Education in support of elections and democracy is a national and international priority, although it does go through phases when it is more or less popular. As such, it is most likely to be funded by grants or donations. In order to obtain grants, whether from government, international aid agencies, philanthropic or solidarity foundations, or charitable institutions, certain documentation has to be prepared based on the programme planning that the education team has undertaken.
The depth and coherence of the planning, and its social significance, duly documented and noted, is the primary source of success in obtaining grant funding. General donor funding, which might be based on a far wider range of individual perceptions of what is worth giving money to, is likely to be influenced by additional factors. These include the style with which appeals are made, the endorsements that the programme has received, and existing relationships between the donor and the programme organisation.
But grants are given on the basis of homework done and matching priorities between the grant maker and the proposal.
Different grant makers have different priorities and standards for the presentation of proposals. In most cases, they offer these publicly.
Proposal Writing
A proposal needs to include documentation specifying the context for the programme and the reasons it is necessary. This will be followed by a description of the strategy to be followed and the intended outcomes expressed in a set of objectives. A full or summary work plan should follow, including arrangements for evaluation and monitoring. A budget must be given.
The proposal also will provide information about the organisation that is proposing the work and the individuals within that organisation who will be taking responsibility for the programme.
Within this simple framework certain grant makers require additional information, and may direct precisely what this must be. Such directions inevitably increase the difficulty of preparing proposals for education organisations in civil society; but there may be concomitant increases in the amount of money made available.
Educators preparing for the proposal should consider the following sections of this topic area.
Logical Frameworks
An increasing number of grant makers request logical framework plans or 'logframes' from those who submit proposals. Unfortunately, they do not all use the exact same technology and terminology.
The logic of a logframe is straightforward. It is an attempt to ensure that those submitting the proposal have dealt with the matters outlined above and also with how the programme will be evaluated. The logframe also lays out the basics of a business or work plan.
The first condition of a logical framework is to settle on the goals and outputs that are expected and the logical relationship between these, the activities the programme will undertake, and the actual societal impact. Logframes are likely to require a listing of planning assumptions, assessment of the risks to be considered, and the indicators that will be external reference markers of the success of the programme.
It is possible to develop a logframe that is displayed in simple form of a table, in which the various stages of the plan follow one another. It is also possible to use the logframe outline to create a narrative document.
When the logframe has been established, it is theoretically possible to budget each item (and thus prepare a zero-based budget). Such a budget can be linked directly to outputs rather than to the general organisational processes that must be undertaken to achieve these outputs.
Perhaps the most useful contributions of the logframe movement have been to systematise the planning process and to force the asking and answering of certain questions, such as, 'Is this worth doing?' and, 'Will it really make a difference where we think it should?'
Sources of Funds
There are many sources of funds, and civil society organisations involved in voter and civic education should develop partnerships with as many as possible. One valuable resource on grant-making institutions throughout the world is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website which can be accessed at http://www.ned.org.
Election authorities might be constrained in their ability to develop the same level of partnership by legal restrictions. But the source of the money is more limited.
First, there is the discretionary income of individuals and private organisations that these individuals and organisations have control over and make available according to their own priorities.
Second, there are trust funds that have been set up to manage money earned over time. These funds have a predominantly professional approach to the disbursement of their funds based on the wishes of the originator of the funds. This implies both flexibility and limitations.
Third, some countries make available percentages of their state revenues for international aid and partnerships. Such money is controlled in the final instance by the voters of that particular country, although it might be in the hands of state officials or development professionals. It is therefore subject to the vagaries of the electorate, but more importantly, it is money that has been earned by ordinary people even if they are fortunate to live in a more affluent part of the world.
Funding Agreements
When a proposal has been submitted and accepted, it is likely to be followed by a legal agreement that imposes on the organisation accepting the grant certain conditions in relation to reporting, auditing, accountability, and restrictions in the use of the money linked to the original or amended proposal.
