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.

Some of the most dramatic cuts by category are:

Arts and Humanities:

The budget plan proposes to eliminate entirely the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and severely cut the existing $148 million budget of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). This will mean that 40% of the NEA funds that are channeled to states and matched will no longer offer real participation to those who otherwise have no avenue to music and the arts in their communities. “The hope that comes from creativity in these low-income communities will be obliterated.” (Washington Post, 3/23/2017).

“One common comparison we’ve seen says that Melania Trump’s security detail at Trump Tower costs more than the annual budget for the National Endowment for the Arts.” (Linda Qiu on Wednesday, February 8th, 2017, PUNDITFACT).

Sciences and Higher Education:

• The Agriculture Department budget eliminates the $500 million Water and Wastewater loan and grant program.
• The Commerce Department budget eliminates the $73 million Sea Grant program, which operates in conjunction with universities in 33 states.
• The Department of Energy is to eliminate $900 million in Office of Science funding.
• The Environmental Protection Agency is to cut the Office of Research and Development funding in half.

A drastic cut of 18% or $5.8 billion is looming over the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This would severely reduce the funding NIH gives out to researchers around the globe, and reductions are slated for intramural and extramural research, and complete elimination the Fogarty International Center, which builds partnerships between the US and international institutions.

Although NASA will take a small cut of 1%, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which supports science and technology research and development at colleges and universities in areas such as remote sensing, nanotechnology, astrophysics and aeronautics, will be eliminated.

These cuts range from higher education, to research and innovation, to incentives for younger researchers who are beginning their careers. It is the young investigators who will be most affected. As competition increases they will be pitted against their older and more experienced colleagues. Most importantly, the research that makes the US competitive on the world stage will not take place, eventually affecting national security.

The thinking behind these cuts is that industry will pick up the slack. This will have broad implications for our colleges and universities that teach and train new generations of scientists and educators. Plainly, their potential will be impaired and creativity and exploration will be limited.

Education and Nonprofit groups:

The Education Department is targeted for a 14% reduction, which will downsize or eliminate grants for teacher training, afterschool programs, and aid to low-income and minority college students, currently amounting to $3.7 billion in funding.

Cuts to nonprofit groups and public agencies are epitomized by the 21% or 2.5 billion cut to the Department of Labor, which will eliminate grants that help nonprofit groups and public agencies that fund safety and health training.

Cultural Exchange Programs:

The Department of State is slated for $10.9 billion cut or 29% of its budget. That will reduce most cultural exchange programs. Many bilateral educational programs and agreements under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will either be severely cut or completely eliminated.

Hopefully these changes will not pass Congress since some agencies, such as NIH and NSF, have strong bipartisan support. However, according to Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the Association of American Universities, which represents major research institutions, “If Congress goes along with deep overall cuts in non-defense discretionary funding, significant cuts to research spending are almost inevitable.”

Solutions are difficult to anticipate. What is certain, however, is that competition will increase and those submitting proposals will have to be equipped with all the tools that will make their proposals competitive, such as training, mentors, partnerships, collaboration and interdisciplinarity.

The post What the Trump Budget Means for Grant Funding 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.

Institutional Compliance

My institution at the time was a large 501c3 research organization with over $100 million in grant revenue per year, and an award portfolio of almost $1 billion. Like most nonprofits and research institutions, we lived and died by our ability to procure grants and maintain a healthy sponsored projects portfolio. Participation in proposal development was mandatory for researchers, and the institution was constantly forecasting workload needs based on submitted, pending, awarded, and closing grants. The culture at my institution encouraged PIs to aim for large, multi-year grants with padded budgets, since these were the most likely to yield an automatic no-cost extension or two. Furthermore, most researchers could only maintain employment through their grant portfolios. Given this environment, it is easy to understand how this PI believed that the grants being awarded to him were his personally.

Accountability to the Donor

Unveiling the truth about grant awards is rather anti-climactic. In the simplest language, grants are non-repayable funds or products, disbursed by a sponsor to a recipient. Most awards support a specific project and require some level of compliance, evaluation, and reporting. Sponsors of all kinds have the money and desire to advance certain agendas, activities, or research areas, but do not have the internal resources to do so. Specifically, foundations and not-for-profit organizations award funds based on a recipient’s ability to further a mission or goal, as well as fulfilling the work outlined in a proposal submission. Although a PI or team submits the proposal, sponsoring organizations do not recognize individuals as entities that can or will share responsibility on the same level. Instead, that burden falls to the organization or institution to which those PIs and teams belong. Moreover, a single person cannot carry out the proposed work or research to the degree that an organization can.

Tax Liability

The additional issue of tax liability is enough to dispel the erroneous notions of possession from most researchers. Institutions with the capacity to receive grants are either exempt from IRS tax liability, or they are large enough to absorb said tax liability. Excepting most scholarships, fellowships, and some disaster relief aid, if a grant is awarded and accepted by an individual, that person will be responsible for paying all the tax liabilities associated with it. I will never forget a meeting where I met a handful of faculty members who had been accepting grants awarded to them personally. The IRS had finally caught up with them and was demanding over $50,000 in back taxes, with the penalty for non-payment being time in prison. Had the institution accepted these awards, there would have been no tax liability at all.

Remember, grants are made to institutions, not individuals. Understanding why grants are awarded, and what the researcher’s role is in administering the award is vital for an organization’s ability to survive an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) audit. As Project Directors or PIs, you have been selected by your institution to act as the representative for the award. You have been made accountable for managing the programmatic requirements supplied by the sponsoring organization. While this is an awesome responsibility, it does not make the grant funding yours. Should there be an audit issue down the road, you may end up quite grateful for this fact.

The post Whose Money Is It, Anyway? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

It can take as much thought and data-gathering to write an effective letter of inquiry as it does to prepare a full proposal. Don’t assume that because it’s only a letter, it isn’t a time-consuming and challenging task. Every document you put in front of a funder says something about you and your organization; make sure you convey the right message. Each step you take with a donor should build a relationship for the future.

While a typical letter of inquiry should not exceed one page, a few exceptions may be made. For instance, if your organization has received previous funding from the donor, it may behoove you to take a couple of paragraphs to remind them how helpful their grants have been. To help you design a great and effective letter of inquiry, the components are detailed below:

Ask for the Gift

The letter should begin with a reference to your prior contact with the funder, if any. If not, your first two sentences should describe the totality of your request and the funds that you are requesting. Your third sentence should make the match between you and the donor. For Example:

We are writing to inquire whether the Lion’s Charity Foundation would invite a proposal from the West Virginia Technology Consortium, requesting an investment of $100,000 per year over two years to support our Enterprise 2014 Initiative. This grant would provide part of the funds needed for us to train at least 1,200 low-income entrepreneurs in rural West Virginia in the computer skills they need to create sustainable businesses. Your literature indicates that your foundation is searching for innovative ideas to improve the lives of the rural poor; we believe our proposal falls well within your area of interest.

Describe the Need

In a much abbreviated manner, tell the funder why there is a need for your project, piece of equipment, etc. Remember, this section of the letter helps the donor understand why they should grant your project the funding you are requesting. As an example, describe why your constituents should be served and how you know that your interventions will work. You can cite answers from questionnaires, quote those who have been successful in this endeavor, and find projects and statistics that can back-up your need.

Explain What You Will Do

Just as you would in a full proposal, provide enough detail to pique the funder’s interest. Describe exactly what will take place as a result of the grant. Donors who require a letter of inquiry will always want to know where their money and other resources will be directed. For instance, describe your goal and how it will be accomplished via your three measurable objectives. Describing your outcomes and evaluation is also extremely helpful in reassuring the donor that your project has been thought out, and that you understand the path for its ultimate success.

Demonstrate Your Credibility

The last paragraph will directly speak to your credibility and expertise to undertake the project. You will need to describe who you are, what you have done in the past to demonstrate previous success in this area, what resources you have already contributed to the project, and the expertise of the staff who will be directly involved in implementing the objectives. For example, you should state how you previously served the population in question, or – for research projects – the preliminary data you have. Essentially, this will be about how your project dovetails with you and your mission. This will speak to the sustainability of the project with the resources that you will be given.

The Final Two Sentences

At the end of the letter thank the donor for taking the time to read your letter. This is necessary, and should not be overlooked. Lastly, close with a call to action; let the donor know that you will be following up with them in the near future.

Remember that this is your introduction to the donor. You will want to make a great first impression, so make every word count. Be sure that every sentence conveys your message and builds your case for funding. For those whose grants do not involve a letter of inquiry, the process of writing such a document or an abstract can be useful in preparing to speak with program officers. Each of the points above will need to be addressed, via a face-to-face meeting or phone call.

The post The Letter of Inquiry: Quality Makes the Difference appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.