The first strategy is to use precise, policy-aware language. Terms that feel broad or aspirational should be replaced with wording that connects directly to measurable outcomes, service delivery, workforce development, public benefit, or operational efficiency. Strong narratives avoid vague claims and instead explain exactly who will be served, what will change, and how success will be measured.

Second, build compliance into the story itself. Reviewers want to see that the project team understands eligibility, cost rules, reporting expectations, and subrecipient oversight before the award is made. A strong narrative signals that the organization already has systems in place for tracking expenditures, documenting performance, and managing accountability.

Third, make the budget and narrative match. If the proposal claims a high-impact program, the budget should show realistic staffing, clear cost justifications, and expenses that directly support the stated outcomes. Misalignment between narrative promises and budget detail can raise red flags under stricter review.

Fourth, emphasize risk management and internal controls. Federal agencies are paying closer attention to how organizations monitor contracts, verify performance, and respond to changes in scope or guidance. Including a short section on project governance, reporting cadence and decision-making authority can strengthen reviewer confidence.

Finally, write with adaptability in mind. The federal landscape in 2026 is still shifting, so applicants should avoid language that is overly rigid or dependent on one narrow interpretation of a program goal. Narratives that show readiness, accountability, and flexibility are better positioned to survive changing oversight expectations.

In short, the winning grant narrative is not just persuasive. It is disciplined, specific, and built to withstand scrutiny from the outset.

The post Writing Grant Narratives for the New Era of Stricter Oversight 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 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.

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.

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.

Every donor is unique. For example, the institutes that comprise the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have dissimilar missions, and each has its own culture and requirements. The same can be said of the Department of Defense (DoD) and a myriad of other donors. Chasing the money rather than good ideas is a major flaw. Donors do not fund those focused on money, they fund those who are passionate about a good idea that aligns with their goals. Consequently, here are the five things you need to know about the language and culture of any donor before you write:

• What are the priorities of the donor? Each donor has its own priorities. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) encourages interdisciplinary programs and transformative ideas, and their definition and characteristics appear on their website. The DoD has five major foci: peacekeeping and war-fighting efforts, homeland security, evacuation and humanitarian causes. Each of these subcategories has their own mission and language. Turning to foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation seeks to understand the world’s inequities. “Whether the challenge is low-yield crops in Africa or low graduation rates in Los Angeles, we listen and learn so we can identify pressing problems that get too little attention. Then we consider whether we can make a meaningful difference with our influence and our investments, whether it is a grant or a contract.” As this demonstrates, each donor clearly addresses their funding culture via their priorities.
• What is the mission of the donor? All donors have their own missions, which give us an understanding of how they visualize their funding priorities. For example, the NSF’s mission is: “To envision a nation that capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in advancing research and education.” The NIH’s mission is: “To seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.” The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) run by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command of DoD has a similar emphasis to NIH, but its mission is to relate health research to the armed forces. Even though both NIH and DoD fund innovative ideas to combat disease, their missions and foci are different.
• What have donors funded in the past and why? One of the best insights into a funding agency is who and what they funded in the past and how much money they awarded. Federal donors list abstracts of winning proposals, along with the name of the funded institution and the Principal Investigator/Project Director. Accordingly, we can instantly know who they consider credible and their focus. Foundations will often describe what they have funded in the past on their website. Their 990pf tax forms will also show how their funds were allocated. The decisive question for you to ask is how your idea and their funding patterns match.
• What are the evaluation criteria for awarding grants? How grants are evaluated is one of the best indicators of the donor’s culture. This will include the evaluation criteria, who the evaluators are and how they are chosen. For some donors, such as NIH and NSF, reviewer selection is not a blind process as reviewers who are chosen have a deep understanding of the agency culture. In the case of foundations, it is more difficult to discern who the reviewers are, but one good way is to understand the vision of the leadership and the makeup of the board, which will be reflected in the reviewers chosen.
• What is the language of the donor? In many cases donors speak different “languages”, which are in the same family of languages. For example, the various US Department of Education Title Programs (e.g. Title III or Title VI), address different topics. Some address underrepresented groups, others international and others centers of excellence. Similarly, NSF directorates and NIH institutes have different missions, speak to different audiences, and address their vision of the world on their own terms. It is these “languages” that need to be understood, spoken, and incorporated into grants in order to give you the competitive edge.

In conclusion, submitting similar proposals to different donors is a fatal flaw. In order to succeed, we have to understand first and seek to be understood secondly.

The post 5 Things to Know About the Language and Culture of a Grant Donor appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

I am of the belief that you need to “start small” in order to build up your expertise prior to competing with those who have been in the game for a long time. At the same time, it is important to “think big” and visualize all the steps toward future success. This way you can prove to the donor that you have been successful, develop a track record of experience and/or publications, and demonstrate that you have methodically followed a particular path prior to reaching for the big prize. So where should you begin?

Foundations

Foundations often fund pilot, planning, and seed grants, which ultimately can lead you to understand how best to develop larger and more comprehensive proposals. This is always a good place to start:

Planning Grants help if you or your organization are planning a major new program, and you may need to spend a good deal of time and money just figuring out how it will work as a finished product. Before you can even write a proposal to fund your new effort, you may want to research the needs of your constituents, consult with experts in the field, or conduct other planning activities. A planning grant supports this kind of initial project development work.

Seed Money or Start-Up Grants help support your new organization or program during its first few years of existence. The idea is to give the new effort a strong push forward, so that you can devote energy right away to setting up programs, without constantly worrying about raising money. Such grants often last more than one year, and frequently will decrease in amount each year. For instance, a start-up grant might provide $25,000 in the first year, $15,000 in the second year, and $7,000 in the last year.

Pilot Grants are offered by foundations as well as federal agencies, and are intended to specifically assist young investigators in developing proof-of-concept studies, which will provide preliminary data for subsequent and more substantive applications. Applications from any area of medical, biological or veterinary research are available. These can be for individual investigators or interdisciplinary partnerships. The latter are often highly encouraged.

Federal Funding

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has various grants that are geared towards new investigators. These are normally referred to as the K awards or Career Development Awards. A good example of one is the K99/R00, which supports an initial mentored research experience (K99), followed by independent research (R00) for highly qualified, postdoctoral researchers who would like to secure an independent research position. Many other similar opportunities can be found on the NIH website under the Career Development Awards section.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides small research grants to advance various disciplines. One such grant program supports pilot projects, modest research travel needs, and occasional conferences to advance a variety of research areas in sociology. Other similar grant opportunities can be found on the NSF website.

Other federal agencies such as the Department of Defense (DoD) offer small pilot grants for young investigators and those who will enhance STEM education at their institutions. These opportunities can be found on the websites of various DoD directorates, such as the Department of the Army (DA) or the Department of the Navy (DoN).

There are numerous donors, both federal and private who understand the importance of “thinking big” but “starting small”, therefore allowing new ideas to flourish from their initial beginnings and emerge into innovative concepts that, in some cases, will lead to paradigm shifts in the field.

The post Grant Success: Start Small, Think Big appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Although environmental protection is a highly controversial issue among politicians, the Obama administration unveiled the “Clean Power Plan”. Under the plan, the administration will require states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards based on their individual energy consumption. According to the administration, “The plan also includes an incentive program for states to get a head start on meeting standards on early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency.” Even before the program was officially announced, some states unveiled plans to fight it. On another front, a multi-million dollar campaign backed by the energy industry has sought to discredit the science behind climate change.

While political debates continue to stall, scientists and researchers are making strides to implement change. Scientific research is being funded by such federal agencies as the National Science Foundation on the domestic front, and the US Agency for International Development on the international level. Key examples of public and private funding for environmental progress are listed below.

The National Science Foundation (NSF)

The NSF has various initiatives that fund environmental research such as the Environmental Sustainability Program, intended to promote sustainable engineered systems that support human well-being. Research efforts supported by the program typically consider long term outlooks and may incorporate contributions from the social sciences and ethics. The program also focuses on balancing society’s need to provide ecological protection while maintaining stable economic conditions. The four programs funded are Industrial Ecology, Green Engineering, Ecological Engineering and Earth Systems Engineering.

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=501027

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Global stewardship is the emphasis of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Supported projects are ecologically based, economically sound, socially just, culturally appropriate, and consistent with intergenerational equity. The Fund encourages partnerships between the public and private sectors. Recognizing the global nature of many environmental problems, the Fund also promotes international cooperation in addressing environmental challenges.

http://www.rbf.org/program/sustainable-development

The MacArthur Foundation

Recently the MacArthur Foundation announced 15 grants totaling more than $4.2 million in support of conservation and sustainable development in the southern Tropical Andes. Often referred to as the “global epicenter of biodiversity”, this region is also the primary source of fresh water in South America, holding 90 percent of the world’s tropical glaciers. As climate change and development present a growing threat to the region’s diverse ecosystems, new grants invest in research, policies, and practices that advance sustainable development and prudent stewardship of resources.

https://www.macfound.org/info-grantseekers/grantmaking-guidelines/conservation-grant-guidelines/

Charles Steward Mott Foundation

The Charles Steward Mott Foundation supports programs that improve the social and environmental accountability of those investing in large-scale infrastructure and energy projects in developing countries. This work includes a focus on the investment patterns of emerging economies, particularly of Brazil and China, whose financial institutions are becoming major lenders for emerging economies.

http://www.mott.org/FundingInterests/Issues/Sustainable%20Development#sthash.mwbM7JmD.dpuf

Kresge Foundation

The Kresge Foundation focuses its program funding on climate change that impacts communities. They invest in three primary areas:

1. Regions that have strong potential to serve as models for climate resilience in coastal cities and low-income communities.
2. Sustainable water resources and urban energy resilience programs are also their focus of support.
3. Activities that develop and disseminate promising climate-resilience approaches.

http://kresge.org/programs/environment#sthash.mH1SvX0F.dpuf

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

The cornerstone of Hewlett Foundation grants is to protect the environment. This commitment is achieved by efforts to engage in complex environmental problems at home and abroad, from creating new Bay Area parks to shifting to clean energy in the United States, Europe, China, and India. Through its Environment Program funding, the Foundation pursues goals that are designed to guard the environment for future generations, improve ecological integrity, understand the effects of global climate change, develop clean energy, and reduce environmental problems.

http://www.hewlett.org/programs/environment

While unveiling the Clean Power Plan, Obama said: “We’re the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.” How we move forward and how we succeed in creating the needed paradigm shifts will depend on many complex factors. Obama has taken a bold step toward making an impact. Funding agencies, whether federal or private, are increasingly stepping up to the plate. Nevertheless, as the funding agencies listed above have acknowledged, much more still needs to be done.

The post Climate Change: Sea Levels and Funding on the Rise appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

When considering a federal grant, you need to know:

• Are you eligible? This is spelled out specifically in the Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Application (RFA).
• When is the deadline? Most submissions are sent through Grants.gov, which specifies a given date and time for each RFP/RFA.
• What is the Catalogue of Federal and Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number? All federal grants are given a CFDA number, which is a universal identifier for the grant and is used many times in the submission process.
• What is the award amount? Knowing the grant amount ensures your budget does not exceed limitations, and it also allows you to manage project or research expectations.
• How many proposals will be funded? This information allows you to estimate the success rate on this competition, and therefore, your chances of winning.
• Is there a match requirement? Often federal grants request matching funds. However, a couple notable exceptions are the NIH and NSF.
• What are the directions and format requirements? Instructions for your proposal are found in the RFP/RFA and must be followed to the letter.
• How will my proposal be reviewed? The scoring criteria are usually included in the RFP/RFA. If not, request them from the program officer.
• What forms and whose signatures are required? The RFP/RFA and Grants.gov will include specific information about forms, signatures, and other certifications needed to complete your proposal submission.
• Who is the program officer? This is included in the RFP/RFA, and typically listed on the agency website as well. Contact him or her with any questions, but only after reading the RFP/RFA.

When considering a foundation or private grant, you need to know:

• What is the foundation’s mission? Knowing the mission of the donor will allow you to make an effective match with the mission of your institution.
• What does the annual report tell you? These reports are a good guide to the past and future giving of the foundation.
• Who leads the foundation or makes decisions about funding? You should Google every board member and the leadership. Doing so will give you an understanding of the granting emphasis and decision-making of the foundation.
• What do the tax returns (990pf) indicate? Looking over the 990pf tells you who the foundation funded, how much they gave, and for what purpose. You can then assess how this compares to your needs.
• Where are the submission directions? In many cases, the process instructions are located on the donor’s website. If you cannot find this information, contact the foundation.
• Will a draft proposal or concept paper help you? Be sure to check if this is a requirement; some donors request this step before inviting you to submit a full proposal. Whether a requirement or not, developing a concept paper will help you solidify your ideas.
• Who should you contact with questions? Unlike federal donors, it is not as easy to make contact with a foundation. If possible, try to speak with the program officer or head of funding.
• What are the benefits of developing and maintaining a relationship with the donor? Since you may need ongoing support, be sure to involve the foundation at all stages. Further, even after the funding is over, continue the relationship. Your reputation as a good steward of funding cannot be overstated, and often, board members from different organizations are familiar with each other.
• How much of your finance and administration charges will the foundation pay? Be prepared to negotiate the overhead charges of your institution, which will be much less than what you may receive from some federal agencies.
• What should you do if you receive a rejection letter? Speak with the foundation representative or program officer to see if a resubmission will be considered. If so, follow through and resubmit a revised proposal.

The differences between federal and foundation grants are evident from the points above. Federal grants are drawn from taxpayer money, which dictates accountability and specific regulations on how and when the money is awarded. Many foundations, on the other hand, have been established by individuals – both living and deceased – to promote the causes of grantor. Often, they are willing to fund out-of-the-box and risky projects. Chances are, once a strong relationship is developed between a foundation and an institution, it will continue. On the other hand, federal grants must adhere to peer reviews, evaluations, and relatively unbiased decisions when granting each award. In the current environment of diversified funding for projects, understanding how both types of donors tend to work is necessary for grant success.

The post Are You Writing for the Wrong Donors? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.