Blog

Federal Grant Alert: on Friday, May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a set of proposed rule changes to several parts of Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) concerning grants. Comments on the proposed changes are due on or before July 13, 2026, with a projected effective date of October 1, 2026.

If you've been in the nonprofit sector for more than a few years, you've probably heard someone mention a logic model. You may have built one, or been asked to include one in a grant application. But a lot of organizations treat logic models as a compliance checkbox — something to attach to the proposal because the funder asked for it, rather than something that actually improves the work.

Here's something that surprises a lot of people the first time they hear it: The summary of a grant proposal is usually the last section written, but it's the first thing a reviewer reads. And that sequence matters more than most people realize.

If you've ever had a proposal come back unfunded with feedback like "the program wasn't clearly defined" or "we couldn't assess the expected impact," there's a good chance the outcomes section is where things went sideways. It's one of the most important parts of any grant proposal, and also one of the most consistently misunderstood.

There's a real irony playing out in the nonprofit sector right now. Community trust in local organizations is higher than it's been in years. Funders are increasingly saying they want to reach smaller, community-rooted groups. And yet the grassroots nonprofits closest to the people who need services most are still getting a disproportionately small share of philanthropic dollars — in part because they're the least resourced to compete for them.

Most organizations that struggle with grant funding aren't struggling because their programs aren't good. They're struggling because they're applying to the wrong funders, or too few of them, or without enough information to make a genuine case for fit. Strategic funder research solves all three problems.

It's a question worth sitting with: when a funding opportunity comes across your desk, are you thinking about how well it fits the work you're already doing, or are you thinking about how to shape your work around it? The distinction matters more than it might seem.

Most grant proposals don't fail because the programs they describe aren't worthy of funding. They fail because the proposal doesn't do its job, and the failures follow predictable patterns. After more than 50 years of training grant professionals, The Grantsmanship Center has reviewed thousands of proposals. The same mistakes appear with striking regularity, and every one of them is correctable before you submit.

There is a moment every spring when grant proposal writers look up from their desks and realize the year is already moving faster than their funding pipeline. Deadlines that felt distant in January are suddenly two weeks out. Opportunities that should have been researched months ago are already closed. The reactive scramble begins, and the work suffers for it.

If you've been following recent shifts in federal funding—particularly the challenges facing cultural heritage and diversity-focused organizations we discussed last month—you've probably realized that simply having great programs isn't enough anymore. Organizations need stronger internal systems, better data collection, and more sophisticated fundraising capabilities to compete in today's landscape.