How to Navigate an Open Request for Grant Proposals

Grant-seeking usually goes something like this: A nonprofit hears about a request for proposals and works feverishly to cobble together a grant application. Then it waits.

Sometimes, according to Sol Anderson, executive director of LIFT Chicago, a response doesn’t come for half a year.

The first GHR Foundation BridgeBuilder Challenge was different. The Minneapolis grant maker ran an open request for proposals, meaning that every application was made available to the foundation’s staff and board, all of the competing applicants, and the public. (See more about the grant opportunity.)

Each application was treated as a “living” document. Anderson, whose group applied for and won a grant from GHR, and the other applicants were required to seek feedback on their submissions from the people they serve, and they were invited to ask questions of other applicants. The back-and-forth helped potential grantees modify and improve their proposals.

For LIFT and four other organizations, the open and collaborative application process paid off. Each received a share of $1 million.

GHR, which is in the early stages of its second open challenge, operates one of the most radically transparent grant-making processes. But other grant makers are opening up their selections, too. Maine Initiatives, for example, invites anyone in the state to read and weigh in on grant proposals. And the Communities Thrive Challenge, a $10 million anti-poverty effort set up by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and Rockefeller Foundation, invites applicants to review their peers’ proposals.

For nonprofits, an open request for proposals takes more work, Anderson says. But the payoff can make it worth the extra effort — even when a grant is not offered. After receiving rigorous feedback, LIFT emerged with a more disciplined strategy and a better ability to communicate its mission to the outside world, Anderson said.

Here, he and Mark Guy, GHR’s senior program officer for global development, explain what you need to know if your nonprofit is thinking vying for an open grant.

Make sure your work is in line with the grant maker’s goals.

Like any grant application, it’s essential to ensure that your work fits the criteria listed in the RFP. Even when a grant maker opens up the process, it still is looking to support specific approaches. In GHR’s case, the first round of BridgeBuilder grants went to nonprofits that connected or built bridges among “three P’s:” securing peace, helping groups and individuals attain prosperity, and making sustained improvements to the planet.

LIFT Chicago provides training and support to parents of children in early-education programs, with a goal of getting them more involved in decision making in the community —— something Anderson says could reduce the level of violence on the South Side of Chicago. “We felt we could plug in on the peace and prosperity end” of the application, he said. “You need to make sure you’re in tune with your program, your theory of change, and make sure it lines up with what the application is looking for,”

Don’t wait till it’s “proposal perfect.”

Submit your application well in advance of the deadline, even if it’s not perfect. “Getting it in early is important,” Anderson says, because others will weigh in and make the proposal stronger. “We knew from this process there would be questions, and we wanted to give ourselves time to answer them,” he says. Early submissions may not be “proposal perfect,” says Guy, but they are good enough to start the process of revision.

“Don’t wait until headquarters has reviewed everything and all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed,” he said.

Read your application with someone else’s eyes.

One of the first questions Anderson got after posting his application publicly was about the basic premise of LIFT’s proposal: that training parents and caretakers would reduce violence. For Anderson and his staff, the theory was simple: By training parents, they could help stabilize families, freeing up time for parents to learn how to become community advocates and help maintain safety in the neighborhood. Anderson realized that he and his staff were assuming the theory and the shorthand language that they used were clear to all. “We hadn’t fully articulated it,” he said. “We had to go back and read it. not just with our eyes but with someone else’s eyes.”

Be ready for some criticism.

It’s natural that some of the feedback will be negative. That’s just part of the process, Anderson said. To participate in an open process, a nonprofit has to loosen up and be ready for some pointed questions.

“Don’t be too prideful,” he said. “Get ready for some constructive criticism.”

Dive right in, and give as well as take.

An open process relies on an exchange of ideas and approaches. Remember, it goes both ways. Just as your proposal improves with feedback, other pitches benefit from your insights, too. Even groups whose proposals fail will benefit by connecting with others and sharing ideas. “Dive in and take a look at the other ideas,” Guy says.

Ask questions of the grant maker, too. GHR instituted “office hours” when applicants could ask questions by video conference. Because the open RFP was so novel, Anderson said the meetings were helpful. “You don’t want to go in blind,” he said. “Ask questions about your application and how you’ve responded to questions.”

Reserve time and resources for feedback.

Anderson estimates that he and his grant writers put in two or three times more work on an open application as they would on a normal grant. “Normally, you write it and its done” because many grant applications ask a lot of questions that can be satisfied with boilerplate information about the nonprofit. Because the GHR grant attempted to connect issues of peace, prosperity, and the planet, more thinking was required. The foundation also required grantees to demonstrate buy-in from the community. Making sure those beneficiaries had a say took extra effort, too.

If a nonprofit doesn’t have mechanisms in place to hear from the community, it should put them in place, Guy says. “Make sure you have the necessary time and resources to get that end-user feedback.”

Charge your grant writers and program staff to work together.

The questions — and deadlines to answer them — came in quickly. LIFT’s grant-writing staff had to respond to questions from GHR, other nonprofits, the public, and OpenIDEO, the design group that created the open-RFP platform. So Anderson named one staff person as the point-of-contact. But that person, a grant writer, did not always know how the nonprofit’s programs directly affected people in Chicago. Those questions were best answered by program officers who have a deeper knowledge of the communities LIFT serves, Anderson said.

So Anderson gave program officers and grant writers the authority to collaborate. While the appointed liaison responded for the organization, their combined expertise allowed LIFT to respond quickly and accurately.

“We had to empower our program team to know what the grant was all about,” he said. “It was a deeper dive.”

Stay focused.

Over the years, Anderson says, his organization has become wary of “mission creep,” the tendency of nonprofits to take on work outside their core area. Often the pursuit of new grant money exacerbates mission creep.

In an open process, LIFT heard from nonprofits throughout the country and internationally. Hearing about so many groups and approaches could tempt nonprofits to claim similar capabilities. While your strategy will likely undergo a lot of tweaking as others chime in, Anderson recommends staying true to your overall mission and plan of attack. If you make new promises, the public process will lead others to follow up to see if you deliver. “It’s all going to be laid bare,” he said.