Funding institutions prescribe criteria for funding as varied as their organizational goals but there are nine of the most common items you will find in many combinations. Foreign governments through their different funding programs also prescribe funding criteria different from financial institutions and foundations.
Criteria for funding helps funding government and institutions screen and qualify recipients according to the viability and acceptability of their projects. These criteria supposedly provide them an unbiased reference for making decision as to what are acceptable or not acceptable projects. These criteria come in different forms or contextual variations but ultimately define similar objectives or desired outcomes.
Here are nine (9) of the most common and the most prescribed:
Identified projects or problems fall within those already supported or allowed under the charter of the prospective supporting organization.
The one thing that will indicate if the organization knows what it is doing is to look at their goals, their programs and their projects. Projects must be a reflection or supportive of the program goals. If you are not aware of the difference between a program and a project yet, here's some info.
A program is a general category of action to achieve the major goals or strategy. The ideal proportion is one program must go for one or two organizational goals. Programs are intended for the long haul meaning it is expected to go for goals that will be accomplished beyond a year or two.
Projects are more short-term. It has a specific beginning and ending date. It accomplishes specific objectives that comply with one or several program goals.
You may think that organizations know the difference. If you ask me, almost all organization officers I worked with don't even have the foggiest idea of these concepts I'm talking about here. Very few organizations that worry about the environment and poverty will have very educated officers or founding members. At least they won't have after one or several general membership meetings.
After the excitement of the first officers' oath-taking, or the first launching of a program, very few of the proponents will be around to inspire new members or incoming officers.
Beyond knowing the existing problems they have to solve, they will have little understanding of the underlying causes or its long-term impacts much less its interlocking relationships. I am not saying that officers are incompetent or that their motivations or intentions are suspect. Believe me when I tell you that I have seen the passion and unquestionable integrity of people who work for these NFP organizations. In rare occasions I can take enormous pride of working alongside these volunteers and officers. But these passion and integrity does not necessarily translate to good program or project management.
It is sad however that most of those I met are armed only with the passion and belief in their cause. This is probably the reason why I see frustrations and loneliness in the eyes of many of these officers and volunteers after years of running their organization.
The program or project is recognized by the government of the host country where it is operating, and more importantly, it is already enjoying support in terms of finance, policy and/or legislation.
There are a number of very important reasons why funding institutions prefer program or projects that are consistent with government priorities or aligned with the government's own programs.
The program or projects of NFP organizations complement the government-led programs. There is an expected synergy in the implementation even if there is formal joint-venture or cooperative arrangement.
Government can more legitimately extend assistance if the activities of NFP organizations are recognized priority program based on a published national development agenda.
There will be less resistance in the part of political leaders in the country to oppose any forms of support extended to programs or projects of NFP organizations if any national agency recognized its programs or projects as consistent with national programs.
The programs and projects of NFP organizations are presumed to have passed minimum scrutiny of relevant government agencies if the organization, its programs and its projects are recognized by a government agency or instrumentality. This is even more important if the organization, its program or its projects are actually certified to be supportive of existing government programs.
The other most important factor is documentation.
Government's propensity for written records and bureaucratic processes ensure that NFP organizations working with government have complied with certain documentary requirement. These documentary requirements will at least guarantee that certain sets of information about these NFP organizations are at hand for public scrutiny.
There is a manifested or demonstrated commitment in the part of the proponent to follow through for purposes of long-term implementation.
A number of years back, I undertook a study to help a foundation design a socio-economic program for beneficiaries they visit on a regular basis.
