This is my third in a series of four posts that aim to provide nonprofits with some insights and tips for managing the multiple, sometimes overlapping, divergent, or competing demands of their funders. Last time, we pulled back the curtain to understand some explanations for some funder strategies. This week, I’m suggesting some ways nonprofits can use that information to their advantage.
(I feel I need to start this post with a disclaimer kind of like the one that tells people not to eat the plastic wrapper on their Fruit Roll-Ups. Please use your own best judgment, informed by your relationships and experiences with your funders, when discussing and negotiating funding. The strategies I describe here are simply ones I’ve heard some grant-makers say they appreciate.)
Checking the Funder Fit
Finding a funder that’s a good fit requires a strong and honest understanding of who each of you are. Here are some of my recommendations:
Understand why they do what they do and why they do it the way they do it.
This means understanding their Mission and Vision as well as their Theory of Change. Funders aren’t ATM’s, and their primary reason for existence is not to support your mission. See my last post for a fuller discussion of this reality. For a little more information about how grant-makers use Theory of Change, check this out.
Get clear on why you do what you do and why you do it the way you do it.
This is the step too many organizations overlook or undervalue. If organizations spend too much time and too much energy conforming to funder requirements, they can lose sight of their own goals and end up having no method in their madness. I see three main habits among nonprofits that increase the likelihood that they fall into a pattern of chasing the dollars, being a mile wide and an inch deep, and therefore limiting or obscuring any impact they could achieve otherwise:
- Allowing program designs to zig-zag over time with little intention or focus
- Defining success in generic or broad ways
- Straying outside their mission or core competency
If nonprofits combine their practice-based wisdom with sound theory and research to create evidence-informed program designs, they are better equipped to advocate for the value of their approaches and their definitions of success and less likely to get molded in the image of their funders.
Compare the two to see how well they fit.
Compare your Missions, Visions, and Theories of Change. Do you share the same view of how change happens, what it takes to get there, and what the finish line looks like? Do you provide at least one of the components that they believe is critical to the success of their Mission?
If you fit, demonstrate it.
Use the funder’s terminology and framework to describe your efforts and show how you support the things they care about. Don’t just tell them why they should support the things you care about.
If you don’t fit, be honest and have a conversation.
Funders can tell when you’re bending yourself into a pretzel or creeping away from your Mission, and it’s a turn-off. If you believe that what you do supports their Mission and is a missing link in their Theory of Change, make the case. Use your own research, theory, and data to show how your work contributes to what they care about. Gauge their interest and tolerance for risk-taking, piloting, innovating, and learning.
Bottom Line
I’ve got no rose-colored glasses. I know nonprofits don’t always have the luxury of walking away from funding or always doing things their own ways. But, the more equipped and empowered nonprofits are to have peer-to-peer conversations with funders about the “how” and “why” of your work, you might be able to bring some more consistency and cohesion to your patchwork of funding.