Navigating the Challenges of Grant Making: Lessons from Experience

Navigating the Challenges of Grant Making: Lessons from Experience

In the realm of grant making, transparency and accountability are paramount. Over two decades, I served as a grant maker, first with the California Arts Council and later as part of the Children and Families Commission in Orange County, California. My experience revealed critical lessons that all grant makers should heed.

Insights from Two Decades of Grant Making

The California Arts Council primarily managed smaller allocations derived from state funds, operating as a miniature version of the National Endowment for the Arts. In contrast, the Orange County commission, initially referred to as Proposition 10, facilitated the distribution of substantial funding generated from a cigarette tax, amounting to millions annually. This funding aimed at fostering the health and educational readiness of children from birth to five years old and their families.

Proposition 10 was approved by California voters in 1998. Spearheaded by the prominent actor Rob Reiner and former Republican Congressman Michael Huffington, the initiative imposed a 50-cent tax on each pack of cigarettes. The resulting funds were allocated with 20% going to the state commission and 80% distributed among the 58 county commissions. While larger counties like Los Angeles naturally received more funding, Orange County secured a significant share each year.

Engagement in Responsible Grant Making

One requirement for each county commission was the inclusion of a majority of members from the private sector. I volunteered as one of the five private commissioners on a nine-member board, eager to influence the allocation of real funds for impactful projects. My role entailed attending two meetings each month, compensated at $100 per meeting, with no additional benefits or retirement plan. Interestingly, I might be one of the rare individuals under California’s Political Practices Act who did not accrue a pension while serving on this commission.

Despite its modest compensation, the work proved fulfilling. The commission effectively tackled public health issues, financing programs such as school nurses and offering support for low-income new mothers. To ensure accountability, we conducted self-audits and engaged Bainbridge Strategic Consulting after ten years. Their evaluation helped us refine our strategies and improve operational efficiency.

The Temptations in Grant Making

As I transitioned to Virginia in 2016, I remained attentive to the commission’s ongoing work. I felt confident it continued to advocate for children’s health and education, largely due to its structured approach that guarded against common pitfalls in grant making.

One significant temptation grant makers often face is the reluctance to evaluate the effectiveness of funded projects. Without proper tracking of outcomes, it’s challenging to ascertain whether the investment produced meaningful results. From the onset, our focus was on data-driven assessments, ensuring that if a program failed to deliver, funding would be discontinued. This vigilance kept us aligned with our mission and goals.

Another challenge revolves around favoritism in funding. In California, strict regulations govern self-dealing, and our commission maintained full transparency in grant allocations. We presented all decisions during public meetings, effectively eliminating any potential for impropriety. The public deserved to know how decisions were made, and all grant awards were documented and justified.

Equally concerning is the temptation for personal gain. A responsible grant maker must ensure that no funds benefit themselves, family members, or organizations with which they are personally affiliated. Any instance of a grant maker receiving funds that later helped them or their family would be a serious breach of ethical standards and likely illegal.

The Importance of Scrutiny and Accountability

The recent investigations into federal funding highlight the necessity for transparency in all forms of grant making. As entities like DOGE scrutinize grant decisions, a fresh perspective could unveil unnecessary expenditures and missed opportunities for impactful initiatives. Each grant awarded represents an opportunity not extended to someone else, emphasizing the importance of making informed choices.

Recent discussions have raised questions about how funds allocated through federal programs meet the needs of communities. Long-overdue scrutiny ensures that grant recipients fully understand their eligibility and the expectations tied to the funding. Initiatives that seem questionable warrant deeper investigation, and making responsible funding decisions benefits both grant makers and recipients.

Final Reflections on Grant Making Practices

As discussions about grant making evolve, the principles of accountability and transparency become even more crucial. The goal is simple: good grant makers will maintain ethical standards and a commitment to public service. With a lens focused on outcome measurement, fair processes, and ethical practices, grant making can significantly impact communities across the country.

In the end, robust scrutiny driven by initiatives like DOGE is a step in the right direction. Understanding how grant makers operate might lead to greater public trust in funding processes, essential for both organizations and the communities they serve.

Hugh Hewitt is a prominent radio host and educator, known for his work on constitutional law and American politics. With decades of experience in broadcasting, Hewitt continues to engage audiences on critical issues impacting the nation.