Blog

While developing a proposal for a planning grant is much the same as developing a request for a program grant, there are a few important differences. This 2-part series looks at the most critical sections of a grant proposal in terms of these differences. Part 1 covers the Problem, Outcomes and Methods sections of a proposal; part 2 covers the Evaluation and Budget sections. This series is an excerpt from the addendum of Grantsmanship: Program Planning & Proposal Writing, available October 2014. Enjoy!

We get enquiries almost every day asking when the updated version of Program Planning & Proposal Writing will be available. Even though this classic guide for the nonprofit field was written in 1972, it's still in demand. With more than a million copies used and treasured by organizations all over the globe, we are delighted to tell you that the updated version will be ready this October! In the meantime, here's a sneak peek, just a small slice—the first part of a 2-part excerpt from the addendum of Grantsmanship: Program Planning & Proposal Writing. The topic is the difference between a planning and an implementation (or program) grant proposal. Enjoy!

Here’s a story from the early days of The Grantsmanship Center—a valuable lesson learned in 1972, still relevant today. Norton Kiritz, founder of The Grantsmanship Center, shared this experience with his classes. Hope you enjoy this brief tale from a class transcript.

Several times each year, people ask The Grantsmanship Center how to evaluate the performance of grant development professionals. Here's what we tell them:

One of our alumni recently asked about submitting a grant proposal to a specific funder. She wanted to know what percentage of the organization’s annual budget she should request in her proposal for general operating funds. And if the organization decided to seek program funds instead, she wondered what percentage of the program budget she should request. Here's what I told her:

When it comes to statutes and regulations, the definition of terms really does matter. The definitional content of a term can have a huge impact on what you can or cannot do in a given situation.

Approximately 360 individuals and organizations commented on the proposed Circular that was adopted as final on December 26, 2013 in the Federal Register (pages 78589 to 78691). The question is who benefits from the new rules and why does the Super Circular matter?

The release of the super circular by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the December 26, 2013, issue of the Federal Register has ushered in the largest rewrite of pre- and post-award grant policy since the origin of the circular management system in the early 1970s. In this second of eight briefings on the new super circular, The Grantsmanship Center turns its attention to the big picture of federal grant reform. With a regulatory guidance document of this length, it’s easy to get so lost in the many particular items of change as to lose sight of the way grants, as we have known them to be especially during the last 40-plus years, will change overall.

The train en route to federal grant reform has reached the last stop on a 24-month journey from concept, through proposed reforms, to the final guidance. The new provisions—just over 100 pages—became official on December 26, 2013, with their publication in the Federal Register (pp. 78590-78691).

The energetic and imaginative changemakers who staff nonprofits are full of great ideas. They’re constantly coming up with ways to make things better and looking for grants to support their vision.