In Rochester, NH, social service organizations are fighting for funds (read here). Granted, the process of social service organizations presenting their case to the City Councilors seems orderly enough, and there are no reports of fists flying. But, the situation still carries the hallmarks of an all-out charitable brawl: organizations bringing their best and most compelling stories before the Council, with the hopes of walking away with the biggest prize possible. Unfortunately, there's just not enough money for everyone to get what they need. To meet approximately $150,000 in requests, the city only has about $50,000. In these circumstances, organization leaders who feel deeply about their mission only have a few options: relegate themselves to sub-standard programs, find alternative funding sources, or step to the plate and swing with everything they've got to get what funds they can.
I find this story to be a striking example of "real-life" organizations facing "real-life" funding challenge, and a case scenario where an organization's ability to prove their value to a funding source is directly relevant to its bottom line. This is where the rubber of organizational outcomes meets the road of federal funding and decisions about who gets what.
In these circumstances, what can decision-makers and organizations seeking funds do to optimize their outcomes?
For Decision-Makers
For decision-makers, I'm not implying that these decisions are easy. They are challenging, particularly because they are ethical decisions. Is the AIDS organization any more or less deserving of funds than the homelessness initiative, or the initiative to empower young girls?
Develop and Prioritize Objective Evaluative Criteria
When any kind of ethical decision must be made, the first step is to develop and prioritize the criteria that will used to guide the decision making process. If you've ever done those exercises where 10 people are alive, but only 5 can survive and you need to decide who is best, you may have a sense of what this process is like (see HERE for a similar type of example).
Once decision-making organizations have prioritized the values that will drive their decisions, the process of making the decisions becomes fairly mechanical, and a matter of evaluating each organization according to the criteria--assigning a number (e.g., 1-5), adding up the numbers, and letting the summed data tell the rest of the story and make the decision. If this rational approach is NOT adhered to, countless emotional appeals will make the decisions excruciatingly difficult.
Honor the Emotional and Financial Reality
When decisions have been reached about who gets what money, two realities must be honored by decision-makers: the financial reality that drove the decision, and the emotional reality that drives service providers to meet their missions. This looks something like this: "The financial climate is difficult. All of the local organizations have requested $150,000. We only have $50,000 available. To make our decisions, we used these criteria...[X,Y,Z]. We wish we could meet all of your needs, because we believe in your missions and know you matter to our communities."
Fund-Seeking Organizations
For organizations seeking funds, the task is straightforward: do everything that is ethically and legally within your power to get what funds you can. What does this entail?
Be Armed with "Surface" Persuasive Tactics
Fund-seeking organizations need to be able to pull out all the stops. A goodly portion of these "stops" include the ability to play to decision-makers cognitive deficits. I'm not attacking decision-makers here, but rather the limitations that ALL of us have when it comes to processing information. We cannot (or don't want to) process every bit of information that comes our way. In such circumstances, we often make decisions based on cognitive shortcuts or "rules of thumb", also known as "heuristics", "peripheral processing", or "Type I" processing. According to Cialdini, these include social proof, authority, reciprocity, previous and current commitments, liking and similarity, and scarcity. Fund-seeking organizations need to leverage these persuasive tactics to their benefit; bring 500 clients to a rally (social proof); find Doctors, Lawyers, Professors, Celebrities, and others to promote your cause (authority); offer legally-appropriate kindnesses (reciprocity); know what decisions people have made in the past and help them see how the current decision will help them be consistent with prior decisions (commitment); make the appeal "real" and tap into your joint identities to increase liking (similarity and liking); or emphasize how unique your program is and how your services are not being addressed anywhere else (scarcity).
Be Armed with "Substantial" Persuasive Tactics
"Surface" appeals are sure-fire by any means. Many people will want more proof of your impact and the value of your services. Your messages will be carefully scrutinized and criticized for their inherent value. What do you do in these circumstances?
There is no adequate replacement for numbers and measurable outcomes when it comes to telling your stories persuasively. Emotional appeals and the "surface" tactics will generally get you in the door. But, at some point, you need to have solid logic and arguments, and numbers, graphs, and charts often fit the bill and withstand scrutiny. Best-practices require that you be able to substantiate your value with outcomes, not output. Output is simple "we saw this many people," while outcomes are "this many people saw a 16% increase in their self-sufficiency." With numbers and outcomes at your disposal, you are prepared to broadcast your story effectively and compellingly. This is one function ClientTrack completes extremely well, allowing you to create standard reports, as well as ad hoc analyses and charts and tables to be used in advocacy, community awareness, and fund-seeking. Your organization's survival may very well depend on your ability to tell your story, and your ability to tell your story must include solid outcomes and measurements.
Because of limited funding, funding organizations need to be very clear about the priorities of the criteria that drive their decisions. Fund-seeking organizations, on the other hand, need to be prepared with multiple persuasive strategies--surface and substantial--that can influence fund-providers and allow them to see the validity, necessity, and credibility of their organizations. With optimal strategies on both sides, optimal outcomes are more likely to be achieved.
What other strategies do you recommend? What have you seen is most valuable for funders to be aware of, or for fund-seeking organizations to know?