Photo by Galina Nelyubova For Unsplash+
Nonprofits have a sustainability problem, beginning with a lack of agreement on what sustainability means in the context of grant proposals. In this post, we review ideas about what the sustainability section of a grant proposal should cover, strategies for structuring the response, and how to address sustainability questions when sustainability cannot realistically be achieved.
What Do Funders Mean by “Sustainability”?
The sustainability question is essentially the funder asking: If we fund your proposal, when the grant ends, how will the benefits of our investment continue?
While funders want proof that the organization they are considering funding is financially stable and has the technical capacity to implement the proposed project, the organization’s capacities and capabilities are not addressed in the project sustainability section. Typically, these are addressed in the management and past performance sections.
In the sustainability section of a proposal, the funder is not asking whether your organization has the infrastructure and capacity to execute the proposed project for its entire duration if you receive a grant. The funder is instead asking the “what next” question: What happens to the gains and achievements accomplished during the project period that were made possible by the grant?
It’s not a “why should we fund you” question. It’s a “so what?” question. If we fund you, what are the long-term consequences of that funding? Can your organization ensure lasting change? If ongoing investment will be needed after the grant ends, where will that funding come from? How will you, the grantee, work to ensure that project successes are sustained past the project period?
Answering the Sustainability Question
The sustainability section of a grant proposal typically involves several standard parts. One part of this plan, the one many nonprofits think of first, is securing ongoing funding for their work.
Securing new grant funding
If it is understood by the grantor and grantee that the project’s objectives will only partially be met during the proposed project period and additional funding will be needed to continue the activities, the proposed sustainability plan cannot be, “Our organization is continually seeking grant funding and plans to apply for grants during the final year of project funding.” Instead, the funding plan must be detailed enough to demonstrate to the funder that you’ve considered the issue of long-term funding. Information to provide includes whether you’ve conducted preliminary research of potential funding sources, and if so, the names of the funders or programs you plan to apply to, when you plan to apply for them, and whether you have had any contacts with or past experience with the targeted funders. It strengthens your sustainability plan if you can add why your outlined funding strategy is reasonable and stands a good chance of success.
In addition to seeking new sources of grant funding, another part of the standard sustainability response for ongoing work is to discuss the pursuit of diversified funding sources.
Diversifying funding sources
Particularly if the proposed project relates to one of an organization’s core programs and the grant-funded activities are expected to be permanently incorporated into the existing program, a plan to diversify funding beyond grants should be outlined. Funding options beyond grants typically fall into one of three buckets:
Fundraising, including soliciting individual donors and organizing fundraisers.
Generating funds through collecting membership fees, offering fee-based services, producing and selling products, and renting office space.
Seeking corporate sponsorships or partnerships to underwrite activities or equipment costs.
Although about cost reduction rather than revenue generation, a related strategy is to reduce staffing costs by cutting back on paid staff and relying more on volunteers.
As with the grantseeking, the plans for diversifying funding streams and reducing implementation costs should include details, covering the how, what, and when of each funding source: How will individual donors be identified, what services will be offered, and what is the timeline for implementing these ideas? If it is possible to estimate how much money each funding stream can reasonably be expected to generate, that should also be included.
Maintaining accomplishments
A third aspect of the typical sustainability plan is to explain the steps the organization will take to ensure that the project's accomplishments endure beyond the project's life (and that activities continue, if relevant). These sustainability concerns relate to project impact and continuity, which depend on more than financial resources alone.
Funders do not want, and are increasingly less tolerant of, projects that generate temporary gains rather than sustained change. To reassure a funder that if it invests in your ongoing program or time-limited initiative that the investments will have payoffs beyond the grant period, you must show that your organization has the infrastructure, systems, knowledge, and community buy-in to maintain activities and project gains.
If the sustainability plan is for a time-limited project, it should outline how you have designed the project to deliver long-term, lasting benefits. For example, in many projects, the lead or prime organization cannot conduct activities without assistance and relies on community partners. When local partners are involved, the sustainability plan should outline how the project intends to train and support the partners to ensure that, at the grant's end, they have the knowledge and capacity to continue the work. For projects that involve infrastructure investments, sustainability planning also needs to address how local partners and communities will have access to the financial resources needed to maintain the improvements, including training workers, monitoring and repairing equipment, and purchasing parts.
In addition to capacity building of local partners, other strategies for demonstrating that the grant will have a lasting impact include:
Absorbing activities into the organization’s operating budget. If the grant-funded activities represent an expansion of an existing service, an organization can state that the activities and their associated costs will be folded into the organization’s core programs and covered by unrestricted funds. This is one of the weaker sustainability strategies because unrestricted funding is notoriously difficult to secure. If you include it, you should provide evidence of unrestricted funding sources you have current access to or could cultivate that could realistically be tapped to provide the funding needed.
Collecting data for learning and adapting. Sustainability planning requires data collection. While the details of the project’s data collection and assessment plan will be covered elsewhere in the proposal, in the sustainability plan, referencing how project data will be collected, analyzed, and used helps signal to the funder that, if future funding is sought, the organization will have the information it needs to demonstrate impact and justify the need for further investment.
In the sustainability section, you are trying to make the case that the funder’s investment will have enduring effects and that your organization has the capacity to make that happen. However, organizations struggle with the sustainability section because it’s difficult to guarantee sustainability, especially when the project is funded by a single grant.
It is very common that, after a grant ends and a hand-off to local partners occurs, project achievements degrade as experienced project oversight and financial resources are lost. If the sustainability plan hinges on securing new grants or unrestricted funding, that goal may prove unattainable, either in its entirety or within the expected timeframe. When sustainability cannot be achieved, how can nonprofits respond, and what do donors realistically expect?
Donors Know Sustainability Isn’t Always Achievable
Too many sustainability plans in proposals sound unconvincing and generic. If you understand the spirit of the question, the section becomes easier to write, and the plan will sound more realistic and authentic to your organization.
Donors understand the difficulties of achieving sustainability. They know that sustainability, particularly long-term sustainability, may be unattainable for many grant-funded projects tackling complex, entrenched societal problems. Knowing that donors are aware of the challenges, applicants should not feel obligated to overstate the likelihood of graduating to a sustainable project or to pledge to secure unrestricted funding when the organization has no mechanism for doing so.
Ongoing work requires ongoing investment, and for most nonprofits, it is not feasible to continue grant-funded project activities without an infusion of new funds from another grant. Although funders often require applicants to address sustainability in their grant proposals, they do not expect applicants to draft a comprehensive sustainability plan at the proposal stage or to guarantee that the plan will work as described.
For the writing process, it can help to view the sustainability section as an exercise, a chance to show the donor that you’re planning for the best possible outcomes, not just for project outcomes during the grant-funded project period. While sustainability-related issues are addressed throughout a proposal, the sustainability section is a dedicated space where the applicant can demonstrate to the donor that it has taken a comprehensive view and factored sustainability into the project’s design and its goals, objectives, and activities, ensuring that the project has the best possible chance of succeeding and producing transformative, lasting change.
————————
Further Reading
The Evidence Is In: Unrestricted Funding Works
State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey - Nonprofit Finance Fund