A SERIES!
You can read part 2 of this series here, and make sure to download our free forecasting template below!
December 1, 2016
Elevate routinely writes grant proposals and reports for clients, and increasingly often, we encounter questions that ask organizations about their weaknesses or challenges. Our clients often ask us: how transparent should we be about our challenges? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers.
We cannot say that you should always be fully open with your funders at all times. What is too much information for one person or funder might be expected information for another. Sometimes funders do not want the messy details, they simply prefer to know their money is making a difference. Knowing your funders well and having a strong cultivation and stewardship program can help you understand their interests and expectations better.
Nevertheless, there are some general guidelines and some universal red flags, which we’ve detailed below.
General Guidelines
First, establish real relationships with your funders, and classify them into three basic categories:
All the Details:
These funders want all the details, good and bad. They approach their relationship with you as a partner. They will support you during the hard times and might even be concerned if they do not know what is going on inside your nonprofit.
Enough Details:
These funders want enough details to feel invested and ‘in the loop’ but they might get antsy if you shared all your ongoing problems. Remember: not all funders have been fully exposed to the ups-and-downs of running a nonprofit. Sometimes, these funders simply trust you, and know that you will handle the inevitable challenges you face. They do not think it is the best use of their time to know everything you are working on, even the challenges.
Stick to the Successes:
Some funders really enjoy reading about your successes and your stories of transformation. These funders do not value reading about all the problems you face. Alternatively, they might not be used to reading about nonprofits’ challenges. Sharing your problems when they are not welcome or when the funders are not getting the same transparency from their other grantees is unnecessarily risky.
Elevate does not have a preference or opinion on which of the above is better. Everyone gives for their own reasons, and wants to run their giving programs in the way that makes sense to them. We have noticed trends, however.
Trends & GuidePosts
In general, smaller, unstaffed private family foundations prefer to hear your successes, with a light touch, at most, about your challenges. Stick to your successes with them.
The less close your relationship with your funder, the more you should stay in the second lane – just sharing enough to be credible and framing your challenges well. This is particularly important with funders who have broad, rather than deep, interests and and where a flailing organization or program will raise concerns.
Finally, the more closely you work with a funder or program officer, the more important it is that you be fully transparent about your challenges and response. Relatedly, the more sophisticated your issue area, and the more knowledgeable a program officer is about the issue, the more transparent you are going to have to be to gain their trust and appear credible. Sometimes, program officers will even want regular meetings with you if they have fully invested in your work.
A final note: the relationship you can have with your funder depends a lot on who the ultimate decision maker is, and the role other people have in influencing their opinions. For example, at public agencies, the decision makers might be a selected group of experts and the program officers are helping you to prepare your application for review by those experts. You can be more transparent with them and even ask for advice about what they recommend.
What to Share
Always share:
You should always share the following with your funders:
- Key leadership transitions, like when your executive director is leaving;
- Key program changes, expansions, or contractions, for the programs they are funding; and
- Potentially negative news, that is going to become public anyway – like a lawsuit.
Important Note
It goes without saying, that you must always be 100% honest about the activities you have completed and your achievements or lack thereof. Your job is to frame it honestly and effectively, but never incorrectly.
Sometimes Share:
Depending on your relationship with the funder, discussed above, you should sometimes share the following (and frame them well):
- Disappointing or concerning outcomes;
- Decreased participation or key partnerships that are ending; and
- Major financial challenges. You are not going to hide these anyway, as your finances will be public, so be sure to provide context.
Be Thoughtful About:
- External factors limiting your success, such as challenges with the local government; and
- Partners who did not fulfill their commitments; and
- Any similar negative discussion of other organizations.
not necessary:
- General staff transitions that are not at a high level, like a program director or executive director;
- An office move, unless you need funding for it or it opens new opportunities;
- Small program innovations that did not work well: in general, you are not being more transparent by focusing on your failures rather than successes. And more importantly, you are distracting from big picture. Small details, for good or bad, are usually not worth including.
