I tentatively agree with you Igor should have done several things differently, including making his constraints clearer and not changing his job until he had the money in hand.
I think the real question is “how many applicant mistakes should grantmakers be expected to gracefully handle?” Given that they interact with so many people, especially people new to direct work who couldn’t possibly figure out the exact rules ahead of time, I think it’s reasonable that EAIF and other entry-level grantmakers be able to handle a fair number[1]. I imagine that someone with no application experience and inconsistent communication from EAIF would have found it challenging to explain the nuances of their situation in a way that was heard.
I was going to say “someone with no application experience would have found it difficult to know how to interpret EAIF’s communications”, but I reject the concept that EAIF should need that much translation. It makes me sad that I automatically double timing estimates from EA orgs, treat that as the absolute minimum time something could take, and am often still disappointed. If they can’t be more accurate, they could at least give more conservative estimates.
On the other hand, this case appears to have been unusually legally complicated and have ESL issues. Maybe EAIF is handling the 98th percentile case well and this was the unlucky 99th. It’s surely not worth the effort to have zero mistakes, and I don’t what the right goal is.
My understanding is SFF deliberately does the opposite and considers ability to fill out the detailed forms to be a qualification. I can also see an argument for that approach. But I do think granting orgs should make a decision and follow through on it.
It makes me sad that I automatically double timing estimates from EA orgs, treat that as the absolute minimum time something could take, and am often still disappointed.
I definitely strongly agree with this. I do think its slowly, ever so slowlygetting better though.
I tentatively agree with you Igor should have done several things differently, including making his constraints clearer and not changing his job until he had the money in hand.
I think the real question is “how many applicant mistakes should grantmakers be expected to gracefully handle?” Given that they interact with so many people, especially people new to direct work who couldn’t possibly figure out the exact rules ahead of time, I think it’s reasonable that EAIF and other entry-level grantmakers be able to handle a fair number[1]. I imagine that someone with no application experience and inconsistent communication from EAIF would have found it challenging to explain the nuances of their situation in a way that was heard.
I was going to say “someone with no application experience would have found it difficult to know how to interpret EAIF’s communications”, but I reject the concept that EAIF should need that much translation. It makes me sad that I automatically double timing estimates from EA orgs, treat that as the absolute minimum time something could take, and am often still disappointed. If they can’t be more accurate, they could at least give more conservative estimates.
On the other hand, this case appears to have been unusually legally complicated and have ESL issues. Maybe EAIF is handling the 98th percentile case well and this was the unlucky 99th. It’s surely not worth the effort to have zero mistakes, and I don’t what the right goal is.
My understanding is SFF deliberately does the opposite and considers ability to fill out the detailed forms to be a qualification. I can also see an argument for that approach. But I do think granting orgs should make a decision and follow through on it.
I definitely strongly agree with this. I do think its slowly, ever so slowly getting better though.