Balancing the Mission Checkbook

January 18, 2008

Make Your Case for Flexible Funding

I find it interesting that I’ve read and heard quite a lot lately about foundation leaders discussing the relative merits and challenges of moving some of their grantmaking from program and project grants to general operating support. The New York Times recently published a re-framing piece on this by Denise Caruso, “Can Foundations Take the Long View Again?” The members of GEO (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations) have been engaged in a long discussion and analysis on this topic. They have published several thoughtful guides (free registration is required to view them). What I don’t think I’ve heard is a comparable discussion from nonprofit leaders about how much impact and long-term value their clients and communities would gain from more general operating support. If you are the director of a nonprofit, you may think that is an obvious statement – but I don’t think that connection is made very well. There are several issues involved, including different terminology and understanding of budgets.

What is a general operating grant? Is it a grant to pay for overhead expenses, or is it funding to provide comprehensive support for the organization’s mission and activities? Too frequently, the term is used as in this excerpt from an article, “General operating money is certainly one of the more difficult categories of funding to secure, mostly because it’s a lot less appealing to the funder. Let’s face it, paying rent is not nearly as sexy as helping people fulfill their potential as human beings.” STOP saying that. This is the kind of thinking and woe-is-me mentality that can’t make the case for general operating support. There is an implicit choice in this article: We have $10,000. Should we spend it on rent, or should we spend it to help people fulfill their potential as human beings? How about this instead: Let’s spend it on rent, salaries, benefits, supplies, and phones to operate our effective, innovative programs that help people fulfill their potential.

Do we need some new terminology to cut through this mess?

  • General Operating Grant: Apparently, this is a grant to pay for distracting, hard to justify, and uninteresting expenses (like rent and phones).
  • Program Grant: A grant that is restricted for a defined set of activities and outcomes that fit with the organization’s mission. All expenses included in the program budget, including salaries, rent, and supplies, are needed to carry out the program’s goals.
  • Core Mission Grant: A grant provided to an effective organization to use as their leaders direct in order to support and achieve their mission. Some of the funds may be spent on immediate program and organizational needs and some on long-term investments, such as program development, staff training, and technology.

According to Caruso’s article, “The majority of foundation leaders polled in the studies acknowledged that unrestricted operating funds were better and more effective for grantees. But they continue to focus their grantmaking on project support, they said, because they prefer its clear-cut results.” Flexibility is the key value of core, or operating, support. Think about how you can make the case that flexibility will enable your nonprofit to be more responsive to community, better prepared for the future, and more effective in all of your programs and activities - that’s results.

3 Comments »

  1. Interesting post, especially as I seek out new general operating funds. Is “Core Mission Grant” a more compelling way to say “General Operating Grant,” or are they actually different?

    Comment by Elizabeth Clawson — November 6, 2008 @ 12:18 pm

  2. The reframing is great. I like “Core Mission Grant” a lot. I will use that term. I often refer to “Special Projects” grants as a second category. You are right, we undercut our argument by having “general operating” because the reality is, if we didn’t have phones or a building or technology, then we wouldn’t be able to accomplish my mission. We had a foundation come back to our proposal and state that they wouldn’t pay for these types of expenses, but fortunately we were able to come back to them after a couple of months and show them that those expenses really were core. Recently, we did receive a grant that had in its budget a line for management and overhead and that was accepted. But that was a corporate foundation, and they are more comfortable with the concept.

    Comment by Barbara Clarke — November 10, 2008 @ 12:46 pm

  3. That’s great to hear. Words really do matter when they can be used to change (or reframe, as you say).

    Comment by Kate Barr — November 10, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment