Blog

One organization can’t do everything, and go-it-alone grant proposals that don’t make good use of community networks and resources are not convincing. The most effective proposals include authentic collaborations where participating organizations pursue their own missions while also contributing to a common goal. Unless the "usual-suspect" groups are involved as partners, funders will have questions. For example, if an early childhood agency wants to improve child health through better nutrition, it only makes sense to work with the food bank and the community health center.

A general operating grant is the most prized type of funding award. In the best circumstances, it’s a significant chunk of money handed to your organization with the magnificent instructions to do what needs to be done. Funding to run the agency. Private grantmakers increasingly recognize that general operating funds provide flexible support that enables nonprofits to be most effective.

A written proposal is usually just the first step in the grantmaking process. The proposal is not the only information private foundations or corporate grantmakers will use to learn about your organization and to make funding decisions. These private funders may refer to a variety of sources when investigating your organization. Keep the following in mind when you submit a proposal.

There are many decisions involved in planning programs and developing grant proposals. While there are a lot of people involved in planning: program managers, financial staff, community members....They're each providing their input, their viewpoints, and contributing to decision-making. With all of the decisions and all of the people involved, it's easy to see how there can be misunderstandings.

It's finally happened: the funder has made a decision on your grant proposal. They may respond in one of several ways. But what should you do after they’ve informed you of their decision? Let’s look at four different scenarios.

If your organization has experienced financial difficulty in the past or received a less than perfect audit, you might still get federal grant funds but be designated by the government as a “high risk” grant recipient. If your organization is cash poor, a high-risk grantee designation will make things even harder because you’ll be placed on reimbursement funding status—a kind of funding purgatory. Reimbursement funding status means you must advance your own funds first and then get reimbursed when you submit documentation of spending.

Thousands of federal grant proposals are submitted each year. Around 80% will be rejected and around 20% on average will get funded. The required signatures on the federal Standard Form 424 face sheet and the companion “Standard Assurances” bind your organization to comply with each of the 23 assurances associated with receipt of federal funding.

You have a federal grant award with an approved budget and you have verified that your spending plan includes only eligible costs. Now you can just draw down and spend, right? Not quite. The reality is that you have to earn the right to draw down those awarded dollars.

In the world of grant proposals, the budget comprises as little as 5% or as much as 20% of the points you’ll be awarded in the federal review process. Yet, for many, preparing the budget and budget justification is the most troublesome and time-consuming part of the proposal development process.

When auditors assess your handling of grant funds, they’re not looking to ding you at every possible point with negative findings. Their job is to provide an official opinion about your financial statements that is unqualified, qualified, or disclaimed. An unqualified opinion means that your financial statements are free of material error and may be relied upon.