Not every grant is worth applying for. The most useful decision in grant work happens before the first draft, and most small shops skip it.
Here’s how it usually goes. A board member forwards a link with “Should we apply?” Someone says “It can’t hurt.” Three weeks later, the development director has spent 30 hours on an application for a program the organization would have to invent, from a funder who has never given in your county, for an amount that won’t cover the reporting.
It can hurt. Every hour on the wrong application is an hour not spent on the right donor, the right funder, or the work itself. A grant is not free money. It’s money with a price, and the price is paid up front in staff time and later in obligations.
So decide first. Below is the checklist I recommend, built around five questions. Score each one, add them up, and let the total start the conversation.
Before you score: read the funder’s own words
You can’t score a grant from a press release. Read the guidelines in full, the funder’s website, and if it’s a private foundation, its most recent Form 990-PF. Private foundations file that return with the IRS each year, it’s available for public inspection, and its supplementary section lists the grants the foundation paid, with each recipient, purpose, and amount, along with how it accepts applications. It also has a box the foundation can check to say it only gives to preselected organizations and doesn’t accept unsolicited requests. If that box is checked, you have your answer, and it took five minutes.
The grants list tells you what the foundation does, which is not always what its website says it does. Look at the size of typical grants, the kinds of organizations funded, and where they are.
The five questions
Fit. Does this funder already want to fund what you already do? The test is whether you could apply without changing your program. Bending a program to match a funder’s priorities is how organizations end up running projects nobody on staff believes in.
Odds. Given the funder’s history, how likely are you to win? Signs of good odds: they fund organizations like yours, in your area, at roughly the amount you’d request, and they’ve funded new grantees recently. Signs of poor odds: they fund the same 12 organizations every year, or their typical grant is a tenth of what you need.
Cost of applying. How many hours will this take, counting everyone? Include the narrative, the budget, the attachments, the finance office’s time, the executive director’s review, and the letters of support. Then compare it to the award. A small grant with a long application can cost more than it brings in.
Reporting burden. What do you owe if you win? Interim and final reports, outcome data you don’t currently collect, site visits, restricted-fund tracking, and any requirement to spend on a timeline that doesn’t match your year. Some grants come with reporting that would take a part-time staff member to satisfy.
Relationship. Is there a person at the funder you can talk to, or someone on your board or staff who knows them? A grant with a relationship behind it is more likely to be funded and much more likely to be renewed. A grant with no relationship and no way to build one is closer to a lottery ticket.
The scored checklist
Print this and fill it out for every opportunity before anyone starts writing. Score each line from 0 to 4.
Grant go or no-go worksheet
Funder and program. ____________
Amount to request. ____________ Deadline. ____________
Completed by. ____________ Date. ____________Fit
- The funder’s stated priorities match a program we already run. (0–4) ___
- We would not need to change the program to apply. (0–4) ___
Odds
- Past grants went to organizations like ours in size and type. (0–4) ___
- Past grants went to our area, and their typical size matches our request. (0–4) ___
Cost of applying (score 4 for low cost, 0 for very high)
- Estimated total staff hours to apply: ___ Score. (0–4) ___
- We already have the attachments, budget, and data the application asks for. (0–4) ___
Reporting burden (score 4 for light, 0 for heavy)
- Reporting matches data we already collect. (0–4) ___
- Spending timeline and restrictions fit our year. (0–4) ___
Relationship
- We know someone at the funder, or can reach a program officer before applying. (0–4) ___
- Someone on our board or staff has a connection to the funder. (0–4) ___
Total (out of 40). ___
Decision. Go / No-go / Not this cycle
If go: who writes, who reviews, who signs. ____________
If no-go: what would change our answer? ____________
Reading the score
Here is how I’d suggest reading the total, as a house rule rather than a formula.
36 and up. Go. Put it on the calendar and assign it.
24 to 35. Talk about it. Look at which lines scored lowest. A weak relationship score can often be fixed with a phone call to the program officer before you apply. A weak fit score usually can’t be fixed at all.
Under 24. No-go for now. Record the reason so nobody revisits the same opportunity from scratch next year.
Two lines deserve a veto, whatever the total. If fit scores 0 or 1, don’t apply; you’d be writing a program to match the money. If reporting would require hiring someone you can’t afford, don’t apply; a grant that costs you a position isn’t a gift.
Say no out loud
The checklist matters most for the opportunities you turn down. When a board member forwards the next link, you can send back the completed worksheet instead of a vague “I don’t think it’s a fit.” That turns a judgment call into a shared decision, and it teaches your board what a good grant looks like.
Keep the completed worksheets in one folder. Over a year or two they become a map of which funders are worth your time and which ones only look like it, and your applications go only to the ones worth it.
If you’d like help building a grant strategy around the funders most likely to say yes, that’s part of our Annual Giving and Grant Strategy work.
– Mary-Ellen
Sources
- Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation (PDF), Internal Revenue Service
- Public disclosure and availability of exempt organizations returns and applications, Internal Revenue Service
Featured photo: Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash.
