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.

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.

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.

Steps You Must Take to Promote Your Idea to a Foundation

• The first step to determining how best to approach a foundation is to do your research. You can begin with their website, which in many cases includes what they do, what they fund, who they fund and what they believe are important problems that need to be solved.
• To avoid speaking a different language than the donor, research the foundation’s history. How they evolved and who they are today will shed light on their core values and the issues that are important to them. Once you have identified these elements, make a chart that includes: the foundation’s name, funding priorities, geographical funding region, and how your request parallels their vision.
• Review the foundation’s tax returns (990PF) to identify who they funded, how much money they gave and the purpose of their funding. This will give you a more comprehensive view of how your request compares to what they support.
• Understanding the makeup of the foundation’s board and leadership will give you excellent insight into the approach you will need to take in making your request. If, for example, you are submitting a proposal to a foundation that funds issues related to health disparities and the board is made up of physicians, business persons, and patients, your language should be such that your proposal speaks to all of them at the same time.
• Once you have done your research, you will need to customize your “elevator pitch” using language that the donor understands, and frame your work as an opportunity for the donor to fulfill their mission. Here you will need to align your mission, values, and vision in a manner that makes you a credible partner.

Let us look at some examples of what foundations want and what they expect from grant seekers. Starting with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the first thing that we see on their website is what they believe to be their greatest priorities in the U.S. and abroad. Specifically, they describe those as follows:

The path out of poverty begins when the next generation can access quality healthcare and a great education.In developing countries, we focus on improving people’s health and wellbeing, helping individuals lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, we seek to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—can access the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life.

They emphasize their values, mission, vision and priorities throughout the website. This information, along with further research, will give you an understanding of whether you are a good fit, and if so, how you should align your proposal to speak the same language.

Turning to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation website, we immediately see the words “We believe” with a description of what they fund:

We believe in supporting and building upon the mindsets, methods and modes of change that hold promise to advance children’s best interests generally, and those of vulnerable children in particular.

They further explain where they focus their resources:

Concentrating our resources on early childhood (prenatal to age 8), within the context of families and communities, offers the best opportunity to dramatically reduce the vulnerability caused by poverty and racial inequity over time.

At the end of the day, your grant proposal should complement a foundation’s mission and vision. You will best succeed if you speak the same language, fit into the same culture, and present a plan that promises mutual future success.

The post Do You Speak the Private Donor`s Language? 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.

Where Do You Begin?

Everything from breast cancer research to potato salad recipes is being funded through online donation sites. Although the amount initially raised may not be large – say, a few thousand dollars – it beats not having any funding at all. Crowdfunding allows good ideas that do not appeal to conventional donors to get support from the Internet. In addition, it contributes to word-of-mouth advertising. It all depends on how appealing your project is to potential donors and how big an audience you have at your disposal. Social media and other online resources are tools that can help you grow your audience and idea.
If you’re in academia, you’re in luck. Universities are beginning to comprehend that traditional sources of funding are drying up and involve more competition. Savvy colleges have created their own crowdfunding portals or have partnered with a site – like Oxford University and Hubbub – and are training staff on marketing techniques and strategies. If your university doesn’t have its own platform, you might also consider Hubbub’s open crowdfunding site that doesn’t take commissions. There are other research-focused portals, but many charge commissions from five to ten percent.

What Should You Know?

• Building your online network through social media is crucial to your success. It’s not an immediate method to receive all the money you are seeking, but it will increase your online presence. Over time, your network of followers will expand, thus increasing your donor base.

• You need to be realistic about the amount of money that can be raised with this approach. A few thousand dollars is most likely the maximum you can expect in the beginning of your venture. However, funding may increase as your online presence grows, along with support from your institution, foundations, and corporations.

• An important or urgent topic, such as researching the Ebola virus or providing Ferguson protestors with aid, is the best way to immediately attract attention and money from the crowd. Other types of topics can be successful, but must be compelling to inspire donors to give.

• Crowdfunding works best when used as a supplement to an existing network of donors. Using this system to fund research or project will never be the sole method to raise all the money you will need. Instead, consider it one section of your funding portfolio.

• Smaller projects, such as afterschool programs, small equipment, and scholarships for students tend to work very well within this system. Your needs are likely immediate, but not overwhelming, resulting in a very wide base of donors who give in small amounts.

Why Should You Be Cautious?

As a serious researcher or project leader, you must consider the cons of this approach. The biggest threat is that your idea could easily be copied. You are exposing your research and methods in a public forum. Another problem arises if you need a large amount of money to conduct your research, especially for long-term projects. A broader issue rarely discussed is the supervision, ethics, and checks and balances concerning your research. Traditional grants require continuous monitoring of a project. Reporting, evaluations, and the donor’s request for accountability are all used to keep a proverbial eye on what you are doing with the grant money. Crowdfunding does not lend itself to this type of scrutiny. In all likelihood, the responsibility will fall on the shoulders of the institutions where the research is being conducted. However, it is just as likely that projects will move forward without controls.

Where Do You Go From Here?

The issues above are being debated within the research community, but without any definitive answers thus far. Just as with any other career opportunity involving public interaction, your perseverance is required. You must have a backup plan or network of donors to be successful, and the support of your institution would be a bonus. If you decide to pursue crowdfunding, remember that it is a system built around you. You determine how to grow your social media network, what topic to use, and what amount to seek. If you make these choices effectively, crowdfunding could be a great alternative to fill the gaps in your project’s funding.

The post You Could Be Crowdfunded appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The Winners

The two agencies that appear to be favored are NASA and the NSF, both of which received modest funding increases. NASA will get approximately $18 billion, an increase of $364 million. The big winner is the agency’s science mission, which will be $94 million dollars more than the 2014 level of $5.151 billion. The NSF, which had a rocky 2014, did receive an increase to $7.344 billion. In 2014, the Republican Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), and chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, campaigned to demonstrate how the NSF’s $7 billion research agency is “wasting” taxpayer dollars on frivolous or low-priority projects, particularly in the social sciences. Nevertheless, the six NSF directorates will increase by $125 million to $5.93 billion and the education directorates will grow by $20 million to $866 million.

The Stagnant

The NIH will receive $30 billion, which is $150 million above the 2014 budget. Disappointed in the appropriation results, Carrie Wolinetz, president of United for Medical Research stated: “Sustained increases to the NIH budget are necessary to close our nation’s innovation deficit – the widening gap between the current medical research funding levels and the investment required to ensure the U.S. remains the world’s innovation leader.”

The Losers

On the other hand, the areas that seem to be in continued peril are the social sciences and humanities. The social sciences have increasingly been questioned by congress, and support for their research is waning across all agencies. Funding for the arts and humanities remains flat, often reflecting the sentiments of colleges and universities.

The Department of Energy’s Office of Science did not do well, since the budget remained flat. Further, the bill’s language makes the funding contingent upon management reforms.

The EPA fared the worst. The agency’s budget has been slashed by $2.2 billion – or 21 percent – since 2010, and is $60 million less than the $8.1 billion budget in 2014. The cuts mean that the EPA will need to reduce its staffing to the lowest levels since 1989.

To Be Determined

The 2015 Budget for the Department of Education focuses on six priorities: (1)increasing equity and opportunity for all students; (2) strengthening support for teachers and school leaders; (3)expanding high-quality preschool programs; (4) affordability and quality in post secondary education; (5) promoting educational innovation and improvement; and (6) improving school safety and climate. The Obama Administration is requesting $68.6 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in 2015, an increase of $1.3 billion – or 1.9 percent – more than the 2014 budget.

Community colleges will do well in adult education, workforce development, and affordability of education, because these are the priorities of the President. Very recently, President Obama announced a plan for free community college education.

Moving Forward

Institutions and organizations seeking funding in 2015 will have to diversify their requests. The Federal Government will continue to be a major source for research, but foundation and corporate giving will increase their weight in the formula. Equally, partnerships between government and the private sector will be favored, due to cost-sharing for major research. In all cases, accountability and performance measurements will continue to increase in significance in the decision-making process.

The post 2015 Federal Budget: What it Means to You appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.