My pediatrician said a funny thing the other day. I can't remember what new baby strategy we were talking about, but he suggested that if it didn't work immediately, that I should try again in a few days. Immediately, that old adage came to mind: The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
As a strong believer in learning organizations, and perhaps in being a learning individual, its important to adjust, on a daily and sometimes hourly basis, my actions according to what isn't working and what is. These adjustments, however, require data and information, and our sector (i.e. the nonprofit sector) isn't known for ability to transmit information easily.
Case in point. I have, in my life time, written more than a dozen failed funding proposals. (I've written some successful ones too. But this post is about the value failed proposals). Regarding each of those failed proposals, from a diverse group of funders, I received almost identical rejection letters: "Thank you for your proposal to X Foundation. However, due to the high caliber of proposals received this year, we are unable to fund your proposal. Blah blah blah. Thank you and have a nice day."
What do these letters tell me? What data does it provide? Should I try again next year? Did they like my proposal but really I was up against a dozen nobel laureates and therefore the competition was steep? How should I adjust my actions? What did I learn???
Which is why, as I've built a career in philanthropy, I've chosen to emphasize transparency and the flow of information in order to help organizations optimize decision making.
With the launch of the Economic Security Initiative, the Maine Women's Fund saw a series of shifts in grantmaking and in its grantmaking process. In our grantmaking, we honed in on 4 investment areas: education, public policy, asset building and financial literacy, and entrepreneurship and better jobs. These strategies, in which funders have traditionally under invested, have proven track records for helping women and girls avoid poverty or pull themselves out of poverty.
Regarding the process, we sought to build a feminine model of philanthropy that emphasized participation and transparency. My goal was to engage as many people in the decision making process as we could, reflecting our values that women and girls know best what they and their communities need. I also encouraged our grantee partners to participate in the review of proposals (as long as there posed no conflict of interest). A few questioned the value, but for the most part, grantee applicants jumped in and reported back that the process enriched their knowledge of the field and our network, and helped them see how their own proposals could be stronger. In total, we had over 60 people (plus our board and staff) participating in the review of proposals.
I was pleased.
But then came the hard part. While we increased our grantmaking dollars significantly this year, there will always be organizations who don't get funded. Its the nature of the Universe. And when organizations didn't get funding, I offered to give them feedback from the review process -- which could include question, analysis, and critique from the reviewers. Information of this type invariably makes you stronger, but it can also be discouraging. You can no longer imagine that you were up against a dozen nobel laureates. But information does give you the data you need to make new choices. Do you apply again? If so, what adjustments will you make?
Information and choice. Feminine principles. But not always easy ones.
However, I do believe that the process resulted in a terrific slate of grants. I hope you'll learn more about them by visiting our Web site.
Also, we'll be launching our 2008-2009 grantmaking work this fall through a new Grantmaking Institute, which will further explore the tools and techniques that will help us make our grantmaking that much more transparent, participative, and decentralized. Check out our Web site for more information.



