Blog

Political changes can lead to changes in laws, policies, and rules. In the first few months of 2025, many federal grants and contracts have been terminated. Thousands of federal employees have been fired. The functions of complete agencies have been eliminated. There continues to be uncertainty about the future of many federal grant programs. While the legal status of these actions may still be unknown, nonprofits must decide how to move forward.

In an earlier blog, I discussed how to strengthen your proposal by adding context to the Problem Discussion with descriptive detail. Part Two is about adding meaning to the proposal by giving the reader a sense of place. The reader of your proposal may not live in the same area of the state as you, or even in the same part of the country.

When writing a grant proposal, assume the reader doesn’t know much about your community or the challenges and problems your organization is addressing. By providing context for the information you present, you will help the reader better understand the issues at stake in the proposal. Context can supply insight into the particular makeup and/or challenges of your community and can help create a mental picture for the reader.

We have written the proposal. We believe it’s the most well-thought-out plan, carefully designed to have a huge impact on our target population. Yet if the reader’s mind wanders after a few minutes, or worse—they yawn—our proposal may be in trouble.

As we state in our textbook, Grantsmanship: Program Planning & Proposal Writing, the grant proposal is a logical argument for funding. The logic of the the proposal flows from the logic of your Program design. You see a problem and you think of a way to fix that problem. The solution comes logically from your understanding of the problem. If there is a break in the logic, the program plan will appear to have flaws. This is especially critical when you are writing the grant request. The funder will know if there are flaws in the logic, and it will weaken your proposal.

(or The Lack of a Program is Not the Problem) Planning programs proactively makes good sense. We plan programs that are compatible with our organizational mission, capabilities, and community needs. Sometimes, though, in real life a funding opportunity lands in our inbox and there may be pressure to apply. We will need to shift to reactive planning—not the most desirable approach.

The heart of program planning is problem analysis. Problem analysis includes the definition of the problem along with why it is happening. As you design a program, clear analysis of the problem leads logically to the outcomes (objectives) of the program. And understanding the causes of the problem gives direction for the approach (methods).

The whole purpose of community programs is to make a change for the better. How much better? That is the Outcome or the measurable result of your work. However, sometimes talking about the results or outcomes of your program can make people nervous. “How well did we do? I’m afraid to ask.”

One of the keys to successful grant proposal writing is understanding the vocabulary used. You’ll avoid problems down the road if you fully understand the funder’s requirements from the outset. Case in point: we’ve heard of confusion about the terms supplement and supplant. They sound similar but have very different meanings.

The person reviewing your grant proposal is often someone who is not familiar with your organization, your community, or the problems your community is facing. Therefore, you want your proposal to be easy to comprehend on the first reading.