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.

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.

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.

Given the impact of international research in my own experience, I will dedicate this blog to U.S. federal funding, and the one that will follow to foundation funding.

Where to Look for International Funding

• Grants.gov lists all current discretionary funding opportunities from the 26 agencies of the United States government. This includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and many others — in other words, all the most important public funders of research in the United States.

• Websites of each of the 26 U.S. federal agencies list their international funding opportunities. For more in-depth descriptions, I would highly recommend that you visit their sites.

• Newton’s List is a free resource open to individuals searching for international funding and organizations looking to market their grants to an international audience. Established in 2013 and co-sponsored by CRDF Global (originally named the U.S. Civilian and Research Foundation) and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Newton’s List is a user-driven aggregate of current international funding opportunities for researchers working in natural and social science fields.

• Databases to which many agencies subscribe, such as: Pivot, GrantForward, and SPIN, are available for a fee.

Examples of International Funders

Although there are more international funding agencies than the ones I am listing below, these will give you an insight into what is currently being funded:

Department of Energy (DOE)

The DOE budget of $6.6B includes grants and contracts supporting over 25,000 researchers, including students, located at over 300 institutions and all 17 DOE national laboratories. The budget also supports a suite of 27 open-access scientific user facilities that provide tools and resources to over 35,000 users each year from universities, national laboratories, industry, and international research partners. The Office of International Affairs has primary responsibility at the Department of Energy for international cooperation in energy, science, and technology.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA carries out bilateral cooperative programs with many countries around the world. These programs allow other countries, especially emerging economies, to benefit from U.S. experience in developing appropriate and effective environmental programs. The EPA, in collaboration with a wide variety of multilateral organizations and institutions, makes funding available to protect human health and the environment.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The NIH and its Fogarty International Center invest in research on a variety of topics vital to global health. These include, but are not limited to, chronic noncommunicable diseases (cancer and diabetes), infectious diseases (Ebola, HIV/AIDS, Zika, malaria, tuberculosis), maternal and child health, neurological and mental disorders and diseases, oral and dental health, trauma and injury, tobacco control, global health security, and mentorship training. Various NIH institutes fund collaborative international research. Additionally, the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) partner on infectious disease research in the U.S. and abroad.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The National Science Foundation’s transformative integrative approaches fill the most substantial gaps in the understanding of the diversity of life on Earth. Their research funding emphasizes novel ways to understand the synergistic roles of critical ecological and evolutionary processes. Funding reflects the mechanisms driving the origin, maintenance, and functional roles of biodiversity. Other areas include, but are not limited to, Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience, Cyber Infrastructure Training, Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide, and Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

USAID, a bilateral agency, fosters partnerships between experts in the U.S. and developing countries in order to build capacity, tackle global challenges ranging from the environment to health, and drive innovation that supports new endeavors in science and technology. In many cases, USAID coordinates programs with NGOs, multilateral organizations, and with funding agencies in the U.S. such as NSF, NIH, EPA, and USDA. One of the best ways to get funding from USAID is to initiate a strong collaboration with in-country institutions and/or communities in need of assistance.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)

NIFA, under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes the daunting challenge of meeting the world’s future food security needs. NIFA’s Center for International Programs (CIP) strives to advance global engagement by partnering with universities, among other agencies. The benefits derived from international cooperation in agriculture advance competitive grant programs that harness a myriad of research and education resources. Some examples of the programs CIP sponsors, often in coordination with NGOs, include agriculture development programs, food and nutrition, and international science and education projects.

Many other programs fund and support international cooperation and research, such as the U.S. Department of Education, Title VI Projects; the Fulbright Scholars Program; the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; and the Department of Defense.

Global cooperation is of major importance, and because of the increasing critical issues facing all of us, it is destined to become of even greater significance. What is certain, as demonstrated by the agencies mentioned in this article, is that global health, security, environment, sustainability, and infrastructure development are urgent issues that are being addressed by funding innovative and transformative research.

The post Increase Your Funding via International Partnerships appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.