When a Funder Comes Knocking: What Makes a Relationship Between a Foundation and a Grantee Tick?

You are not alone if your answer is the often uneasy relationship you have as a grant seeker, especially if your organization really needs the money and a particular grantmaker holds the power over whether or not you ll get funded. This complex relationship may seem all the more unnerving if you or your organization is a relative newcomer to fundraising.

For this article, we decided to take a closer look at an example of a healthy relationship between one of our member organizations and one of its funders. I interviewed both the funder and the NAMAC member, talking with them separately but posing the same questions. (See Sidebar for background information.) I asked each to tell me her half of the story - their first interactions, how they got off to a positive start, and which specific activities were taken to develop a relationship that would eventually lead beyond funding to an understanding of one another s larger purpose.

This summer NAMAC is launched the "Funding Support Network," a new area of its website that includes firsthand stories from our member organizations. We hope it will help demystify the relationship between grantees and donors, arming our members with the confidence and candor needed to approach funders.

The Story Begins: Getting to Know You
"We needed to develop knowledge and intelligence about the field," remembers Anna Lefer of the Open Society Institute (OSI) when asked about her earliest recollection of Global Action Project (GAP). "So we convened a youth media meeting and invited them to come." What struck me in the association between OSI and GAP, which dates back to the formative days of OSI s Youth Media Program in 1998, is that, unlike most such relationships, which begin with a would-be grantee shooting off a proposal to a hoped-for funder, this one was initiated by the foundation. It s an opportunity that many nonprofits never have - but probably should be prepared for.

Here s how Diana Coryat of GAP remembers it: "A researcher from OSI contacted us, not wanting to talk to us but to see examples of our youth videos. We sent them everything. Several months later, they called us about a meeting. But again, it was the youth they were interested in. They didn t want us [Diana and co-founder Susan Siegel] at the meeting, but two or three young people from our program." She asked if the meeting already had a youth facilitator - important, she explained, because in meetings led by adults young people often feel expected to perform and won t speak frankly - and offered up the services of a former GAP participant, a young woman who had recently returned with training as a facilitator.

OSI took Diana up on the offer, and here s the point: Relationships are a two-way street. OSI had a vision, a funding program-in-progress, and a need to find out about the burgeoning field of youth media. GAP had a markedly compatible vision, in-the-trenches experience, and a need for funding partners to help make their work possible. Diana volunteered GAP s assistance in the form of a colleague. From their first points of contact, OSI and GAP related to each other not only because of the specific needs of their organizations, but also through their shared purposes.

What is distinctive about OSI s support of GAP, compared to that of other funders? Diana says, "OSI was the first funder to look at our organization in a holistic way and invest in its growth." She explains that youth-development funders were slow to see the potential of media making as a way to build young people s personal, academic, and leadership skills. These funders often questioned the impact of youth media programs; the number of people actually receiving training and the quantity of tapes they produced didn t seem to add up to much. In contrast, OSI quickly grasped not only the value of media making as a tool for youth-development, but also the extended impact of youth videos through outreach and distribution.

"Anna wasn t bothered by the small numbers," says Diana. "She took a leap of faith in GAP" - supporting the organization s efforts to increase its impact by adding more youth teams, building audiences, and strengthening GAP for the long haul.

Specific Steps: Bedrock and Beyond
I asked both Anna and Diana what specific steps their organizations had taken to forge and develop their association. Neither remembers it as a conscious effort. "Our missions were so aligned," explains Diana, a simple statement that describes the bedrock of all successful partnerships between foundations and grantees. "It developed organically," says Anna. "I respected GAP s work and also Diana s thoughtful expertise. I came to look forward to our conversations." If their missions formed the natural foundation of their relationship, open lines of communication provided the bricks and mortar for growth:

• Meetings. OSI invites GAP and other youth media groups to take part in periodic meetings and conference calls, sometimes inviting other foundations to "insider talks," which include screenings of youth videos. OSI convenes these gatherings to better understand youth-media issues, to cultivate resource-sharing within the field, and to engage their funding colleagues in supporting youth media. Says Diana: "Anna is genuinely interested in youth and in the work of each of our organizations. But she and OSI have also been instrumental on the outside, getting youth media recognized as a field."
• Site Visits. While it is common for nonprofits to invite foundations to public events, GAP took a more proactive - and riskier - step. Diana invited Anna to sit in on an evaluation meeting, a wholly non-scripted event in which the staff and youth speak candidly about what s working and what s not. Diana says, "Anna was so down-to-earth and comfortable, no one was anxious about having her there." Anna says, "GAP made its process transparent. They showed me how they work with youth, how they make decisions and develop leadership. Seeing their process gave me confidence in their ability to grow and adapt."
• Exchanging Views. OSI and GAP both have a culture of feedback, and Anna and Diana take advantages of opportunities to swap views. "When I call Diana with a particular question," says Anna, "we usually take some time to talk about issues GAP is facing, as well as what s going on in the field." Diana points out that any conversation with a funder is an opportunity to engage in education and advocacy: "We see part of our job as using our expertise to educate funders."

Weathering Changes: An Organization Restructures its Leadership
In the past year, GAP has undergone one of the most significant, and potentially de-stabilizing, changes a nonprofit can tackle: the departure of a founding director from the top management post. GAP s situation was made at once more reassuring and more confusing by the fact that Diana Coryat, resigning as executive director, was staying on in a redefined role, with the title of president. An especially sensitive aspect of this kind of internal change is how to convey it to the outside - especially to funders, who are understandably wary about the larger implications of change at the top. As GAP prepared for its executive-director search, and Diana prepared for her new role as president, she telephoned Anna at OSI to break the news - and to seek advice on how to tell other funders.

"OSI was the first funder I told," says Diana. "Anna knew our process had been underway, and was entirely supportive and constructive when I called her. As I got ready to talk to our other funders, I found her confidence in our process and our decision reassuring."

"I was glad Diana called me," says Anna, explaining that as a funder, it is jarring to get a form letter out of the blue announcing that a grantee has a new executive director. She says, "I had seen that Diana - and Susan, when she was there - had done what it takes to develop a strong organization. The board, the management system, their commitment to training and leadership development: everything was in place for a new executive director to succeed."

As it turns out, GAP board member Meghan McDermott was named to the executive director post in August, 2003. As president, Diana works on special projects, with a current focus on developing the curriculum that GAP plans to publish (this project also continues the involvement of Susan Siegel) and a long-term focus on GAP s international program. Diana adds that she and new director Meghan McDermott hope to write a case study to share their leadership model with the field.

And a Key Funding Program is Phased Out
What are OSI s plans for its Youth Media Program? "The program as it exists today will end in 2005," says Anna. She explains that the foundation was created to respond to change, and that they expect their funding programs to have a beginning, middle, and an end. Although Youth Media is drawing to a close as a discrete program, OSI will continue to support media, and most likely some youth-media projects, through other of its programs and special initiatives.

Unquestionably, the loss of the country s key funding program dedicated to youth media will alter the field s funding environment. OSI is taking steps for a smooth transition. Among its foundation colleagues, OSI has been a tireless advocate for youth media, using professional relationships, impact studies, and other presentations to argue the case for supporting it. In addition, OSI is cultivating alliances with high-profile festivals and distribution channels. "But more important than our efforts," Anna says, "is that youth media organizations themselves are making the case for supporting the field, above all through the quality of their work and programs."

I asked Diana what the eventual absence of the OSI Youth Media Program represents to GAP. "It s truly scary," she says. "But they ve done so much to invest in our organization and to build the field." Long-time grantees have received final capacity-building grants, and Anna keeps in steady contact with them about the change. Diana sums it up: "They re acting responsibly."

Tips for Creating a Positive Relationship
I asked Anna and Diana for pointers on how to develop a healthy relationship with foundations. Here are a few of their thoughts:

• Be honest.
• Keep lines of communication open.
• Engage funders in conversation. Don t just wait for their questions, talk to them.
• Feel comfortable participating in conversations that go beyond just the grant.
• If you find a funder who is willing to invest in the organization (and you can feel it when it happens), don t be afraid to take some risks. Show them the inside of the organization, including your decision-making process. Don t cover up the challenges you face.
• Acknowledge that any foundation that funds you is also a stakeholder. Involve them the way you involve other stakeholders.
• Remember your funders during the year; invite them to events, and encourage site visits.
• Don t be nervous: Funders are people, too.

What About Proposals?
DO:

• Remember that the funder has a larger set of goals than just funding this grant. Look for opportunities to talk about your organization and its projects in the context of your larger purpose (without being grandiose!).
• Think your project through thoroughly; funders will see holes.
• Make sure you know what you want to accomplish, and be realistic; funders will see through delusions.
• Present your proposal and reports in a straightforward, well-organized way.
• Answer questions directly and thoroughly.
• Make your timeline clear.
• Be creative in your distribution and outreach plans.
• Have other staff members read and comment on draft proposals.

DON T:

• Don t be grandiose. Use jargon only if it is essential to communicating your organization s approach.
• Don t become mired in minutiae. A level of detail is important for substance and credibility, but excessive details get in the way of the larger picture.
• Don t skip or gloss over questions about evaluation, audience building, and distribution. Use them as an opportunity to reach beyond the obvious and demonstrate your creativity.

Epilogue: Trends in Youth Media
I asked Anna and Diana for a quick scan on changes they see in the media and youth-media environments - aside from important but already widely discussed changes in media technology, ownership, and public policy. Here are several of their combined observations:

• Stakeholders on the Rise. Anna, who sees youth media at the intersection of media arts, youth development, and policy debates, cites as a trend the "growing number and range of community stakeholders." The youth development community increasingly recognizes media as a strategy for energizing the most at-risk youth. Media gatekeepers - festivals, distributors, broadcasters, and cable programming services - are opening up distribution doors. Youth media projects are successfully competing for festival prizes, Peabody and Dupont awards, and national arts grants, and people working in the field have been tapped for MacArthur and other prestigious fellowships. "It s all about quality," Anna says. "Youth media is becoming more broadly recognized, valued, and critiqued."
• Strategic Foundations See Impact of Media. While foundations have historically had difficulty understanding how funding media fits into their framework, Anna says, strategic thinkers in the foundation world are integrating media support - public education campaigns and other kinds of targeted media - into their grant making. Diana agrees that there are signs that foundations are warming up to youth media: A program officer recently told her that his foundation is considering funding youth media in future rounds because of the volume of proposals coming in from youth-media groups.
• Youth-Media Field Coming into Its Own. Once tucked away in the margins of the media arts and youth-development worlds, youth media is taking its place as a force in both. "In early years groups doing youth radio, video, and print were aware of each other," Anna says, "but in recent years, they ve begun forming a network of support around training, evaluation, and best practices." Diana sees similar trends in the sharing of models and increased recognition within the media arts field of the special needs and contributions of youth media. As an example, she cites NAMAC s Youth Initiative, youth media conference tracks, and other services to support leadership development. Anna sums it up: "My hope for the future is that this the field will continue to strengthen."