Grantee support

From AwesomeWiki
Revision as of 10:45, 23 July 2012 by Nkkl (talk | contribs)

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

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