I'm often asked by grant seekers what grant makers look for in letters of inquiry.

The first, and most important, observation is that foundations and corporate giving programs act more like high net worth donors than institutions.

There are some voices that call for foundations to act more like government grant makers. They would like foundation and corporate giving programs to set targets and guidelines and award grants based upon how a rating group scores the organization's application.

Yet that approach also has its limits. A public funder, or semi-public one such as a United Way, often has to accept any and all applications to be judged by the approved panel. Often this leads to a stack of requests, the sum total of which exceeds the available funding by multiples of two or three.

One way to reduce that stack is to adopt strict standards that allow you to toss out an application early in the process. Such was the experience of On Track, a Medford, Oregon, nonprofit whose application was rejected because their margins were too thin by the space of about two typewritten letters.

No one claimed that this slight error made the application unreadable. What is most important is that those margins had very little to do with how On Track delivers services or what impact those services have on the community.

At such times a grant seeker appreciates a funder who can act less like a bureaucrat and more like a partner.

This is also an area where I believe grant seekers have a lot of power that they fail to wield. A colleague, Hildy Gottlieb, recently published a book The Pollyanna Principles. It's subtitled Reinventing Nonprofit Organizations to Create the Future of Our World.

While there is a lot in Hildy's book, one example seems emblematic of the contrasting approaches between what all too often happens and what needs to happen for nonprofits to make true and lasting change.

Hildy outlines how a cancer support group conducted its physician outreach before working with her. They typically made an appointment, told their story to the doctor, asked for referrals, and left behind some literature.

This example is typical of how many programs operate. To borrow Hildy's words, it's the nonprofit equivalent of a sales call.

But after she worked with them they asked a few simple questions and changed the whole nature of the relationship between the cancer support group and the medical community.

Hildy had them ask questions such as: What would you need to know before you could refer someone to us? What would put your mind at ease/encourage you to refer your patients? What might stop you from referring someone to us? Do you have any suggestions for our program that might help your own patients-maybe things you aren't seeing anywhere else and have always wished someone would do?

The difference between this approach and the previous approach is the difference between marketing and sales. Not every organization can do marketing. It requires a commitment to asking the right questions and listening to the answers. It also requires an honest response to what you hear.

Even more important is the sense of community bred by the marketing approach. When I review a grant proposal I want to get a sense that the ideas behind the program come from the organization's experience in providing service; that the ideas are coming from the grass roots.

The information you gain, and can then share with funders, from asking the right questions and listening will help you touch a responsive chord.