Relationship of the Idea to the Proposal

Another guidepost for proposal review is the seeming paradox that it is sometimes better to fund a bad proposal than a good one. Actually this is not a paradox at all. Although grantmakers often informally say that they fund good proposals, in fact what they are funding is good ideas. The proposal is merely a delivery system for the idea. This can perhaps best be explained by employing a birthday present analogy: it is possible for a terrible gift to be poorly wrapped and for a wonderful gift to be beautifully wrapped; but it is also quite possible for a terrible gift to be beautifully wrapped and for a wonderful gift to be poorly wrapped. Similarly, it is possible for bad ideas to be conveyed by a bad proposal and good ideas to be conveyed by a good proposal; it is also very possible for bad ideas to be conveyed by a good proposal and good ideas to be conveyed by a bad proposal. In shorthand form, the four options look like this:

Bad idea, bad proposal

Bad idea, good proposal

Good idea, bad proposal

Good idea, good proposal

Your life as a grantmaker would be a dream if most of the proposals you received fit into the first or fourth categories. A workable idea to bring about world peace that came wrapped in a well-written, well-supported proposal would be a joy to read and fund. On the flip side, a harebrained scheme to sadistically torture everyone on earth—described in a proposal shot through with logical errors and bad grammar—would be a no-brainer to decline. You will soon discover, however, that you see very few of the bad idea–bad proposal type and, surprisingly, not many more of the good idea–good proposal type. Few dreadful people submit proposals to foundations, which probably accounts for the scarcity of the bad-bad. Although foundations receive many good ideas, relatively few are couched in elegantly written proposals. Most proposals fall into the two mixed-bag categories; you earn your money by guarding against funding the bad ideas couched in good proposals and by finding ways to support the good ideas disguised by bad proposals.

The bad idea–good proposal is an insidious creature. So well written is the narrative, especially in relation to other submissions, that you can be seduced by the sprightly prose and support a real dog of an idea. This happens most often with proposals emanating from large institutions that can afford to hire the best and the brightest of proposal writers. If these institutions do not give the writer a decent idea to pitch, but the writer does a splendid job of pitching it, the project, if funded, will become a gold-plated disaster. One of your prime duties as program officer is to dig beneath the prose to seek the mother lode of great ideas. If, as Gertrude Stein said, “there is no there there,” then the proposal, lovely though it may be, must be declined.

The good idea–bad proposal is the ugly duckling of the foundation world. It looks awkward and ungainly on the surface, but it contains the essence of the swan within. Unfortunately, truly lousy proposals often prevent you from perceiving the swan. Since grade school days, we have been taught to equate second-rate writing with second-rate minds. Sometimes, of course, this is absolutely true. At other times, however, the typos, misspellings, awkward constructions, and grammatical goofs conceal a truly innovative idea, and in this case, declining the proposal kills an incipient benefit to society. This happens most often with proposals emanating from smaller and newer organizations, often those led by visionaries who are capable of making social change in the real world but whose prose makes strong people weep. Here is where you must step in as a coach, not to write the proposal but rather to guide the applicant in improving it so that the great idea trapped inside can be liberated.

Whether you step in to do so is a test of your character. It is much easier to recommend for funding an elegantly written proposal than it is to recommend a poorly written one, the quality of their respective ideas notwithstanding. It takes time, skill, and patience to help the ugly duckling become a swan. In making this extra effort, you add value to the idea. And this extra value that you bring is, ultimately, why foundations employ program officers—and not cash machines—to dispense grants.

Unfortunately, proposals do not come through the door clearly marked as good idea–bad proposal or bad idea–good proposal. Making the necessary distinctions is a matter of experience, analytical ability, and, not least important, intuition. Because no one is infallible, some bad ideas will be funded, and some very good ideas will be declined. The essence of being an effective program officer is to sort the wheat from the chaff most of the time.