Promising Practices for Improving the Capacity of
Faith- and Community-Based Organizations

Table of Contents | Chapter 5: Technical Assistance |  Chapter 7: Serving as a Bridge Between Organizations

Chapter 6.

Sub-Awards

In conjunction with, and as a complement to, technical assistance, intermediaries sometimes provide financial assistance to FBOs and CBOs through grants and low-interest loans. As required by its agreement with HHS, each of the CCF intermediaries in our study distributed a portion of its HHS award to FBOs and CBOs with which it was working.¹¹ The amounts of these sub-awards varied. On the low end, some intermediaries provided "seed" grants that averaged about $8,000, while intermediaries making grants in the mid-range provided awards that averaged from $16,000 to $30,000. Two intermediaries provided grants as large as $50,000. In accordance with federal guidelines, all of these funds were awarded on a competitive basis. Intermediaries issued a Request for Proposals (RFP), with each intermediary developing its own review process. While they all engaged multiple reviewers to rate each proposal, about half drew on external reviewers.

The CCF intermediaries used these sub-awards to encourage two distinct types of projects: capacity building and program expansion. The FBOs and CBOs applied for small and mid-range capacity-building awards for purposes such as hiring consultants to train board members, facilitate strategic planning retreats and develop fundraising plans. While these activities were similar to capacity-building efforts supported through technical assistance, a key difference was that the sub-awards transferred responsibility to the FBOs and CBOs, and offered them greater freedom to hire their own consultants and determine the area of capacity on which they wanted to focus. Other organizations used small capacity-building sub-awards to buy computers or other equipment to increase their operational efficiency.

The program expansion sub-awards, which were typically mid-range and larger, were used by organizations for purposes such as hiring full-time and part-time staff so they could extend their program to an additional location and/or target additional groups of people to serve. One organization, for example, used its program expansion award to hire teachers for an after-school program. Another used the funding to develop a youth-focused curriculum on drug and alcohol awareness and prevention, teen pregnancy prevention, and violence prevention, thus strengthening its ability to effectively target and serve young people who were at risk. (See the box on the next page for a description of how one organization used its program expansion sub-award.)

For the most part, intermediaries granted one-time awards. The size of the sub-award may have affected the type of service organization interested in applying. For instance, small sub-awards did not interest all FBOs and CBOs. One intermediary respondent commented that for large church-based organizations that "can collect $5,000 in a collection on Sunday," it was not worth it to apply for anything less than $20,000. Conversely, for organizations that had never applied for a grant before, developing an application for a $5,000-to-$10,000 grant represented a major accomplishment.

Back to TOC

Promising Practices

Among the intermediaries, there were promising practices for virtually every stage of the sub-award process, from proposal writing and revision, to learning from the experience of having an unsuccessful proposal.

Before the second round proposals for CCF sub-awards were due, Associated Black Charities (ABC) held a day-long group training session on grant writing geared specifically to the sub-award proposal. The trainer walked through each part of the proposal in detail, reviewed common grant writing "dos and don'ts," and helped participants understand the requirements for the needs assessment, work plan and evaluation components, and how to compose such elements in their proposal. These sessions reportedly helped organizations write better sub-award proposals. Based on their experiences and on tracking, intermediary staff believed there was a correlation between program staff attending the session and submitting a better proposal and, thus, having an increased chance of being funded.

JVA Consulting allowed service organizations to submit a draft proposal before the deadline, receive feedback from its grant writing staff and then revise their applications based on the feedback. The intermediary reported that the FBOs and CBOs who took advantage of this opportunity benefited greatly, both boosting their likelihood of receiving the sub-award by strengthening their proposals and refining their skills in seeking grants elsewhere. The final grant proposals were then reviewed by a volunteer community panel that made award recommendations to JVA. JVA's sub-award application resembled grant applications for most foundations in the state. Thus, applicant organizations received "a big dose of practical help" that prepared them for future foundation proposals.

Inviting individuals from non-competing FBOs and CBOs to serve on sub-award review panels allowed them to see, first hand, the elements of a convincing and fundable proposal. JVA Consulting solicited organizational representatives to serve on a panel that reviewed and rated sub-grant proposals, as long as they had not submitted an application for financial or technical assistance in that round. Participation as a peer reviewer offered valuable insights. Organizational representatives who reviewed CCF sub-award proposals reported that they now had a better understanding of the importance of clear, concise program descriptions, and of carefully described budgets. One FBO director who took advantage of this opportunity commented on how important it was to be able to write about a program in a manner that is a good reflection of how it actually operates: "To look at a grant application that was disorganized, but to know that the quality and integrity of the program as it lives is powerful.I see how important it is to have things concise and numbered. I realized the importance for me to communicate to my board that I need to have time to write grants."

Several intermediaries provided feedback for organizations that did not write successful proposals. Sessions for declined organizations reportedly helped them understand why their application was not approved. While intermediaries did not have information on whether organizations that received this help were subsequently funded in later rounds of applications, they did report that FBOs and CBOs appreciated the service. ABC held a group session for declined organizations, during which the intermediary provided a general sense of reviewers' comments. It then offered each organization a one-on-one phone consultation, which lasted about an hour, during which an ABC staff person reviewed the proposal page by page, discussing problems and providing suggestions for improvement. Father Joe's Villages (FJV) similarly provided one-on-one sessions for declined organizations, in which FJV staff reviewed reasons why the proposal was rejected.

Back to TOC

Table of Contents | Chapter 5: Technical Assistance |  Chapter 7: Serving as a Bridge Between Organizations