The reality is that many well-crafted proposals are not being funded. The reasons often have little to do with grammar or formatting and much more to do with strategy. Funding agencies increasingly expect multidisciplinary collaborations, meaningful community engagement, workforce development plans, and projects that align with broader national priorities.

In other words, successful grant procurement begins long before a proposal is written. In other words, “seek to understand first, and ask to be understood secondly.”

The institutions that consistently secure external funding understand this. They invest in creating a research ecosystem that supports faculty throughout the entire grants process. Investigators need help identifying opportunities, developing partnerships, understanding sponsor priorities, and building sustainable research agendas. They benefit from mentoring, peer networks, and institutional support that extends beyond a single submission deadline.

This is where the concept of grantsmanship becomes important. Grant writing is a skill. Grantsmanship is the ability to think strategically about research funding and to build competitive programs over time. The distinction may seem subtle, but it can have a profound impact on an institution’s research enterprise.

Rather than asking, “How can we help faculty write better grants?” perhaps the better question is, “How can we help faculty become more successful grant competitors?”

The answer lies in building a culture that values ongoing research development and professional growth. Training should not be viewed as a one-time event but as part of a long-term commitment to strengthening institutional capacity and supporting investigators at every stage of their careers.

As the funding landscape continues to evolve, the most successful institutions will not simply produce better proposals. They will cultivate stronger investigators, more resilient collaborations, and a sustainable pipeline of funded research.

The post Grant Procurement Isn`t Just About Better Proposals appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Foundation grant pressure

Foundation grant writers are under pressure because many foundations fund only a narrow slice of organizations, projects, or communities. That means a strong idea is not enough; the proposal has to prove the applicant is the kind of grantee the foundation already supports. In practice, that makes prospect research and matching more important than ever.

Why this matters now

The biggest risk for grant writers is wasting time on proposals that are unlikely to win. Some guidance suggests nonprofits should only pursue grants with a realistic chance of success, because the labor cost of a weak-fit application can drain staff capacity quickly. At the same time, many proposals still fail for basic reasons: vague need statements, unclear goals, budgets that do not match the plan, or failure to follow instructions exactly.

What foundations want

Foundations generally want concise, evidence-based proposals that clearly answer three questions: Why this issue, why this organization, and why now. They also tend to look closely at whether the project matches their funding priorities and whether the organization can show credible outcomes, even on a small scale. For smaller or emerging nonprofits, this means the proposal must emphasize clarity, feasibility, and relevance rather than trying to sound larger than the organization is.

Practical focus

For foundation grants, the urgent job is to narrow the pipeline before writing. Grant writers should first study the foundation’s guidelines, read its funding history, and compare past awardees to their own organization and program. Then they should build a proposal that is short, specific, and easy for a foundation reviewer to connect to the funder’s stated priorities.

In short, foundation grant writing is now less about volume and more about *precision*.

The post The Most Urgent Issue for Foundation Grantees Right Now appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Increased competition, lower success rates

Across major federal agencies, proposal success rates are tightening. In the U.S., agencies such as the NIH and NSF are receiving record numbers of submissions. In Canada, the Tri-Council agencies (CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC) face similar pressures. Even technically strong proposals are being declined more frequently. Reviewers are placing greater weight on clarity, alignment, and feasibility, not just on the novelty of an idea.

The shift toward impact and implementation

Funders are prioritizing projects that demonstrate real-world results. It is no longer sufficient to present a compelling idea for now applicants must show how outcomes will be implemented, measured, and sustained over time. In both countries, proposals that clearly connect research or programs to community benefit, policy relevance, or scalable outcomes are gaining a distinct competitive advantage.

Growth of non-federal funding sources

As federal funding grows more competitive, foundations, corporate giving programs, and regional funders are playing a larger role. In Canada, provincial funding and foundation support are becoming increasingly important complements to federal grants. In the U.S., private foundations are expanding initiatives across education, health, and community development. Organizations that diversify their funding portfolios, rather than relying on a single source, are better positioned to weather tightening cycles.

Responsible use of AI in proposal development

Artificial intelligence is rapidly entering the grant development process, but funders are watching carefully. Many agencies now explicitly discourage or outright reject proposals that appear AI-generated. The expectation is that applicants use AI responsibly: for research, planning, and refinement, while preserving authentic, human-driven narratives. This approach is consistent across both U.S. and Canadian funders.

Looking ahead

Success in grant seeking will depend less on volume and more on strategy. Organizations that strengthen proposal clarity, diversify their funding sources, and align closely with funder priorities will be best positioned to compete and win in this evolving environment.

The post How Funding Is Changing & What Grant Seekers in the U.S. & Canada Need to Know appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The erosion of informal relationships with federal agencies has fundamentally altered how universities assess risk. When routine questions go unanswered and faculty fear surveillance of their collaborations, innovation suffers as researchers retreat from proposals and international partnerships.

Faculty exhaustion has deepened beyond pandemic-era stress into permanent strain. At teaching-intensive institutions, even small seed grants require navigating weeks of bureaucratic obstacles. In the humanities, major NEH program cuts and shifting donor priorities toward immediate impact have left experienced scholars struggling to sustain long-term critical work.

Counter intuitively, the most stable research leaders practice restraint rather than bold transformation. By refusing to outpace federal guidance and clearly communicating realistic institutional capacity, they’ve maintained steadier operations. Many institutions have abandoned broad, small-scale bridge funding for targeted faculty cohorts receiving intensive support, while others invest in shared proposal development resources and grant-writing consultants. Yet leaders agree the critical factor isn’t funding, it is morale.

Research administrators increasingly spend time interpreting political signals and strategically reframing work. Some train faculty to avoid problematic keywords, while others align messaging with phrases like “Make America Healthy Again”. This strategic repositioning reflects a troubling reality: research is becoming a political act.

The shift toward industry partnerships to replace declining federal support raises fundamental questions about who determines research priorities and why. Leaders fear that political instability and funding volatility will force institutions to abandon long-term research strategies for short-term survival, undermining the patient cultivation necessary for transformative scholarship.

Despite these challenges, cautious optimism persists. Cross-institutional humanities collaborations are emerging, STEM fields are organizing around AI initiatives, and some leaders embrace moral clarity by honestly communicating what they cannot support. Many focus on strengthening internal collaboration rather than external competition.

The post Mounting Pressures Facing University Research appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The Current State of Federal Grants

The recent changes have led to increased scrutiny of federal grants, potential termination of existing contracts, and a temporary freeze on new grants and contracts. This situation has understandably caused concern among grant recipients and applicants. However, it’s important to note that while challenges exist, federal funding has not disappeared entirely. Agencies are working to interpret and implement new guidance, and some funding streams are beginning to resume.

Diversifying Your Funding Portfolio

In these uncertain times, diversification is essential. Following are some alternative funding sources to consider:

1. Private Foundations: Many foundations offer grants for research and educational programs. Research organizations like the Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, or field-specific foundations relevant to your work.
2. Corporate Sponsorships: Businesses often have corporate social responsibility programs that include funding for research and education. Look for companies aligned with your field of study.
3. Crowdfunding: Platforms like Experiment.com or GoFundMe can be effective for smaller, targeted projects.
4. State and Local Grants: Don’t overlook funding opportunities from your state or local government agencies.
5. International Funding Sources: For some research areas, international organizations or foreign government agencies may offer grants.
6. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs): These organizations focus on community-based projects and may offer attractive terms for certain types of research.
7. Partnerships with Industry: Collaborative projects with private sector companies can provide funding and real-world applications for your research.

Strategies for Securing Alternative Funding

1. Refine Your Proposal: Competition for alternative funding sources may be fierce. Ensure your proposals are well-crafted and clearly demonstrate the value and potential impact of your work.
2. Network Actively: Attend conferences, join professional associations, and engage with potential funders to build relationships and learn about opportunities.
3. Collaborate: Consider forming partnerships with other institutions or researchers to strengthen your applications and share resources.
4. Stay Informed: Regularly check funding databases and sign up for newsletters from potential funding sources to stay aware of new opportunities.
5. Adapt Your Approach: Be prepared to adjust your research focus or methodology to align with the priorities of different funding sources without compromising your core objectives.

While the current federal funding landscape presents its challenges, it also opens up opportunities to explore new avenues and diversify your funding sources. Instead of viewing this as a setback, now is the time to take a proactive, creative, and persistent approach to navigate these changes.

The post Navigating the Shifting Landscape of Federal Grants appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

• Increasing emphasis on grants that address pressing societal issues, such as climate change, public health, and social inequality. For example, there has been a surge in grants for renewable energy research, community health initiatives and programs aimed at promoting diversity and inclusion in various fields.
• Growing popularity of collaborative grant programs that encourage partnerships between multiple stakeholders. These initiatives recognize the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and collaboration across sectors to tackle complex challenges.
• Rising interest in supporting sustainability of projects that not only deliver immediate results but also have the potential for lasting positive effects on communities, ecosystems, and economies.
• Advances in data analytics and artificial intelligence that enable funding agencies to better assess the potential impact and feasibility of grant proposals, leading to more informed decision-making.
• Intense competition for funding, with many worthy projects vying for limited resources. Donors are placing an emphasis on funding projects that are innovative, have wide impact, address significant issues of relevance to them, and are well written.

In response to these challenges and opportunities, there is a growing emphasis on capacity building and support services to help applicants strengthen their grant-writing skills, develop robust project proposals, and navigate the intricacies of grant procurement. Organizations such as universities, non-profits, and government agencies are offering training programs, workshops, and mentorship opportunities to empower aspiring grant seekers and increase their chances of success. For example, we at the Grant Training Center have seen a threefold increase in the number of professionals we train in our Grant Development workshops, as well as in the requests we receive for the grant reviews and editing of grant proposals.

The post Key Trends in Grant Funding appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The LOI should be written to communicate at least three things:

• That you have researched the donor and know the project fits their guidelines as well as their culture and language.
• That this is a substantial and needed project with real outcomes that serve the constituents.
• That you, your team, and institution are capable of succeeding if funded.

A Letter of Intent should be composed as follows:

• The opening paragraph should include the summary statement, which will be the roadmap of your proposal. This first section should stand alone and address: what, who, how much, and over what period.
• The Statement of Need (1-2 paragraphs) will include the problem, the science/field as it currently stands, what is unknown, what is proposed, and who will benefit by the intervention.
• The Project Activity or approach will address: what and how, innovation, partnerships, and all activities to be undertaken. This will be the bulk of your letter.
• Outcomes (1-2 paragraphs) will relate directly to your measurable objectives, will contain the specific deliverables/outcomes, and will show how you propose to achieve them.
• Credibility/credentials will address the project director’s and team’s credibility and why they are best equipped to carry out the project. Indicate awards, rankings, and tangible measures that set you apart from your peers. Also, describe what each team member will contribute to the project and how they will work together.
• The Budget (1-2 paragraphs) should be abbreviated; save the detail for the complete proposal. Instead, write a few sentences addressing other funding you have received or plans to raise the rest, and how the program will be sustained after the project is complete. Try to imagine the questions the reviewer will ask.
• The Closing Paragraph should refer to the solicitation instructions and the contribution that the intervention will make to the field/constituents. If it is a scientific research, reference should be made to the contribution you will make to your science and science in general.

Additional tips:

• Visualize your proposal and how it will unfold.
• Address the match between the donor’s mission and yours.
• Ensure that you avoid jargon, unnecessarily flowery language, superfluous adjectives and adverbs, and remove indefinite terms such as “might” “possibly” and “hope.”
• Get feedback from your colleagues.
• Review, if possible, other LOIs written to your donor.

The post The Letter That Will Get You Funded appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Globalizing Accessibility: According to Susan Guthrie from RAND Europe, online platforms can help boost the diversity of review panels and widen participation. Now that the financial burden of travel is no longer a constraint, researchers from many countries are invited to participate in review panels. Meeting through video conferencing has prompted other positive changes such as globalizing our research agendas and expanding cultural diversity. It would be wrong to assume that the world of funding and grants will simply return to business as usual, for what we have seen to date is that virtual meetings have proved to be highly effective.

Panel Reviewers: The NIH polled panel reviewers about their Zoom experiences. The replies varied as to their preference of meeting face to face or reviewing grants virtually. Many voiced their discontent with video conferencing. However, it was noted that as far as scoring, there was little difference in the process. Even though this may not have been the best platform for grant reviewers, they did agree that it was cost effective and more convenient in terms of their time commitments.

Partnerships: Partnerships, innovation, inclusion and interdisciplinary may all be important outcomes of video conferencing. Although this is not a new phenomenon, Covid-19 and video meetings have demonstrated new and ongoing approaches to working outside of our own space and creating interdisciplinary spaces. The instantaneous communication of scholars in the US and abroad allows us to increasingly speak to one another globally.

Mentors and Tutors: Certain donors require that young investigators be trained via mentorship and tutoring. Prior to the accessibility of video conferencing, these researchers would not always have access to the best mentors for their needs. According to the NIH, “Finding the right research mentor is critical to a successful and enjoyable research experience.” Researchers and young investigators now have a large and even global platform through which they can select the most appropriate mentors for their needs and easily arrange meetings with all involved.

Training: Virtual training during Covid-19 has increased the participation of international attendees, who due to fiscal constraints, could not previously travel to the training sites. We at the Grant Training Center have seen a much higher percentage of international organizations and individuals enrolling in our sessions, many from developing countries. This, in turn, has shifted in our training toward emphasizing global opportunities for funding.

Donors: Feedback that emerged during the unique circumstances of Covid-19 gave foundations time to consider emphasizing diversity, equity and inclusion throughout all aspects of their organizations. For example, the Clubhouse Foundation and others are now bringing new perspectives and demographic information on diversity to their board of directors, propelling racial justice initiatives.

The pandemic has increased our reliance on video conferencing. This has altered our approach to travel, meetings, communication and decision-making. Even though we are now more physically distant from one another, it has also brought us closer together. It has allowed us to give consideration to the issues of access, partnerships, diversity, inclusion and equity. Whether this will become the most common way of communication, or whether we will return to the “way it was” is no longer a question. As a recent article in The Economist states: “In the 19th century the telegraph shrank the time needed to contact envoys. In the 20^th century the jet plane shrank distance. Now digital platforms are supplanting physical presence.” Used wisely, the world of funding and grants will be all the better for it.

The post Going Virtual: A Paradigm Shift for Grants appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Once, when I worked for a small, under-resourced organization, we created a project that perfectly fit a community need, was structured for efficiency, and had a large return on investment from donors. I approached an eager donor who was familiar with our efforts, our successes, and our available resources. I asked him for $1.3M. He told me he loved the project, was thrilled with our design, and really wanted to give us the gift. Then, he said, “unfortunately, your organization doesn’t have the ability to receive a gift as large as $1.3M.” I was dumbfounded. We had done everything right in evaluating, justifying, and planning a strategy to meet an essential need in our community. Yet, as an organization, we didn’t have the operational structure to receive a large donation. In that instant of excitement and disappointment, I realized that all fundraising efforts should only start after a close examination of an organization’s situation, their board, their staff, their infrastructure and their standing in the community. Each of these will influence an organization’s potential for raising funds.

The key steps in the process of assessing your fundraising capacity are: understanding how your organization is perceived internally and externally, knowing your strengths and weaknesses, and prioritizing your efforts and resources. Likewise, a solid market analysis is essential in developing a diversified and successful fundraising strategy.

After these initial strategic considerations, the next level of capacity building is to determine the size of your potential donor database. Once you identify these donors, begin making the match between you and them and solicit funds to develop projects of mutual interest.

Specifically, the steps to build your organization into a financial success are:

1. Know your organization by creating:
   1. Strategic plan
   2. Market analysis
   3. Needs assessment
   4. Current assessment of potential donors
2. Build a successful board consisting of:
   1. Community leaders
   2. Business leaders
   3. Political leaders
   4. Philanthropic leaders
3. First level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Classic and contemporary media presence, from local news to social media
   2. Regularly scheduled newsletters and updates
   3. Direct solicitations to the donors you already know
   4. Building member databases
      1. Collect emails at public events
      2. Provide free membership while sharing emails
      3. Use current members to introduce new members
   5. Annual appeal letters to donors
      1. Tell a story
      2. Explain how the potential donor can help
      3. Ask for the money
   6. Exploring area philanthropies & corporate donors from
      1. Community foundations
      2. Local businesses
4. Second level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Grants
   2. Small to medium-sized special events
   3. Planned giving programs
5. Top level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Capital campaigns
   2. Large scale events

Fundraising strategies vary from one type of organization to another. If the organization is small, it is best to employ a strategy that builds your supporter database and directly solicits them for cash donations. In contrast, a large, established organization may be in the perfect position to host a sizable gala.

When your organization has a track record of successes, strategic efforts should be made to attract the most powerful and influential board members. These board members will bring credibility to your organization as you begin to seek larger donations. As your board stature grows, so will your options in fundraising.

An honest assessment of your organization and your place in the community will help you understand the best approach to take to effectively secure funds. Thus, with broad community recognition, a strong track record of success, financial efficiency, and influential board members, you’ll be able to employ a large diversity of effective fundraising strategies.

The post How to Build a Successful Nonprofit appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

According to The State of Global Giving by U.S. Foundations, during a five-year study from 2011-2015, grant-making by American foundations to charitable organizations outside the United States reached an all-time high. In 2018, international funding topped $10.3 billion, compared to $2.1 billion sixteen years before (an increase of almost 500 percent).

International donorship represented over 27 percent of all grants made by American foundations, while the average grant amount tripled from just over $200,000 to more than $604,000.

The major funding categories are as follows: health (52 percent); economic development (12.5 percent); environment (11 percent); agriculture and food security (8.3 percent); education (7 percent); and natural disaster funding, though on the rise, currently amounts to only a single percentage point.

The top three categories for these grants – amounting to more than 100 percent (due to some overlap) were as follows: project-related (65.2 percent), research & evaluation (39 percent), and capacity building (10 percent).

It is notable that the majority of these grants were channeled through intermediaries, which then parceled the money to other organizations.

Also significant is the fact that over half of all international giving by private foundations came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Sub-Saharan Africa benefited from the largest share of global grant-making by United States foundations and accounted for a full quarter of total grant dollars provided in the five years between 2011-2015.

Besides the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, examples of other major U.S. foundations that make international grants are:

• The Ford Foundation in addition to other programs, funds rural communities to gain more secure rights over land and forests, focused especially on indigenous peoples, racial and ethnic minorities and women.
• The Open Society Foundations funds programs to build vibrant and inclusive societies, grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law.
• The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation provides funds for family planning and reproductive health, with a decided focus on East and West Africa.
• The Walton Family Foundation seeks grantees who can expand access to high-quality education and also address global environmental issues.
• The Rockefeller Foundation primarily funds public health, eradicating disease (by seeding the development of vaccines for yellow fever and malaria), as well as visionary approaches to rural development in Asia and Africa.
• The Jane Jacobs – The Center for the Living City funds opportunities for community engagement through the lens of the ecology of cities in order to advance understanding of the interconnected human and ecological systems.
• The David and Lucile Packard Foundation supports rural communities, developing future leaders, restoring ecosystems and protecting the oceans.
• The Bloomberg Philanthropies funds economic development for emerging economies, public health, as well as education.
• The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation provides money for wildlife conservation, environmental protection and science education.

The top ten corporate foundations making international gifts are the: Coca-Cola Foundation, Citi Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, Caterpillar Foundation, GE Foundation,  ExxonMobil Foundation, UPS Foundation, Walmart Foundation, Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies Contribution Fund and Goldman Sachs Foundation.

Every one of these donors has its own application criteria, but for the majority the following primary considerations are paramount and include:

• Alignment with the foundation’s funding priorities
• Organization’s capacity to carry out the expected activities
• Effectiveness of the proposed activities to address global urgent needs
• Ability to achieve measurable and positive impact

It is axiomatic that by its very nature, international funding is an extremely complex business. Clearly, it is also enormously competitive and more often than not there are several layers of different approaches as well as challenges that need to be addressed. These include governmental protocols, currency fluctuations, and partnership issues as well as fiscal controls and responsibilities.

Successful proposals to these funding agencies start by understanding their culture, “language”, interests, criteria, and previous funding history as well as partnership engagements. Other key areas that govern funding for these donors are credibility, a solid and perspicacious insight into the specific international arena that is in need of funding, as well as a proven record of success.

The post Foundations & Corporations: The Art of Procuring International Funding appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.