Grantee support

You can also find the external session on Giving More Than Money.

Should we help?

• Every chapter makes their own choices
• Balance between no strings and helping people out
  • Don't want to build expectations
• It builds more structures, how does it look and how do you execute on that is a concern
• In the long view you can create a portal where people (media, for example) will know to go look to for information
• Sometimes the bar for choosing an application is set very high
  • The $1000 can act as a catalyst, take care of phase 1, but project might require more after that
  • Grantees often seem to need access to more people, more resources, people turn to Kickstarter and Indiegogo
  • Keep in mind that $1000 is a catalyst
• It goes on a chapter by chapter basis
• Erhardt: I keep thinking of this as a data problem, if we could expose the data about the projects other people could go through and look at the ideas, create a resource of awesome ideas
• We already blog and talk about them, publish information on them - maybe we could set up aggregation of that to spread the good projects

• If we signal that we are becoming an incubator, is that going to crowd out things that are one-time events
  • Keep it optional
  • Yes, but we have to walk that line gently
• Keep it simple, "we're not the f*cking Ford Foundation"
  • If people don't want or need to be incubated, don't do that

Things we do already

• Using trustees and past winners as a resource for grantees
  • Grantee-alumni relationships and mentoring
  • People are always super excited to do that, past grantees have always opted-in
• AF NY has had people opt-in to stay connected, but other people just disappear

• A lot of grantees aren't as tech-savvy as trustees, just telling them about Kickstarter and such is useful

• Is it a good idea to say up front what resources are available? Could it become an obligation?
  • Not in SF, "they drive the show", "we're here to help" but they are under no obligation

• Difference between local support and global support
  • Adopting ideas from other chapters, if it's easy to re-create or share (so re-creating the results of a past project from another chapter)

• Toronto does a lot of networking and peer-to-peer connections

• Managing our involvement
  • Toronto, for example, doesn't want to overburden themselves
  • Seattle does it on an opt-in, one trustee does it for each grant, basis to provide support that is tailored to the project while keeping the burden on trustees low

Alternative practices

• Does anyone do a thing where they select a runner-up and work with them in some way?
  • In Boston, there is a shortlist every month and often times there is a person who just needs a connection or a Kickstarter or something
  • SF does the same
• Give them feedback, advice, connections

• Spreading ideas from other places, looking at other chapters
  • SF finds inspiring projects from the general world and passes them around the list

• Does anyone give advice or guidance/feedback to ideas?
  • Is it right to tell them how to change their ideas?
  • Difference between manipulating projects and trying to give useful feedback
  • Does that make people feel obligated to do things?
• Difference between doing this with grantees vs. people who don't get funded
• The feedback can be really helpful to people
• There is a big difference between sharing the opinions of an individual vs. sharing opinions as a chapter

Things grantees might need

• Timing is an issue too - support/engagement during project vs. help afterwards
• Coaching on ideas/communication
• Connecting people to a network
• Global network of recipients, could make it an even bigger opportunity than $1000
• Initially in NY, just helped by throwing a big party and trying to get press for people with good ideas
  • $1000 is great, but trustees' connections can be a much bigger contribution
• Pittsburgh added a question asking if it would be ok to promote a project, even if not funded, or refer to other organizations
  • So far everyone says yes

Ideas

• An aggregation of "projects we love" a la Kickstarter
  • Boston has a tumblr of awesome projects, could become a collaborative project between chapters
  • People like this
  • Erhardt will own looking into this
• What if trustees could "like" projects on the AF site and go through periodically and highlight the top choices?

• Sending out a template to winner and runners up with information and resources and connections to network
  • If we take it upon ourselves, we may lapse

• International awesome hours
• Facebook group for grantees

• Awesome event calendar

Awesome Hours

• Not everyone is tech-savvy, we should think more about how to support people especially with more chapters starting in developing areas
• Awesome Hours might be a really good solution to this
  • Boston has these, just gets together and helps people workshop ideas
  • Past winners have come as well, which is nice
  • Seattle wants to start doing these
  • Important to keep a friendly, open environment
• Overall people think Awesome Hours has the potential to grow into something really big
• This is community and helps ideas grow and spread, then we just have to be catalysts

Grantee Contracts

• Generally, chapters do not use contracts in the spirit of "no strings attached" giving
• Prefer personal support of/enabling grantees to ensure that grantees follow-through or at least feel comfortable reaching out for help or guidance
  • Halifax - "Our approach has been to offer as much support as possible (media/social media/manpower) to break down any barriers to a given activity happening, and in the process, almost ensuring it happens due to the number of folks involved. We also try to have the winner carry out the activity within two months of the grant cash being awarded."
  • Boston - "For the most part, people who receive support and validation will do BACK FLIPS to deliver. I think that for most of us, the risk and mystery of it all is part what makes things so fun. (Will they? Won't they? What will the end result look like?) If you go into deliberation with a spirit of trust, the fun of the process takes over and the results produced are much better than any contract could define."
  • Ottawa - "Like others who have weighed in, I believe the "no strings attached" is a core element of the model. We even go as far in Ottawa as to restrain ourselves from suggesting to recipients that their projects might be "even better if…" -- although we do offer whatever support we can to help them deliver." Only one of 24 grants has ever "run off into the sunset with the cash"

Liaison/Storyteller Approach

• Model utilized by Seattle Chapter

• Whichever trustee is most excited about a chosen project becomes the point of contact for that grantee. They inform the grantee of their award, interview them and write a short blog post for the announcement and are generally helpful (but not overbearing) with mentorship and connections to other resources.

• We believe this personal touch adds to the accountability one would want from a contract. I hope we will do post-project interviews in the future as a way to guage and share our impact. To be clear, this isn't the grantee reporting to us. Rather, we are taking the responsibility and making the effort to share their stories. In this way, what is "reporting" in traditional grantmaking becomes an additional service we are providing that helps build the relationship.

Willow's notes

Most conversation fell into topics of:

• Continued engagement
• Connecting to more than just winners
• Cross pollination across and within chapters
• Promotion of projects and individuals via the chapter
• Providing mentorship and connections
• Encouraging propagation of instructions for creation

Image