Special Grant Requests

As I posted before, nonprofits should always keep a conversation going with people who might support their mission. This year, I was involved in grant requests from two foundations. Both foundations solicited requests outside their application period and focus areas.

The first (foundation A) had a new director who wanted to expand the foundation’s area of interest. Maybe there were other internal motivations. The other (foundation B) received an unexpected endowment.

News for both grant requests came mostly through word-of-mouth. Foundation A representatives came to the area and attended meetings where they spread the word. Foundation B already had a grant request process, which had closed and decisions made. They notified those nonprofits who had applied.

Both foundations posted information on their websites listing what they fund, what they won’t, and guidelines. The normal stuff. However, this information was not complete and not really that clear.

I called foundation A and the administrator easily explained what they wanted in the application. Such as what to mail and who to address on the application. I also got some background information as to why this foundation was soliciting grant requests, which helped in the grant write up.

Foundation B had a special link on their submission webpage to get the application. However, the special focus areas meant several nonprofits would not qualify. Someone else made the call to the foundation and found out that everyone who applied under the regular application process was eligible, regardless of the special focus areas.

In both cases, everyone who found out about the special grant requests were eligible for money. Many nonprofits in the area did not apply either because they had not heard about these grant requests or never contacted the foundations to clarify what was required for the submission.

Lessons learned.

Leo Tolstoy’s “Art is an Infection”

Brenda Ueland wrote about Tolstoy in her 1938 book If You Want to Write. Tolstoy believed, “the artist has a feeling and he expresses it and at once this feeling infects other people and they have it, too.”

Ms. Ueland explained that when an artist exhibits feelings “honestly and courageously” onto a canvas, through music, in writing, or some other venue and means, the artist infects the creation with passion. Through this, the artist brings emotion to the viewer, listener, or reader who experiences it within themselves.

Is this what an artist should strive for? An infection of their feelings in their work? Or, should they just produce something that makes them money?

Of course, it is not possible for everyone to be infected by an artist’s work. Also, artists do not always succeed infecting their work with passion and honesty. Some don’t even try and see their work as a product to be sold.

This is all right because some buyers only want a distraction in their life or a decoration to be ignored. Besides, making something honestly and courageously takes time. An artist can make more products (and money) if they don’t spend a lot of effort in their creation.

It’s too bad because Ms. Ueland thought that, when an artist tells what they truly feel, the infection could become universal. “Everybody understands it and at once.” I think today we call that going viral.

I think an artist should strive, at least one time in their life, to create an art they will always love. Something they want the world to witness, an infection of their honesty and courageousness, passion and emotion. Even if it may not become a classic at first.

Branding

Every grant submission is an opportunity for a nonprofit to brand themselves. This means anyone seeing the logo (yes, you should have one) or unique acronym (you should have this, too) will know who the nonprofit is and what they do.

Businesses use branding to attract customers. Branding in nonprofits let foundations and donors know immediately what they are funding. Seeing the logo and acronym is an eye catcher for people to remember the nonprofit’s purpose. Of course, branding is not easy.

Coming up with a logo and acronym is difficult (be sure no one else has it). But, it’s not impossible (yeah, easy to state). Despite the difficulty, nonprofits should create a branding before writing grants or asking for donations.

The branding should be why the nonprofit is helping people. Those working and volunteering at the nonprofit should take the lead in designing the brand and not hand it over to strangers who may charge a large fee. In the end, use a graphic business who may charge little in exchange for advertisement or other benefit. Keep a branding simple.

An example of a branding could be some use of the letters in a nonprofit’s name (a.k.a. acronym). Also, use of a unique font (minimize color choices). Definitely make everything legible. Also, a logo and acronym can be the same thing.

No one knows a nonprofit more than the people who are there every day. They should help in creating the logo and acronym because they are the ones who first must accept it.

Branding helps a lot in grant writing, particularly in lengthy requests where the brand can be placed everywhere for emphasis. This is what writing a grant is about – having as many people as possible know who the nonprofit is by a glance.

Starting Off and Writing to the End

People in the writing business talk about how important it is to grab a reader’s attention at the start of a story. Yet, the beginning, middle, and end all make the story. The catchy beginning is only remembered by what followed.

As an example, Moby-Dick’s opening line, “Call me Ishmael,” is considered a memorable beginning. However, if a reader never heard of the book, the line is meaningless. It is famous only because of what followed.

After reading a story, I have no clue what the first line said. I remember more the middle and end rather than the beginning. I think a story can recover from an okay beginning, but not a so-so middle and ending.

Catchy beginnings are pushed more in the commercial industry who largely do not care if the story falls apart soon after it starts. The reader has already been caught in a purchase. As for readers, some give up on a book if the beginning drags on. They worry too soon that it may foretell the rest of the story.

In a book about writing I read that, if a writer thinks a device of words is necessary to insure the story is read, the story is better not to be written at all.

I write the beginning of a story without thinking about a catchy anything. I think the start of a story should be with the expectation that a buildup with an end is coming. The start should be done in a natural way with the development of the story.

Not long after I write the beginning of a story, I write the ending. It gives me something to aim for, even if I probably change the ending when I get there. Probably the beginning, too.

I just make sure the beginning and end connect with the middle, which is enough for a story.