Funders & Supporters
Great ideas need fertile soil to take root. Funding can help transfer energy into programs, projects and an improved quality of life.
But funding can also create a lot of administration for both the applicant and recipient - administration that does not further the mission of the recipient and may or may not be budgeted in the original application. Funding can also come with conditions. A funder may only approve a certain percentage of the total "ask." And funding may only be available if matching funds from other funders is committed.
With this culture, it is easy to see how seeking funding can require a committed professional. In fact, fundraisers and grant writers are now standard positions in larger non profits (and required skills for volunteers and general staff in smaller ones).
Golden & Area A is lucky to have over $800,000 in locally-awarded funds available to its non profit organizations. This doesn't include the "in kind" donations of time, goods, services and space that circulate throughout the community. The distribution of these funds is done with the best intent and usually is allocated to specific causes that resonate with the granting organization or broader community.
In 2009, inspired by Glen Ewan, a Funders Forum event was sponsored by the Golden & District Community Foundation (GDCF) as a way of showcasing the many channels available. Fifty attendees listened to 17 funders, and the GDCF saw a significant reduction in grant requests during the following grant cycle. But where did these requests go? Were the right projects still getting adequate support?
In 2013, it is time to bring the community's funders and supporters - local and regional - together again. Stay tuned for future events which will bring together Golden & Area A's funders and community development leaders.
But funding can also create a lot of administration for both the applicant and recipient - administration that does not further the mission of the recipient and may or may not be budgeted in the original application. Funding can also come with conditions. A funder may only approve a certain percentage of the total "ask." And funding may only be available if matching funds from other funders is committed.
With this culture, it is easy to see how seeking funding can require a committed professional. In fact, fundraisers and grant writers are now standard positions in larger non profits (and required skills for volunteers and general staff in smaller ones).
Golden & Area A is lucky to have over $800,000 in locally-awarded funds available to its non profit organizations. This doesn't include the "in kind" donations of time, goods, services and space that circulate throughout the community. The distribution of these funds is done with the best intent and usually is allocated to specific causes that resonate with the granting organization or broader community.
In 2009, inspired by Glen Ewan, a Funders Forum event was sponsored by the Golden & District Community Foundation (GDCF) as a way of showcasing the many channels available. Fifty attendees listened to 17 funders, and the GDCF saw a significant reduction in grant requests during the following grant cycle. But where did these requests go? Were the right projects still getting adequate support?
In 2013, it is time to bring the community's funders and supporters - local and regional - together again. Stay tuned for future events which will bring together Golden & Area A's funders and community development leaders.
Example: Seeking & Managing Grants
An example of a small non profit project can illustrate the challenges of the entire grant funded system:
Organization A has an idea to raise the awareness of a particular issue in their community.
Organization A creates a project plan (15 hours) determines it needs $15,000 in external funding for this project. They will be contributing $5,000 of their own volunteer and staff time, setting the total value of the project at $20,000.
Organization A decides to make 4 grant applications to 4 separate organizations for $5,000 each. That way, if they are turned down for one, they can still proceed as planned. Organization A spends about 5 hours to complete each grant application; 20 hours in total. One funder requires a public presentation, so another 3 hours are required (not counting the adjudication committee's and staffs' time). That's a total of 1 weeks work from 1 full time equivalent (FTE) worker just to get a project created. At this point there is still no money committed to it and no confirmation that it is even a good idea or a community priority.
Since funders have different deadlines and some require a subsequent internal meetings to make decisions, it may not be known for up to 6 months if Organization A's funding will be available. In the meantime, through their daily activities and input from clients and peer organizations, Organization A fine-tunes their project plan. Rather than be proactive, Organization A is hesitant to start the project for fear of being perceived as not needing the full requested funding.
Eventually, Organization A hears that they were awarded $12,500 in total from 3 funders. Two funders provided full funding, one funder denied their application because it doesn't fit with their program focus. And the last funder tried to provide some money to all eligible applicants and awarded Organization A $2,500 - 50% of the $5,000 ask.
Now the work begins. Organization A scurries to execute the project, ensuring that there are no material changes and just improvements from their original plan, while executing the plan with 17% less funding. (For fun, imagine a government department or business trying to produce the same product or service with a 17% cut in revenues.)
Organization A completes the project in 5 months with a combination of volunteer and project staff time. (Remember, some funders do not allow the grant money to support administration time.) The following weeks are then dedicated to reporting to the 3 funders, who have different reporting requirements. Therefore, along with Organization A's general ledger records, the project's financial record needs to be squeezed into 3 different tables (one in Word, one in Excel and one in a PDF). After each of the 3 funders ask questions and receive a full set of project-related receipts/invoices, final cheques are written and mailed to Organization A.
Easy, right? And all this for a small $20,000 project.
How much time was just spent on administration by Organization A and the 4 Funders?
Should Organization A artificially increase their ask to the partial funder because they know that they'll only receive partial funding?
Is Organization A recognized and compensated for their additional work required?
Are economies of scale realized with larger projects and larger grants?
Was that additional effort included in the cost/benefit analysis?
And does this system effectively address and solve local social issues?
Organization A has an idea to raise the awareness of a particular issue in their community.
Organization A creates a project plan (15 hours) determines it needs $15,000 in external funding for this project. They will be contributing $5,000 of their own volunteer and staff time, setting the total value of the project at $20,000.
Organization A decides to make 4 grant applications to 4 separate organizations for $5,000 each. That way, if they are turned down for one, they can still proceed as planned. Organization A spends about 5 hours to complete each grant application; 20 hours in total. One funder requires a public presentation, so another 3 hours are required (not counting the adjudication committee's and staffs' time). That's a total of 1 weeks work from 1 full time equivalent (FTE) worker just to get a project created. At this point there is still no money committed to it and no confirmation that it is even a good idea or a community priority.
Since funders have different deadlines and some require a subsequent internal meetings to make decisions, it may not be known for up to 6 months if Organization A's funding will be available. In the meantime, through their daily activities and input from clients and peer organizations, Organization A fine-tunes their project plan. Rather than be proactive, Organization A is hesitant to start the project for fear of being perceived as not needing the full requested funding.
Eventually, Organization A hears that they were awarded $12,500 in total from 3 funders. Two funders provided full funding, one funder denied their application because it doesn't fit with their program focus. And the last funder tried to provide some money to all eligible applicants and awarded Organization A $2,500 - 50% of the $5,000 ask.
Now the work begins. Organization A scurries to execute the project, ensuring that there are no material changes and just improvements from their original plan, while executing the plan with 17% less funding. (For fun, imagine a government department or business trying to produce the same product or service with a 17% cut in revenues.)
Organization A completes the project in 5 months with a combination of volunteer and project staff time. (Remember, some funders do not allow the grant money to support administration time.) The following weeks are then dedicated to reporting to the 3 funders, who have different reporting requirements. Therefore, along with Organization A's general ledger records, the project's financial record needs to be squeezed into 3 different tables (one in Word, one in Excel and one in a PDF). After each of the 3 funders ask questions and receive a full set of project-related receipts/invoices, final cheques are written and mailed to Organization A.
Easy, right? And all this for a small $20,000 project.
How much time was just spent on administration by Organization A and the 4 Funders?
Should Organization A artificially increase their ask to the partial funder because they know that they'll only receive partial funding?
Is Organization A recognized and compensated for their additional work required?
Are economies of scale realized with larger projects and larger grants?
Was that additional effort included in the cost/benefit analysis?
And does this system effectively address and solve local social issues?
Community Grant Continuum
Phase 1 of this project started a collecting information related to the many funding programs local groups have available to them - usually through locally raised or awarded funds. (While some groups rely in independent fundraising efforts or provincial or federal funding sources, this study looked only at the locally-raised and awarded funding available.)
The adjacent table is only an estimate, but shows the considerable and limited resources some funders have available. Ultimately, it advantageous to ensure that funding is triggering what the community wants and needs to get done.
But at this point, it is useful for funder to ask the following questions:
How do funders communicate?
How do they know where to focus?
Are there any critical gaps or unnecessary overlapping?
Is there overlap in mission?
Is our funding philosophy well-founded and defendable?
Can we simplify fund distribution together?
Is the requirement for matching funds helpful?
What other funding sources is our community missing?
Would a Community Team/Board help us get there?
The adjacent table is only an estimate, but shows the considerable and limited resources some funders have available. Ultimately, it advantageous to ensure that funding is triggering what the community wants and needs to get done.
But at this point, it is useful for funder to ask the following questions:
How do funders communicate?
How do they know where to focus?
Are there any critical gaps or unnecessary overlapping?
Is there overlap in mission?
Is our funding philosophy well-founded and defendable?
Can we simplify fund distribution together?
Is the requirement for matching funds helpful?
What other funding sources is our community missing?
Would a Community Team/Board help us get there?
Event: Presentation & Conversation with Funders
On the evening of July 31, 2013, an informal presentation was made to CBT's Gary Ockenden and the Town of Golden's Christina Benty at the RockWater Grill & Bar. After an overview of the Community Coordination project, the Mr. Ockenden and Mayor Benty were asked to reflect on the the many community funding streams; and both the intent and results of these options.
Improvements connecting initiatives with financial support will need to be done in a combination of internal discussions about impact, as well as broader conversations on community priorities. It is clear that funders have to be accountable for where the funds go - often more accountable than the non profit recipient.
A copy of the presentation to these funders can be found below.
Improvements connecting initiatives with financial support will need to be done in a combination of internal discussions about impact, as well as broader conversations on community priorities. It is clear that funders have to be accountable for where the funds go - often more accountable than the non profit recipient.
A copy of the presentation to these funders can be found below.
| communitycoordinationpresentation-cbtfunders-jul312013.pdf |
| bc_hydro_pilt_policy_f-29_amendment_march_2012.pdf |
Possible Stakeholder Organizations
|
BC Hydro - Grants in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) (CSRD)
Columbia Basin Trust Columbia Kootenay Cultural Alliance Columbia Shuswap Regional District - Grant In Aid Program Golden & District Rotary Club Golden and District Community Foundation Golden & District Lions Club Golden Masonic Centre Society Golden Shriners GoldPly Community Association Heart & Stroke Foundation of BC & Yukon - Kelowna Area Office Henry M Durand Scholarship Foundation (GDCF) |
Kinsmen Club of Golden
Mountain Lodge #11 Ancient Free and Accepted Masons Order of the Eastern Star - Golden Chapter Canadian Cancer Society Relay for Life - Golden Rockies for African Gogo's Royal Canadian Legion Branch #122 The Eugene and Irene LaRue Memorial Trust Fund (GDCF) Town of Golden - Grant In Aid Program United Way of Cranbrook and Kimberley United Way of North Okanagan Columbia Shuswap |
