ROUNDTABLE: GRANTSMANSHIP AND THE ECONOMY

IS THIS THE WORST possible time to be searching for grants? Well, we have to admit that it’s not the best—but bear with the bad news for a few minutes because it gets a bit better: the sky is not falling.

The Great Recession may have ended in 2009 and the markets may have recovered, but the economy of the United States—and the rest of the world—is recovering very slowly. As of this writing, the federal government’s across-the-board budget cuts, known as sequestration, are only beginning to be felt (although there are new news stories every day), but sequestration and other budget cuts are expected to reduce funding to state and local governments and the nonprofit sector by 5 to 10 percent or more in coming years. Although this percentage sounds manageable, it represents a lot of dollars removed from the economy, with trickling (or cascading) cuts by state and local governments inevitably following—if not felt already.

As governments shrink services and funding, some foundations still are struggling to recover from the 2008 economic meltdown; even some of the strongest endowments are still 20 percent below their level before the crisis. Some foundations whose endowments are back to normal are still cautious about increasing their giving for fear of further economic turmoil. Indeed, some smaller foundations have decided to spend down their remaining assets and close their doors. And some corporate funders have shifted their giving from cash grants to in-kind donations of products and services.

So, yes, it’s a very difficult time to be looking for grants, and this is likely to continue for the next few years at least. On the bright side, however, in recent interviews, individuals who are knowledgeable about the federal budget point out that a 5- to 10-percent cut still leaves a lot of discretionary money out there; getting it just will be even more competitive. It’s possible that some funding streams will end, these experts say, but it’s likely that most funding programs will continue to operate with reduced resources. For the next few years, federal agencies may not make new rounds of grants but will continue to fund existing grantees; as those multiyear grants wind down, new possibilities will arise. As we write, the federal deficit appears to be shrinking, and a few states are finding their deficits are shrinking as well. A few states even are showing a surplus, which may help offset federal cuts.

And although foundations make it clear that they neither want to nor have the resources to fill the gap created by government cuts, those that have seen their endowments recover are making new grants—perhaps a little tentatively. Furthermore, there are more foundations than there used to be, and they are giving more! The Foundation Center’s Statistical Information Service reports that the number of foundations nationwide increased from 56,582 in 2000 to 76,610 in 2010, and that their total giving increased from $27.56 billion in 2000 to $45.86 billion in 2010, even in the face of a recession: not exactly chicken feed!

In the last edition we presented the Economic Summit roundtable to address ways in which the financial meltdown had affected giving, and what you needed to know about it. For the current edition we debated whether to delete this section. But rereading the material in light of new interviews with grantmakers and other experts in the field of philanthropy convinced us that the grantmakers’ reactions to the financial crisis are as relevant in today’s economy as they were five years ago. So the following roundtable retains most of the original questions and comments, and adds opinions from new interviews.

THE ECONOMY

“So What’s the Fallout for Philanthropy?”

When we were preparing the third edition, the first thing we asked each member of our diverse panel was a question that the New York Times raised in November 2008, after the collapse of the housing markets, Wall Street’s meltdown, and the worldwide string of bank failures. We were curious to know how grantmakers were reacting to the economy—whether they were as stunned as we were by the suddenness of the crash or whether they (miraculously) saw it coming. For this new edition we asked about lingering effects of the meltdown and about current government cuts, but we also asked about their response to the latest natural disasters. Most of the funders already were thinking hard about philanthropy, and their first responses to our questions tended to offer a self-assessment.

What are we grantmakers doing about it? At the time of the financial crisis, “the economy has forced us to take a pause and look at what we’ve been doing,” one said. Most funders agreed that, in a dire economic climate, taking a hard look at their own strategies and practices is a good idea. “We’re waiting to see what’s happening and what will happen,” a panelist explained. “This economy invites us to be self-critical.”

In our recent round of interviews, foundation representatives indicated that this rethinking of long-term strategies continues. “Although some foundations stepped in immediately [in response to Superstorm Sandy and the Boston bombings], more are choosing to wait until further out in the recovery . . . when government leaves. . . . Next fall we will see what still needs to be done about the shoreline, about housing.” And they are giving to special funds such as the Boston Mayor’s Fund instead of to first responders like the Red Cross, because the ways in which the special funds operate in the long term—to “build back better”—are seen as current best practice.

Some recent strategic thinking about emergency funding is focused on vulnerable populations, in this case described as those who, in normal times, are fairly well able to care for themselves but in reaction to natural or financial disasters may need additional help. Funders pointed to seniors and disabled individuals who were without light, heat, and elevators after Superstorm Sandy and therefore had no access to food and medications. They talked about ways to advocate for these individuals, as well as forming collaborations and responding “to community voices.”

“Look,” said a grantmaker, “when the economy is going badly, it is important for the philanthropic sector to help floundering groups that rely on grant funds so it’s not a ‘survival of the fittest’ contest. In a recession, philanthropists need to analyze their giving strategies so they are more responsive to the needs of the groups that are vying for support.” Another funder hoped that foundations would take on other responsibilities—advocacy for instance—and not just write smaller and smaller checks in a poor economy. And recent interviews indicate that although many foundations talk to one another primarily within interest groups such as, among others, education, the arts, and youth, many are increasingly seeing collaborative investment in public policy and advocacy as something they need to do.

On a more positive note, one grantmaker on the original panel reminded us that, “While many of us took an enormous hit, some foundations and some individuals still have considerable wealth.” Another funder reassuringly promised that her foundation was maintaining its level of funding. “We’re committed to multiyear grants—they give stability to grantees.” And still another told us an anecdote about a foundation actually giving out more money in this dire economic climate, because it had never expected to be around this long anyway.

It is probably not an exaggeration to say that, in a time of economic crisis, “the fallout for philanthropy” is pretty much the fallout for everyone else. Philanthropic organizations aren’t immune from world events (and most philanthropists didn’t see the economic meltdown coming any more than economists, government leaders, or the rest of us did), and it is a good idea always to remember that grantmakers aren’t cash cows. As one funder put it, “Foundations need to be modest—in this economy, we should use our money to leverage money.”

And of course it’s not just foundations that are tightening their belts. Even at the time of our last interviews, state and municipal government agencies—which receive as well as give grants—not only were slashing their own funding to local providers but also were being asked to find new resources in the wake of federal cutbacks. This is a challenge some city agencies had never faced before. One funder explained, “The mayor is pushing agencies to seek alternative funding sources—saying, ‘If you want your budget to be whole, you’d better find other funding.’” And just in case anyone thinks help is on the way from private philanthropy, a foundation funder warned us that, “We [foundations] can’t fill government holes, so cities and states had better not expect us to come to the rescue.” (This funder did admit that, “Once in a while we will come to the rescue if the need is very great and we don’t see other options.”)

And now (more than ever) we’re asking, “Why do you need the money?” A grantmaker from a small foundation explained that since the downturn, “money feels twice as precious and now I want to make very sure that ‘best practices’ are being utilized by grantees.” A funder from a large foundation agreed. “We ask, ‘Do you really need that amount of money to do what you say you want to do?’ You’d better sell us on why you need the specific amount you’re requesting. Grantmakers know how much things cost!” A government grantmaker chimed in with a similar reminder: “We’re very experienced about cost. Don’t ask for $2 million for something that costs $250,000.” Another panelist added, “We’re looking hard at what we want to do because—pure and simple—we have to do less. We’re raising the bar. Money is worth more.”

“If You Are Cutting Back on Funding, Are You Focusing on Fewer Causes (for Example, Food and Shelter but Not Arts and Education) or Are You Cutting Grants Across the Board?”

With endowments down, portfolios diminished, and government finances in deep trouble, we wondered whether funders who needed to cut back on funding were using a particular strategy to make the cuts.

Immediately after the financial meltdown, we asked whether grantmakers would change their priorities, for example, to focus on the neediest populations or the neediest areas. Surprisingly, funders were not changing their priorities. But some saw the downturn as a good time to institute new policies that they were considering anyway. One said, “We will be considering some emergency grants—feeding programs, for instance—but these will not impact the rest of our grant giving.” And still another added that in this economy “we are asking other organizations to join us when a problem is identified. We get the best and the brightest together to address ways to tackle the problem as a group—and we get financial contributions—then we create a special fund specifically to deal with the problem we identified. If hunger is an emergency issue in the community, for example, we will create a challenge grant that we make available to local groups working on this problem in ways we believe are likely to make a significant impact.”

Some grantmakers told us they were looking at their multiyear commitments first and were trying to work with grantees to renegotiate the terms—for example, to stretch out payments over a longer period so they would not have to lay out so much money at any one time. “We’re honoring all existing grantees,” one funder explained, “but we’re trying to spread out the payments. ‘Can you get by with less money?’ we ask everyone.”

“For us,” explained a grantmaker, “there was a decrease in giving right after the [financial] meltdown—we reduced some grants, eliminated others. ‘I’ll give you a smaller grant so I have enough money left over to give someone else a little something too.’ But now, we’ve moved away from that approach and we’re giving fewer, but larger, grants because we want to make the kind of impact that only a greater amount of money can ensure.” Another funder also looked at the effects of grant funds: “The economic downturn provides a good excuse to stop sprinkling small amounts of money over a large geographic area and start focusing our attention on one community to make more of an impact.”

Recent interviews suggest that as the trend toward larger grants continues, grantmakers, especially government agencies, also are moving toward larger grantees. These larger organizations are seen as better able to sustain their programs over time and to serve larger numbers of people.

“Are You Supporting Only Current Grantees, or Are You Willing (and Able) to Support Additional Programs That You Think Are Very Important?”

In light of a move toward larger grantees, common sense suggests that new or small organizations may have a much tougher time getting funding when the economic picture is so dire. We asked funders about this.

The good news for current grantees is that most funders will try to continue working with you. The bad news for others is that, in this economy, many funders are only able to support the current grantees. Still, some funders will suggest other sources for funding or will provide technical assistance. And still others admit that if they are blown away by your idea for a project maybe—just maybe—they can round up the funding necessary to support it.

“We’re mostly funding renewals and have very little money for new initiatives,” said one grantmaker. “But we are always talking with our trustees about what we’d like to do when [notice the word “when,” not “if”] there is more money—so when things improve we can hit the ground running. We actually collect ‘not-at-this-time’ ideas from potential grantees.” Another explained that her foundation normally invites proposals. “But we’ll take in a new group if it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread—and it has a track record—and it is proposing something very innovative.” If she can’t offer funding, though, she might say, “Your work is great—terrific even—but we can’t afford to support you now . . . we will put your proposal in a portfolio for next time.” (And she assured us that these proposals would be looked at when the economy picked up.)

The funders generally agreed that newer, smaller organizations will have a problem in this economy, and that it’s “a good time for foundations to stop funding organizations that are weak, and not to take on any new grantees.” But another respondent was more reassuring: “It’s not whether an organization is big or small that decides if it will survive in a tough economy; it’s whether it’s weak or strong.”

“We don’t fund teeny start-ups but we do join other grantmakers to fund consortia of small groups,” one funder told us. But that doesn’t mean new, small groups shouldn’t be proactive: One of our panelists said, “Not-for-profits need to communicate—to stay on the radar of a foundation even if they are not receiving funding at the moment. I like to get a personal letter—with so much email, it’s difficult to differentiate one group from another.”

“Relationships do matter enormously. It’s about trusting you with their money.”

A few grantmakers noted that not-for-profits should make the most of their relationships with funders. One said, “Relationships do matter enormously. It’s about trusting you with their money, [knowing that] you can do quality work and be honest in what you say and do.” So, another said, “Have conversations with us—even if we can’t fund you right now. Ask for candor from us, ask us ‘if you were able to fund us right now, what would you want and expect from us?’” “Sometimes,” a funder said, “you might hear something like, ‘We can’t fund you but we have three other things we CAN do for you. We can incubate your group—give you space and secretarial support for instance. And we can suggest someone who might be able to fund your organization . . . or who is giving away computers.’” If a current funder agrees to do a funder’s briefing for you, “it’s rare, but when they do it, it’s important!”

One change we noticed as we spoke to funders about the impact of the economy on grantmaking is that a number of them expressed a greater interest in giving grants to umbrella groups, to collaborative projects, or to organizations that help not-for-profits increase their overall capacity—all in the hopes of maximizing the reach of the funding.

“If a Crisis Really Yields Opportunity, as Some Optimists Claim, How Would You Suggest That Grant Seekers Seize the Moment?”

As we spoke to funders and read various editorials about the economic situation, we noticed that some people were trying hard to shine a positive light on things. We decided to ask this question, even if some may find it a little too Pollyanna-ish for the times. Believe it or not, we got some enthusiastic replies. Most of the following conversations were held as we prepared the last edition of the book, but the responses hold true today.

This is a good time to focus on your image. One funder wondered, “How can we take advantage of the economic climate to be more vibrant?” Another suggested that now would be a good time for organizations to “tweak their public image—ask colleagues, friends, and relatives whether they think their organizations are presenting themselves—websites, mailed materials, events—in the best light. People not in the field or not involved in an organization’s day-to-day activities often have very perceptive things to say. And they may be more willing to say these things now that there seems to be so much at stake.”

“[Now would be a good time for organizations to] tweak their public image.”

Along the same lines, one panelist suggested that everyone who works for an organization should have a 10- to 20-second “elevator speech.” “If you meet someone at a party or on the bus—or on an elevator—you have no idea who they are, or who they know. If you can talk about your organization in a clear, concise, heartfelt way—the person you meet may go back to the office and search for more information about your organization because of that very convincing elevator speech of yours. This person may know someone halfway across the world who would be interested in what you are doing.” (Thanks to the Internet, interested strangers really can find out about your organization in no time at all!) Similarly, another funder suggested, “Get nominated for something. Win awards. Give speeches. Sit on panels. Write blogs. Money is still out there. People are still giving dollars away. Their hearts are still moved.” “Develop a public voice,” said a panelist. “This is especially true in difficult economic times. Call attention to your work. Write articles.”

“Now is a good time to make sure your board is up to speed so they can talk about your organization smartly,” one funder pointed out. “You need all the publicity you can get.”

Another grantmaker suggested that this climate is a perfect time to encourage volunteers. “Organizations must get much better at handling volunteers especially in a difficult economy when volunteers are really needed.”

Diversify your funding sources. Many funders raised an issue that seems especially relevant now. They urged nonprofit organizations to diversify funding sources. “If you write grants for a small nonprofit,” one said, “you’d be smart to see if you can learn something about fundraising in general. ‘Diversify funding’ is a mantra these days—but many nonprofits only have one person assigned to funding.” “Groups should expand their resource pool,” another funder suggested, “and stop relying only on foundations for funding.” Another said that organizations should look for individual gifts. “Push the envelope. Be thoughtful, strategic, relational. Ask for more from the people who have already given.” Still another said, “Diversify funding. If you put all your eggs in one basket, you’re probably already in deep trouble.”

“Diversify funding. If you put all your eggs in one basket, you’re probably already in deep trouble.”

One expert urged nonprofits to pursue what he called “evergreen” strategies—approaches that would strengthen them in the long term, such as developing planned-giving programs, pursuing earned income, and cultivating major donors, as well as learning new strategies like social media and social entrepreneurship. He also commented that there may be “a niche for proposals to develop these initiatives,” and that, “Foundations are not going to pick up what the government cuts, but they also like to see themselves as ‘R&D capital.’”

Comb through your budgets for cost savings. Finally, a foundation grantmaker reminded us that “groups tend to be good at the ‘fundraising side’ rather than the ‘cost-saving side’—that not-for-profits are really built for growth.” The current economic climate is a good time to address the cost-saving side, with an eye toward streamlining organizations, making them run better, more efficiently in good times and bad.

“Have You Changed Your Expectations for the Organizations You Fund? Are You Looking for . . . Creativity?”

Some not-for-profits, like businesses, are having a very tough time staying afloat in this economy. Grant seekers are trying to figure out how to be innovative and entrepreneurial in response to government and potential foundation cutbacks. But what do the funders want to see?

Grantmakers aren’t necessarily expecting organizations to do things differently these days, but one defined a successful group this way: “Be flexible, entrepreneurial, willing to take risks. Be willing to fail. Learn from your failures. In this economy, it can no longer be business as usual.” Another funder discussed why she opposes a strategy some not-for-profits are considering to address economic woes by charging fees for the services that had always been provided at no cost. She explained, “The people we are helping—the poor people—have been in a depression for a long time.” One panelist suggested that it would be innovative and entrepreneurial if groups seeking grants would connect with the community, especially with organizations doing complementary work. Another suggested that “creative fundraising is looking at what’s hot and what’s not. . . . People have been doing the same things over and over again. You should be asking yourselves, ‘How can I fit into change without changing my mission?’” Still another added, “Change a program to make it more relevant. Maybe offer a meal; this could open the door to funders who give grants to programs addressing hunger.”

The issue is impact. Several funders already had been moving toward assessment of the outcomes of their grants and said this has become more critical now. One explained she takes a “results-based approach to grantmaking”: “We’re moving from a ‘funder’ mentality to an ‘investor’ mentality. We’re asking ourselves, ‘What do we really want to buy, what are our chances of getting it, how will we know we’re getting it, and is this the best use of our money?’” A number of others said they were looking harder than they used to at the success—and the likelihood of success—of the programs they funded or were giving consideration to. “For an organization that helps children,” a funder explained, “I want to see the deeper impact on the children’s lives. Did you actually keep a child out of a gang? A single example can be meaningful.”

More and more, things that get funded talk about outcomes.

“We don’t just want to know that you conducted workshops,” another panelist said, “we want to know how many people got jobs.” “Or,” she suggested, “you can ask participants what three things they got out of the workshops and whether you can follow up with them later. We like to fund a program not for one year but for three years. We believe that program activities can take place during the first year and follow-up support should occur in the second and third years.”

“Because of the economy,” another grantmaker added, “we’re asking for a mid-year report to make sure things are getting done that have been promised. We want to be impactful.”

One recent respondent agrees with the need to fund programs that have a measurable impact, but he and a few other funders think that “the religion of impact has gone too far,” leading to a corporate approach that treats grants as investments that must produce a specific return. They argue that foundations should provide more general-operating grants as a way to strengthen organizations broadly—for example, by helping them diversify their funding streams—which will generate greater impact in the long run.

“Do You Expect High-Quality Grant Proposals to Look Different Now That the Economic Climate Has Changed?”

We wondered if grantmakers expected the elements of a proposal to change, and whether they were adding (or deleting) questions or changing the direction of their questions.

The panelists began by focusing on how nonprofits’ proposals were addressing the economic crisis. One made what we thought was a good suggestion, although not everyone may agree with it. “Start your grant proposal by explaining to the funder that your organization is going to be fine. Then be frank about what is happening within your organization right now—for example, ‘We just lost 20 percent of our city council funding and 30 percent of this other funding . . . but here is a step-by-step plan for what we intend to do about this loss of money and how we’re shaking things up so we can provide services and run programs.’” She referred to this as “scenario planning” and it is one way to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the economy.

Funders know you may be hurting; if you are, you may as well tell them how much and what you’re doing about it. But you have to be thoughtful. Another funder said she doesn’t like it when an organization says, “We’re cutting 20 percent across the board.” She much prefers groups that say, “We’re making cuts carefully—using a scalpel and not a buzz saw.” She added, “This is not a ‘gotcha game’—we only do well if our grantees do well. If they come to us in this economic climate and talk about how they’ll grow—we say, ‘bull.’ We want to hear them say, ‘This is how we’re approaching our work in light of the recession.’”

But the proposal itself? Most of the people we spoke to didn’t say that the proposal should be different now than in flush times. But scarce resources mean stiffer competition, which means greater emphasis on a top-notch proposal.

“Answer the questions—especially now!” said one funder, amazed that proposal writers still don’t do this. “I won’t show a proposal to the board if it’s poorly written. Before the economic meltdown, there was more latitude.” She was put out by the fact that she still gets very poorly written proposals. She doesn’t understand why, “when we ask, ‘What is your mission?’ their response isn’t, ‘Our mission is. . . . ’”

Pay attention to details. Another grantmaker pointed out that in an economic downturn it is especially important that your proposal shows the funder you’re a high-functioning organization worth funding. (How’s that for a challenge? But try not to panic; we talk about how to do this throughout the book!) “I’m disappointed how often my name is incorrectly spelled,” said a funder with a pretty unusual name. “Can you really afford to be off-putting in these difficult times? Believe it or not, sometimes, instead of writing to me, they write to our founder who is long dead!”

“Evaluation should not be tacked on at the end. Explain how you’ll ‘course correct’ as you go along,” suggested a foundation grantmaker. “And when we ask for demographics—give them! And use spell check.” “Grant writers should show that they bothered to look at research, numbers, data—all of which help frame a problem.” “Material too often doesn’t reflect how great an organization is.” “It’s sad when the written proposal doesn’t represent the power of an organization’s work.” “We fund proposals, we don’t fund ideas. Proposals go out to external review—so applicants had better get their ideas into decent proposals.” Another funder wondered whether grant-seekers’ proposals inadvertently downplay some things they do. “If you run a cultural arts program for children, you should stop trying to ‘sell’ it as merely cultural arts. Look harder at the problems the program is addressing that may be relevant. Maybe it’s an after-school cultural arts program for very at-risk children.” And, “If I funded you last year—step it up this year. Show me that you’re building capacity—if you’ve been doing seminars or workshops in one location, for instance, bring them into the community so more people can attend. We’re looking for more bang for the same buck in your proposals.”

Check out the competition. Here’s a suggestion that can help proposal writers at any time. “I think people who are writing grant proposals should read great proposals. They should ask foundation program officers to show them excellent proposals—and they should collect a file of exquisitely written proposals. How are people doing it?” The grantmaker added, “I’ve read proposals that brought tears to my eyes. A written grant proposal should convey that lives are being transformed. Don’t say, ‘Reading is the bedrock of literacy,’ for example, say, ‘Reading opens doors that change a person’s life’ . . . and your proposal should explain how reading changes that life.”

“Funders should articulate why a certain proposal was so good. They should, of course, white out the name and address of the group that submitted the proposal. Funders should explain how—by the end of the first paragraph or first page—they knew exactly what a program would do. Funders should show how the organization that submitted the proposal expressed its vitality. How did it manage to be heartfelt? How did it show clarity? How did it manage to tell its story?”

“Are You Focusing More Attention on Things Like Collaboration or the Role of Board Members Than You Used To? What Are You Looking At . . . and What Are You Looking For?”

Not surprisingly (if you think back to our baseball analogy), the key elements of a grant proposal don’t change much from a good economic climate to a bad one. But we wondered what does change, so we asked.

Think collaboration. That word collaboration seems to be everywhere. One funder put it succinctly when she said, “Collaboration should be seen as a survival mechanism.” Another added, “In this economy, collaborations look better than ever.” (She likes to give a grant of, say, $50,000 to be shared by three neighboring organizations to pay for one development director.) An experienced proposal writer noted that “people usually collaborate best with groups they know but have not necessarily worked with, as opposed to perfect strangers.” In her experience, “The best way to approach collaboration is not to have a generic conversation about ‘how wonderful it would be to collaborate one of these days,’ but to say, ‘We have a grant application that we all need to work on together that is due on such-and-such date.’” But a funder disagrees. “We don’t want collaborations that spring up just for funding. If groups have been working together in the past, let the funder know it.”

Another grantmaker suggested that, “In this economy, government must redefine its relationship with not-for-profits. In a downturn like this, they should view themselves as business partners.”

Take a new look at your board. As far as boards are concerned, funders didn’t say that they would be looking any harder at your boards, but they suggested that you’d be smart to take full advantage of the members. One grantmaker said, “In this economy look at your board. What are they doing for you?” Another pointed out, “People don’t have the human resources skills, the real estate skills necessary to save money by negotiating better leases. This is where the board should come in—to help you.” “Instead of looking for big checks from struggling foundations, look toward your community and focus on your board.”

“Is There Anything Else You’ve Been Thinking About, Noticing, Wishing for That You’d Like to Pass on to Grant Seekers?”

We wanted to be sure that we hadn’t skipped over anything important so we asked this one last question.

Talk to us. Although we didn’t mention the word “communication” to our panelists, the word popped up surprisingly often. Is it a sign of the times that, when the going gets tough, people need to be especially clear and especially straightforward with grantmakers? Or is it always a smart way to work with them? Here are some pretty self-explanatory things funders said. “Don’t tell us about your problems at the last minute. Communicate, communicate, communicate.” “Foster collegial relationships with funders. It will be easier to admit to foundations that problems are brewing. We don’t like surprises (who does?). Tell us. Create a climate where people can talk.” “Not-for-profits can approach foundations with their problems and needs—and ask for suggestions about how to go about raising money.” “In this economy, it is a time for relationships.”

“Successful grant writers realize that relationships matter.”

In Closing

It is not surprising that the grantmakers we spoke to feel that money is more precious now than ever—and that they want to make sure that organizations applying for grants really, really need the money. They also want to be certain that the money they give will be spent wisely and make an impact. Funders are looking hard at this concern, and trying to figure out thoughtful ways of measuring impact. You should be doing the same thing! But be careful. If you’re trying to make an impact by being entrepreneurial and innovative, don’t lose sight of your group’s mission and constituency. Remember who you are and whom you serve.

And remember that grantmakers are looking for “more bang for the buck.” Why wouldn’t they? It is up to those writing a grant proposal to show them that you understand the economic situation, that you aren’t living in a state of denial, that you don’t expect it to be business as usual.

To conclude this roundtable, we have selected two sentiments expressed by grantmakers that can propel you forward in any economic climate:

“You can’t wait for a savior. You’re a savior.”

“Without grantees, we just have money. Grantees are our clients.”