Blog

September has a particular kind of energy. Vacations are ending. Calendars are filling. Programs are returning to full speed. Meetings that were postponed “until after Labor Day” have suddenly multiplied. And the funding opportunity that seemed comfortably far away in July is now due in three weeks. Before the fall proposal calendar becomes a collection of urgent emails and color-coded panic, take a little time for a reset.

Artificial intelligence can produce a remarkably polished paragraph in seconds. That does not necessarily mean the paragraph is accurate. Or appropriate. Or persuasive. Or even about your organization. And that gets to the heart of the conversation nonprofits need to be having about AI and proposal development.

Many people think of the proposal narrative and the budget as two separate things: the narrative explains the program; the budget shows the numbers. But funders do not read them that way. A proposal budget is not just a spreadsheet. It is part of the story. The clearest answer is this: the budget should confirm the narrative, not compete with it.

A grant opportunity can create a sense of urgency. The deadline is coming up. The amount looks promising. The funder’s priorities sound close enough. Someone forwards the link and asks, “Can we go for this?” Maybe the answer is yes. But before your organization invests time in a proposal, it is worth pausing long enough to ask a different question: Are we actually ready for this opportunity?

When funders ask about sustainability, it can feel like they’re asking you to predict the future. How will this program continue after the grant period ends? Who will support the work next year, and the year after that? The clearest answer is this: funders want to know whether your organization has thought realistically about what it will take to continue, adapt, and support the work beyond one grant period.

With less than a week to go (July 13, 2026) before the comment period closes on the proposed changes to several portions of 2 CFR concerning grants, especially the proposed changes to the existing Uniform Guidance, what are the key arguments and positions that the nonprofit community should be taking?

Most nonprofit professionals spend the majority of their proposal writing time on the narrative. The budget gets assembled at the end, often quickly, often by a different person, and often treated as a formality once the program description is done. Funders don't see it that way.

July arrives quietly for a lot of nonprofit professionals. The spring grant season has wound down, summer schedules are fragmented, and the urgency that drives the first half of the year tends to dissipate. Mid-year is the right moment to assess where your grant development calendar stands and make deliberate decisions about the second half of the year before the window to do that closes.

If you've spent any time researching foundation funders, you've probably encountered the letter of inquiry (LOI). Some foundations require one before they'll accept a full proposal. Others use them as the primary application. A few treat them as optional. And many nonprofit professionals, especially those newer to grant development, aren't entirely sure what distinguishes a letter of inquiry from a short proposal, or why the distinction matters.

The Needs or Problem statement might be the most misunderstood section in a grant proposal. It's often the first substantive section a reviewer reads, which means it's doing a lot of work. And yet it's also one of the sections where organizations most consistently undermine themselves — making one persistent, fixable mistake: They write about what their organization needs instead of what the community needs. That distinction sounds small. It isn't.