Grant making is most often honest, transparent, and above all else, fair. However, like any other organization (not-for-profit or otherwise), there are a few unpredictable outcomes that can sabotage even the most well written proposal. See below for some unsavory practices to avoid.

1. Favoritism: Like any competitive process, some competitors will find themselves with an unfair advantage. Occasionally, there is funding opportunity that is published as a means of funding an organization’s pet project.

What to look out for: It is very important to thoroughly understand the goals and visions of the funding organization. If there is an obscure dollar value (“$62,515”) to be awarded, very specific project information (specific to the characteristics of a particular potential awardee), or multiple past awards to only a few awardees; you should avoid this opportunity or seek additional information.

What do to: Although some grant writers (and very likely, many funders) will not agree, we would advise calling or emailing the funding organization (when is this not appropriate? Glad you should ask! Check out this post). Try to find a specific name online (you will have better luck if it goes to a specific person, as opposed to a general mailbox) and ask some questions. DO NOT ask if they play favorites. Grant writing is part science and a whole lot of art! You must finesse your questions to allow funders to respond in a way that allows them to protect the integrity of their organization. The best approach is to give your elevator pitch (2 minutes or less!) and ask if it is an appropriate focus for the funder. There response is likely to be indirect, but telling; read between the lines!

2. Unpublished information: Occasionally a grant program will have undergone slight modifications over the many years that is has been in existence. This may result in unpublished information that is pertinent to the applicant, but nowhere to be found within the published information. An example of this is the many research-focused projects that require the principal investigator (head honcho of the grant project) to hold a doctorate degree. This information is not always available in the published information. Why? For this particularly example, we feel that the grant opportunity has become so competitive that the funders have set an unofficial policy to not even consider applications coming from those without the appropriate degree.

What to look out for: This is hard. You don’t know what you don’t know. Initially, look at funding opportunities, in terms of reasonable expectations. The more narrow the focus, the more likely you are to run into this. As you become more familiar with type of funding sources, you will likely become more attune to these types of challenges.

What to do: Same as above. Reach out to the funding source and review the main components of your plan. They may not be direct in their feedback, but they are likely to give you some indication of any deficiencies they see. As an alternative or additional measure, look at past awardees.

3. Politics: Yes, even in the world of grant making, an acute grant seeker will consider political implications of their project, the funding source, potential supporters, etc. The political impact can sometimes prove an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage. If your project has any political weavings, or could be misconstrued that way, this item is even more important. Be sure that the funding source regularly makes awards to similar organizations (it is HIGHLY unlikely that most local funders will have official political affiliations). For larger projects, we may even do a brief review of the major characters (board of directors, past large awardees, etc.) to see what kinds of project they’re involved in and fund.

What to look out for: This may be counterintuitive, but a funder who boasts their non-partisanship, often has some unofficial political leanings. Again, this can work to your advantage.

What to do: Be sure that the goals and visions of your organization are a match to those of the funding organization. This may involve some basic research to determine *unofficial* political affiliations. If you find yourself the darling of some high level politician, you should absolutely use all the cards in your deck and develop a grant proposal that will knock their socks off! What does this entail? Well, we’re glad you asked.

Just to reiterate, the problems above are NOT rampant but, in any case, are things to look out for in case YOU should find yourself seeking funding.

What do you think? Have you encountered any of these? Are there other Dirty Little Secrets of Grant Making that you would add to the list?