Dangerous Decisions

Yesterday, I received another grant rejection. With the rejection came a familiar refrain: our Board of Directors has decided to focus our funding on past grantees rather than adding new organizations to our portfolio. I've called this behavior dangerous before, but I wanted to again state how vehemently I disagree with this approach to funding - even in such a challenging economy.

There are many strong programs currently operating in Washington DC. I want to be clear that I am not rooting for the demise of any current program; however, funding only past grantees implicitly states an acceptance of the status quo. Funding the same good programs is seen as a risk-averse way to continue supporting a community in need. But, at what cost? Is a blanket policy ignoring new organizations the best way to support this community? Don't we run the risk of ignoring potentially great programs to continue supporting good ones? Do we feel that there is no room for improvement?

I do, however, want to acknowledge the other side of this argument. Every dollar is important right now. No foundation wants to take a risk on a new organization only to see it fail (either in securing enough funding or creating an impact). In this economy, such wasted money would be seen as a huge failure for the individual foundation that took the risk.

So, should the bar be set higher for new organizations? Yes. 

Should foundations refuse to consider new organizations? No.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

Mark

Founder and President - Reach, Inc.