Funders: What nonprofits wish you knew 

Funders like you and your efforts to support your nonprofit partners are an inspiration. Helping nonprofits advance their mission benefits your communities and increases your organization’s impact. But, as the philanthropic sector evolves, what are the most effective ways to support your partners?   

Provide more time  

Lengthen the time between the announcement of the opportunity and the deadline. Every grant requires a team of at least two people, often more, and coordinating schedules amidst chronic understaffing leads to a highly stressful grant proposal process. Multiply that by the approximately 100 grants we pursue annually, and the result is constant stress.   

Provide more time to submit an application after approving a Letter of Intent (LOI). Although we are excited to have our LOI approved, we haven’t necessarily planned on it, so we are then trying to squeeze it in along with our other planned (and unplanned) work; we also have to ask program staff questions, which takes additional time.   

Consider auditing/budgeting cycles  

The expectations around timelines for certain attachments doesn't always align with reality. We start the process of our audit and build next year’s budget earlier each year, but we can’t control the timeline of our auditors, and the budget often can’t be finalized until we have a complete picture of how the current year has played out.     

We will always provide the most recent documentation and year-to-date unaudited financials if requested or follow up with the updated documents once they are ready.    

No contact info when unsolicited applications are not accepted  

Our board members sometimes encourage us to apply for funding from a foundation that does not accept unsolicited applications. There’s no gateway or way to reach out—no phone number or contact person. It would be helpful to have a contact who could guide us, even if it’s an administrative assistant who can tell us their timelines and whether a letter is appreciated or discouraged.   

Character limits  

We have encountered instances where funders request that we shorten our application or mission statement to a specific character limit, necessitating board approval to adjust the wording. These limits are often so restrictive that they significantly alter our ability to convey our mission. I've lost count of the times we've been asked to "describe all of the programs your organization does in 100 characters."  

Rather than focusing on character limits, it would be more beneficial for funders to indicate the desired length of the response, such as asking for “a few sentences” or “a few paragraphs.” This guidance allows us to determine whether to provide a detailed narrative or a brief overview.  

Typically, answers ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 characters are sufficient for the comprehensive responses we aim to deliver. Additionally, a successful approach is to review recent applications and identify areas where reviewers had numerous follow-up questions. This analysis can help decide where more elaboration is needed.  

It is especially helpful to inquire about how we measure impact, as discrepancies can arise between a funder's expectations for follow-up reports and our internal measurement processes. By asking this upfront, we can determine whether our evaluation process is comprehensive enough and align expectations for both parties.  

We prefer questions focused on the short-term benefits or outcomes of our work rather than long-term impacts, as many nonprofits lack the resources for costly long-term evaluations and typically do not have in-house capacity for such assessments. While we can provide general research data on long-term impacts, it's important to note that unless your funding covers the costs and time for this evaluation, your investment is likely facilitating short-term outcomes.  

Please also ensure your questions are relevant; we've had instances of being asked for our fax number multiple times in the same application! 

"Is there anything else we need to know?" 

Nonprofits agree! This question gives them the chance to add what they think is important.   

What questions do you find the most frustrating?   

Inefficient and inconsistent demographic questions  

Grantseekers would appreciate more consistency across applications to enhance efficiency. Currently, I find myself having to manipulate data in various ways for nearly every submission; for instance, one organization may ask about the number of people served in the age range of 20 to 25, while another requests information for ages 18 to 24. To address this inconsistency, it would be beneficial to include open-ended questions for demographic inquiries, as standard questions often fail to capture the full or accurate context of a situation. Additionally, being inclusive in the demographic categories would further improve the relevance of the data collected.  

Admin tips from resources like the Example Grant Process Guide suggest that funders could ease the burden on applicants by accepting existing files or reports created for other funders. This practice not only saves applicants time by eliminating the need for unnecessary reformatting but also allows them to present information they already possess more effectively. 

Staffing questions  

Asking for education, experience, job title, and length of employment for every staff person at our organization, as well as an org chart takes a lot of time and shows a lack of trust. We aren’t going to hire unqualified people.   

Duplicate questions  

Unlock the potential for meaningful change with our insightful eBook, "How grantmakers and grantseekers can communicate to change the world.” 

Whether you're a funder looking to understand the needs of nonprofits or a nonprofit seeking to enhance your communication with funders, this eBook offers valuable insights and practical tips. 

Don’t tie feedback to follow-up reports  

Don’t tie your feedback questions to follow-up reports; you’ll never get constructive feedback. We don’t want to feel like our answers will be linked with future funding.   

Deadline Reminders  

I appreciate an application system that sends reminders before a report is due. While I set my own reminders, having a second notification helps ensure I have the correct deadline. I also find it helpful when the award letter specifies the exact due date for the report. 

Deadlines that state “the end of the grant period” can be confusing, as it’s unclear whether that refers to a year from the award date, the check date, when the check was received, or another timeframe. 

What is an example of the best feedback you received after being denied an award?    

Why declined  

Feedback is crucial for our success in future applications and assists us in determining whether it makes sense to continue our conversations or if we are simply not a good match funding-wise. Recently, when one of our grants was declined, we received an email outlining four common reasons for proposal rejections. The sender also encouraged us to request specific feedback, which I promptly did. Within a week, I received a thoughtful and detailed response that felt conversational. This indicated that the funder’s representative had taken the time to provide personalized feedback, giving me valuable insights on how to approach future proposals more effectively.