It’s never easy to say “no.”

There are power dynamics in philanthropy that need to shift, and processes that favor funders and waste applicants’ time need to be changed. There are myriad examples of needed reflection points and systems change in philanthropy.

But at the end of the day, foundation program officers are generally people who care deeply about their organization’s mission and the partners in their portfolios. We also often spend time outside work volunteering for organizations that have to raise money to fulfill their missions. We often have not only theoretical empathy for our colleagues but also very recent lived experiences of rejection.

So please understand, dear colleagues, that most of the time, the answer to the question “Why will Trellis Foundation not fund this project?” isn’t that we don’t appreciate you and believe in your work. We have to make difficult decisions with the resources we have to achieve the Foundation’s goals and priorities at this particular moment.

At Trellis Foundation we value integrity in our grantmaking. We strive to be as clear, transparent, and accessible as we can be about our grant decision processes, and as we learn more, we do more.

Accessibility:

We know that finding an initial “in” to a relationship with a funder can be an opaque process. Most of our grants are “invitation only”— but how do you get an invitation? With this in mind, in the summer of 2023, we implemented a “project ideas form” that is always open.

We know that the process for responding to the ideas we receive has been delayed and is not yet transparent to the point it needs to be (thank you for your patience with us!). We have also been uncomfortable with the inadequacies of that process. But we feel strongly that community members need to have the opportunity to reach out to us officially, in a way that our entire team can see (rather than through an individual email). While we develop transparent processes, we are experiencing growing pains. But the access is so important to us, that we thank you for bearing with us as we iterate.

Clarity:

With a growing team and an increased grantmaking budget, we have been reflecting recently on ways to better codify and share our decisions—both internally and externally. This includes an upcoming revamp of our application and request for proposals (RFP) language to clear up confusion and provide as much guidance as possible.

We prioritize iterative processes so that applicants don’t waste time writing an application that doesn’t mesh with what we need. We seek to partner together to understand a potential grantee’s work and help them communicate that work to us in ways that respect their time.

Transparency:

For me, timing is critical as well. Transparency is less helpful after someone has devoted hours to preparing a grant. We wrestle with the desire to welcome all ideas while balancing the time of potential applicants. We don’t want to miss out on a fruitful partnership; we also don’t want to ask a nonprofit colleague to produce content that we ultimately can’t use.

Sometimes, this means declining a follow-up conversation because we know that the timing is not right, and we would need an additional update in three months anyway to move forward. So, we seek to respect the time of our staff and the nonprofit partner staff by scheduling the conversation in three months.

Transparency means being explicit at the beginning of a conversation with a new partner that we are not currently a “sustaining funder.” We acknowledge that best practices in grantmaking rely on multi-year general operating funds. We are cognizant of the need to make grant terms longer, grant amounts higher, and grant funds more flexible. We implement these levers as much as we can—while also balancing other priorities. These include small dollar grants that let us get to know organizations we would not yet be ready to fund at higher levels. The larger the grant size, the fewer grant partners. Whenever possible, I try to be direct and clear. It’s easy to hide behind softened language and inadvertently encourage false hopes.

We commit to continuing to center integrity in our grantmaking, and we are grateful to our colleagues—funders, nonprofits, and community members—for their grace in the journey.

Jenny Achilles joined Trellis Foundation (then Trellis Company/ TG) in 2013 with nearly a decade of higher education service in various capacities, including student affairs and study abroad advising. She serves on local and national committees, such as the Steering Committee for Advance Together (an initiative of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas); the Funders Collaborative for Higher Education in Prison & Reentry Support; and the Grantmakers for Education (GFE) Learning, Evaluation & Data (LEAD) Impact Group; and she co-chairs the GFE Postsecondary Access & Attainment Impact Group. She previously served on the Membership Committee for the National Scholarship Providers Association from 2015-2017 and the Texas Rural Funders Membership & Dues Task Force. She also serves as a Commissioner for the City of Austin Community Development Commission and is an alumna of Leadership Austin. Jenny earned a Bachelor of Science in communication from Lamar University and master’s degrees from the University of Texas at Austin in journalism and public policy, with a focus on nonprofit studies.