A few years ago, the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation made the difficult decision to let go of certain issues and organizations in order to focus our giving more effectively. Our board of directors chose to invest in city leaders, their networks, and the organizations that support them. This shift led us to rethink our entire approach to grantmaking.
Simplifying and Streamlining Paperwork
As former nonprofit executive directors, program managers, and board members, both Phil Li, the foundation’s president, and I (the foundation’s vice president) understand the challenges of dealing with funders from the nonprofit side. We’ve experienced the vast array of proposal formats, budget templates, and the often overwhelming number of attachments required by funders. Ironically, it sometimes seemed like smaller grants required more paperwork!
Inspired by the Whitman Institute’s pillars of Trust-Based Philanthropy, we adopted one of their key principles: simplifying and streamlining paperwork.
This isn’t just a favor we’re doing for grantseekers. It benefits us, too. As funders, we want to be in the field—meeting potential grantees, observing programs, and engaging with leadership development. When we’re stuck at our desks buried in proposals and attachments, we lose that connection.
Shifting Our Grantmaking Process
With the support of our board, we made a significant change: we now accept proposals that organizations have already written for other funders.
Our Application Process
We maintain an open submission policy. Organizations can apply at any time after reviewing our foundation’s guidelines. Instead of tailoring an application specifically for us, we ask them to submit a proposal they’ve already prepared for another funder.
Our instructions on the “How to Apply” section of our website are simple:
“Please submit a recent grant application that represents your organization well and reflects our funding interests. Feel free to share one that you’ve used to apply to another funder.”
Initial Skepticism and Building Trust
At first, some applicants were hesitant. Building trust takes time, but many organizations have embraced this approach and are happy to comply. Proposals prepared for other funders provide all the information we need to begin our review process.
We can look up Form 990-PFs, consult with colleagues in the field, and most importantly, meet with applicants and observe their programs. It’s a far better use of time to have direct conversations with potential grantees—and it’s more enjoyable for everyone involved.
Adapting and Learning
We’re still refining our process. Initially, we asked grantees to submit the reports they had prepared for other funders. However, those reports didn’t always convey the learnings we were looking for, so we transitioned to an oral reporting process. At the end of each funding period, we interview grantees and create our own written reports based on those conversations.
The Benefits of Streamlining Paperwork
Streamlining paperwork has brought many benefits. It allows grantees to spend more time focusing on their critical work. It also strengthens trust and deepens our relationships with grantee partners, enabling us to collaborate in meaningful ways beyond financial support. For us, it makes our work more fulfilling and mission-driven.
Have You Registered for the Annual Conference?
About the Author
Lisa Pilar Cowan is the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation‘s Vice President of Programs, and in this capacity she helps with strategy, development, and oversight of foundation programs and grantmaking. Lisa has been working with community-based organizations for the past 25 years.
One of the most laser focused, intelligent and strategically impactful strategies I’ve heard about in a long while. Congrats!
This is an unusual model, and I applaud your trying something different because foundation philanthropy often needs some innovation. In picturing how these practices might be implemented at other foundations, however, I have some questions that I’m hoping you might be willing to answer.
Your practice of doing due diligence on proposals by having conversations with grantees is intriguing, and I can see the intended benefits for funder and grantee. At my own foundation we have, and encourage, dialogue with applicants—but we do not initiate it with every applicant or rely on it exclusively. To converse over the course of the application process with every applicant seems like it could be daunting, and I wonder how many small foundations would have the time to have these conversations. How do you make time for this level of conversation with potential partners? Is part of the answer that you focus your philanthropy very tightly, and consider a limited number of proposals each cycle or year? How many times each year are grants awarded?
Likewise, your practice of having in-person meetings with grantees instead of asking for written grant reports is intriguing but question-provoking. What are your observations about how these conversations go? Are all grantees comfortable meeting with you in person? Do they feel that in this setting they can effectively convey their experiences, learning, feedback, and outcomes? When I was applying for grants I might’ve viewed an in-person report more like a dissertation defense or job interview than a friendly conversation, or worried that the fate of any future funding for my agency was resting a little too much on my verbal skills that day. If some grantees would prefer to submit a written report instead, or complement a conversation with something in writing, how do you approach these requests?
Again, I think that the goals of your new approach are admirable, and I appreciate the spirit of innovation that inspired them. I would love to hear your thoughts on the questions above.
Mr. DiLeonardi –
Thanks for your thoughtful questions. A few thoughts: we do have a tightly bounded area of funding, but we also have an open application process – we offer a self-assessment on our website so applicants can figure out whether they match our guidelines. We have a rolling application process, and make grant decisions three times a year.
We read applications before meeting with potential grantees, and if it does not seem like a possible match, we do not meet with them. So that, as well as the specific guidelines help limit how many meetings we have.
In response to your questions about the reporting process – it is all brand new, so I don’t have good answers yet. We have talked to colleagues in the field who use this practice already, often having the conversation by phone rather than in person. On balance, the advantages seem to outweigh drawbacks, but I will be glad to keep you posted on our experience.
If you want to discuss any of this off-line, please feel free to get in touch: lcowan@rsclark.org.
[…] Read More […]
I love this idea. I wonder if you could share the interview questions that you use for oral reporting. Thanks!
[…] Why We Accept Proposals Written for Other Funders […]