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.

Two very different types of changes reshaped the research landscape this year. First came the planned reforms. Starting January 25, the NIH rolled out a streamlined peer review process, condensing five evaluation criteria into three core questions: Should this research be done? Can it be done well? And are the right people in place to do it? The goal was noble for it is meant to reduce bias, ease reviewer burden, and refocus attention on scientific impact rather than institutional prestige.

Researchers also adopted new application forms and updated fellowship processes designed to level the playing field for early-career scientists from diverse backgrounds. On paper, these administrative changes promised a fairer, more efficient system for discovering tomorrow’s medical breakthroughs.

But 2025 also delivered the unexpected. Throughout the year, the Trump administration froze or terminated over 5,000 NIH research grants that were already underway on everything from pediatric brain cancer to addiction recovery. While many were eventually restored, nearly $2 billion in medical research remains in limbo. Some researchers received four years of funding upfront rather than gradually, creating a short-term windfall that actually reduced the total number of available grants. Others faced proposed caps on infrastructure costs that threatened the very labs where discoveries happen.

For early-career scientists, the impact has been particularly devastating. Graduate students lost paid research positions. Postdocs postponed academic careers. One researcher described the current generation of young scientists as “the most demoralized early-career workforce” they’ve ever seen, not because of the science, but because funding that seemed secure vanished overnight.

Why should you care? Because medical research isn’t an abstract academic exercise. It is how we develop treatments for diseases that don’t yet have cures, understand emerging health threats, and improve quality of life for millions. When promising young researchers leave science because funding is too precarious, we all lose the discoveries they would have made.

The silver lining? Researchers are resilient. They’re finding alternative funding sources, advocating for stability, and continuing their work despite uncertainty. Universities are adapting to the new review framework, and some scientists report the simplified criteria actually help them focus on what matters most, which is the science itself.

As we move forward, the question isn’t just whether individual grants get funded. It’s whether we maintain a research ecosystem stable enough to attract brilliant minds and support the long-term projects that lead to genuine breakthroughs. The discoveries of 2035 will depend on the researchers we support or lose today.

The post Navigating the New NIH Landscape: What 2025`s Changes Mean for the Future of Medical Breakthroughs appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

When the faculty were asked to identify the causes of their dissatisfaction and what would improve their satisfaction, 53% percent of the sample said increased compensation, 46% said modifications to teaching schedules or loads, and 34% cited new technology or better access to technology support.

At the same time, the research efforts and consequent funding levels of faculty have been drastically reduced. Many faculty were unable to go to their labs, schedule meetings with colleagues and connect with donor agencies, which has resulted in difficulties which may have long term effects. More than almost two years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community is still feeling the effects of the vastly disruptive event — and may for many years to come.

Northwestern University led study found that although researchers’ productivity levels have mostly returned to pre-pandemic highs, scientists who did not pursue COVID-19 related research initiated 36% fewer new projects in 2021 compared to 2019. This dramatic decline in new projects suggests the pandemic’s impact on science may be longer lasting than commonly imagined (Dashung Wang – Nature Communications).

What Can Be Done?

Administrative support of faculty:

Although it is also true that the university administrators have been and continue to be at a loss of what to do, ongoing communication with faculty could begin to alleviate some of the problems. Faculty feedback that is taken seriously and implemented can greatly increase faculty confidence and reduce stress.

Rewarding faculty efforts in research:

Institutions throughout the US wish to stand-out as research institutions with high productivity on the part of their faculty; however, it is not unusual to want faculty to “produce” without a reward system in place. This is especially the case with teaching institutions where the teaching load is such that it does not allow time for productive research and for seeking funding.

Modifications of teaching schedules and loads:

Hybrid teaching approaches, now becoming more and more common, may increase faculty loads for some. While some faculty can easily adapt to these new approaches, others cannot, and as a consequence may lose the quality time they need to pursue research and grant funding.

Increasing support infrastructures for grant writing:

In the wake of COVID-19 many sponsored research offices have reduced staff and administrative support services previously given to faculty. Fortifying such services as team building, rewards for interdisciplinary research, training of faculty, and content reviews and editing of proposals can go a long-way toward alleviating the effects of COVID-19.

This is only the beginning of the introspection and creativity needed to address the post COVID-19 world for colleges and universities. Not only do institutions need to tackle the immediate concerns of faculty members, but broader issues such as tenure, promotion, and economic and philosophical support for faculty research need to be addressed.  At the end of the day, how institutions deal with the fallout of COVID-19 in the short and long term will define the recovery of the academic community.

The post How Can the Academic Community Recover from the Impact of COVID-19 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.

Let’s begin with Joan Didion, who talked about the “infinite power” of grammar: “To shift the structure of a sentence alters the meaning as definitely and inflexibly as the position of a camera alters the meaning of the object photographed.”

She reminded me of Gopen and Swan’s seminal paper, “The Science of Scientific Writing,” which replaced the standard rule-focused approach to writing improvement with an interpretative approach focused on readers’ expectations.

Your readers — the reviewers of your proposal — are looking for answers to specific questions. But more importantly, they expect to find them in particular places. When the answers aren’t where they expect them, they’re more likely to miss your point entirely, or worse, assume that whatever they do find there is the real point.

Their first question is ”whose story is this”, and they look for that answer in the subject of your sentence. Consider these two sentences, which describe the same activity but have different subjects:

• Training in responsible conduct of research will be provided.
• Students will receive training in responsible conduct of research.

For the first sentence, reviewers are more likely to expect details about the curriculum; for the second, details about how many or which students will be trained.

Their second question is “what is this about”, and they look for the answer in a strong and active verb. Too much academic writing converts strong verbs into nouns — a process called nominalization. Usually, this requires adding a weak or auxiliary verb. Consider these sentences:

• The team will meet monthly.
• The team will have a monthly meeting.

Those two extra words seem negligible here… but if you nominalize just half your verbs, you’ll waste a full page in a 20-page proposal.

The reviewers’ third question is “how does the material link backward and forward?” They look for context and perspective at the start of a sentence or paragraph – what Gopen and Swan call the topic position. To maintain your proposal’s logical flow, reserve the topic position for old material and connect it to what follows. If you put new material here, you’ll change the focus of your story and increase the chance readers will follow the wrong trail.

Their final question is ”what material warrants my attention?” They expect to find new and important material at the end of a section, paragraph, sentence, or even a clause. This is the stress position – and Gopen and Swan claim that the misplacement of stress-worthy information is the number one writing/reading problem.

The topic and stress positions are especially important in panel reviews which have a mix of “expert” and “lay” readers. Even a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study section which appears to be populated by experts in your field will include people who are less attenuated to the fine points of your arguments.

The lay readers need context to understand where you’re headed. They’re more likely to parse the topic position closely but defer to the experts’ judgments about their details. The opposite holds for the experts — they’ll skim the topic position but read the stress position closely to evaluate your theory and methods.

You will win more grants if you align your points with reader expectations. This reader-oriented approach echoes Joan Didion’s thoughts about sentence structure. Rhetoric is like real estate: the three most important concerns are location, location, and location.

The post Critical Tips for Captivating Grant Writing appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Planning Ahead: “What are the steps I need to take before I write?”

Grant writing takes time. This includes excellent research, exceptional writing, understanding the donor’s mission, making the match, collaborating with colleagues, planning strategically, and developing an outstanding business plan. If your proposal is prepared correctly, it will have higher chances of rising to the top of the competition and receiving the funds. In the planning process, laying out proposal steps clearly and realistically can be achieved by organizing the activities in terms of the time it will take to effectively accomplish them.

2. Matching the Idea With the Donor: “How can you assure that you found the right donor?”

 One of the most fatal mistakes any grant writer can make is to ignore the interests of the donor. “Making the match” means aligning your mission and your funding request with the donor’s mission. The closer both of you are in what you wish to accomplish, the more likely you will be funded. Also, looking at funded projects will give you a very good idea of the donor’s interests and focus. Ultimately, donors do not care what you need or want funded; they care about what they wish to fund.

3.  Being Concise and to the Point: “What steps will narrow the scope of my proposal?”     

 One of the major reasons for proposal rejection is that the request is overly ambitious and tries to tackle far more than can be accomplished within the timeline of the grant. Rather than trying to solve every problem related to your request, focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within budget and time constraints of the proposal. Also, many grants require the consideration of various potential factors before concluding that the idea is doable, focused, and promising. You need to envision as many of these elements as possible to be certain that you are on the right path. Narrowing the scope of your idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

4. Knowing the Review Process: “How do I understand the proposal review process?”

To successfully survive the review process, you must know the review criteria by which you will be judged and who is reviewing your proposal. In some cases this is easy, but in others, where the process is blind, it is extremely difficult. In the latter case, you can ask the administrator in charge of the process what the experience and expertise of the reviewers will be. Your reviewers have a very short window to review your proposal and worse yet, an even shorter window for the panel discussion. The easier you make it for the reviewers to understand your idea, the greater your chances of being funded.

5. Networking and Collaboration: “How do I identify collaborators to strengthen my proposal?”

Creating effective partnerships requires collective vision, purpose, buy-in, and mutual respect. Without these elements, it is difficult to maintain the momentum of true collaboration. Each partner must be able to contribute knowledge and expertise that would be missing without their involvement. The complexity of many projects requires interdisciplinary efforts and networking. Understanding this, funding agencies now believe in the power of partnerships; and so should you.

At the end of the day, there are many components to a grant proposal. The first and most important is spending the time to understand the donor, then positioning all the pieces of the puzzle effectively together, and finally writing a stellar request. The pieces must include careful planning, focus, and collaboration.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers – Part II appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Timelines: “We can never find the time to dedicate to writing grant proposals.”

The most important solution is to work proactively rather than reactively. One participant said that her not-for-profit developed a yearly timeline of the grants they wished to submit, rather than waiting for the announcements, which can come late as 10 days prior to the submission deadline. This may sound like a difficult undertaking, but once done, it will be easy to match the amount of labor to available personnel and understand the capacity of the organization.

2. Rejections: “We fear rejections and when we get them, we often feel angry and frustrated, almost to the point of not wanting to rewrite the proposal.”

The answer is to understand that a grant should be viewed as an opportunity, and not taken personally. If the team has a strategic and broad picture of the funding landscape for which they apply throughout the year, it will be understood that some grants will fail. Ultimately, when it comes to requests for funding, one has to place their ego in their pocket.

3. Telling a good story: “The reviewers said that we need to tell an enthusiastic story, but it was difficult for us to understand what they meant.”

The universal answer is to engage the donor. Thus, as a proposal writer, one must know how grants will be evaluated and, if possible, who the evaluators will be. Connecting with donors and reviewers is vital to successfully getting funded. The more one knows about them, the more effectively one can spark their interest with the story.

4. Innovation: “We had a difficult time understanding what the donor meant by innovation.”

The answer here is that innovative concepts emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research. In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field.

5. Overambitious idea: “Our grant was rejected because the idea was overambitious. How do we narrow the focus?”

Rather than trying to solve every problem related to the project at hand, it is best to focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within the budgetary and time constraints of the proposal. Narrowing the scope of the idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

The participants chose these key obstacles, for it takes time to narrow ideas, assure innovation and write a good story. In the following blog, I will discuss other obstacles that my audience brought to the table.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Begin early – In many cases this could mean starting about nine months before the submission deadline. There are many phases prior to the final proposal submission, and it is difficult to assess ahead of time how long each of these will take. Therefore, it is wise to allow extra time for completion of the proposal.

2. Understand that grant writing is a team effort – Getting buy-in from all who will be involved in the various phases of the proposal is the very first step that needs to be taken. An initial meeting to determine the commitment, expertise, and division of labor will start the process. Once the overall structure is delineated, systematic follow-up sessions should occur.

3. Research the situation that requires an intervention – A thorough literature review of the existing problem is necessary in order to understand the intervention that will be the ultimate purpose of the grant. Once the specifics on what is working and what is not in the field are laid out, the need for the proposal becomes very clear.

4. Address the innovation gap – In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field. Innovative models that will improve the field emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research.

5. Comprehend that simplicity equals complexity understood – A grant is a business plan that is linear and methodically developed. The more the grant requester understands what he/she is asking of the donor, the easier it will be to write the proposal in a way that can be easily understood by the reviewers.

6. Know the culture and language of the donor – Speaking the language of the donor and navigating their culture with ease will win the confidence of the reviewers by ensuring that the proposal addresses what they want to fund and how the request aligns with their mission and vision.

7. Take their audience with them – Understanding who will review the proposal is a key characteristic of every successful grant writer. Thus, they write for their audience – the reviewers. It also goes without saying that the review criteria used to score proposals must be understood. If writing to a foundation, this approach may not be possible in all cases; however, speaking with the donor’s program officer will provide useful insight.

Upon submission, the components of a winning grant proposal will be: an excellent idea that needs to be implemented for change to occur, focusing or narrowing the request to what is realistic and doable, innovation, extensive preliminary work, and strong teams.

The post Seven Characteristics of Successful Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The pre-review steps are:

• A rigorous review of your grant by one or more of your trusted colleagues, who are equally knowledgeable in your discipline.
• Comments from a naïve reader, who is a professional outside your field. If that person does not understand 50% of what you are trying to say, your grant is in trouble. The reason for this is that often, the donor reviewers who score your proposal are not necessarily knowledgeable in your area of expertise.
• Proofreading by a professional editor, who will check for correct grammar, transitions, effective language, and the fit for the audience you will be addressing.

Alternatively, you can enlist the services of an organization that conducts professional grant reviews for a small investment. This type of grant review will encompass all three colleague reviews described above in one package.

Following is the pre-review process further broken down into key elements:

The Content Reviewer(s)

Experts in your field should be your first reviewers. My recommendation is that you select one or more trusted colleagues, who will be critical, have received grants in your area, and who serve on review panels on an ongoing basis. They will give you invaluable information about the strengths and weaknesses of your proposal, and how to address any problems.

We follow this process at the Grant Training Center. In many cases, our pre-reviews are more extensive than the donor review process your grant will undergo. We rigorously address each sentence and paragraph, along with the totality of the proposal, according to the RFP/RFA directions and the review guidelines. Once you receive this methodical feedback, you will be in a much better position to assess what needs to be changed and proceed accordingly.

The Naïve Reviewer

It is a good practice to have your grant reviewed and scored by those who may not be in your field. Consequently, you will be able to gauge how much of your grant can be understood by an educated layperson through their comments. They could be professionals who have been funded in the past, but in other areas of expertise. As is the case with most foundations, you might not know who the reviewers of your grant will be; it could be the program officer or perhaps some of the board members, who may not necessarily be knowledgeable in your specific discipline. Thus, it is essential that when you write, you write for a broad audience that will need your assistance in understanding your proposal. I have seen very complicated research grants that were written so effectively that they could be understood on a variety of expertise levels.

The Editor

Editing the proposal is the last phase of polishing your final product. Editing should take place after you have made all content changes and simplified your concepts for a larger audience. This phase is much more extensive than just grammar corrections. The editor should address effective transitions, make sure sentences are short and meaningful, and ensure the overall professional appearance of your grant. This person may not need to share your area of expertise, but should be a professional editor/writer who does editing on an ongoing basis. Editors can be found at your institution, through professional associations of editors, or through organizations such as ours.

You may wonder if money spent on review services could be better utilized in other ways. The reality is that the pre-review process dramatically improves your chances of being funded the first time. Thus, the time and resources that you will save more than justify the cost.

Even if you chose to hire an external organization, the amount of money you will spend on a grant review should be a small fraction of the grant budget. Hence, my strong recommendation is that you include this pre-review step in your timeline for preparing your proposal.

The post The Final Step to Avoid Grant Rejection appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.