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?

Introduction

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.

Introduction

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.

Since reading a 2010 paper by Howard Husock published by the Philanthropy Roundtable, I’ve had this question on my mind. Ruth McCambridge of the Nonprofit Quarterly raised it again not too long ago in a LinkedIn group (Readers of the Nonprofit Quarterly), and I was compelled to peck out a quick reply on my iPhone while waiting for a 6 am flight home from McAllen, TX, where I’d been teaching (yes, there were typos).

In the field of fund development, grants aren’t all that well respected. Once, after I was well known for bringing in millions of grant dollars, a local fund development director recognized me as “the woman who raises all the junk money.” Junk money?

Fund development professionals focus on individual giving because it’s the largest piece of the philanthropic pie. Individual giving represented about 73% of all giving in 2011, and 81% if you throw in bequests–the dollars total about $242.20 billion. Fund development professionals also focus here because the dollars are generally flexible, renewable, and growable. Individual giving done right can be the beanstalk to the golden eggs that just keep coming. I get that.

Our vision for this blog is simple—to present the best thinking in the field of grant development—what we call grantsmanship.

First I want to establish The Grantsmanship Center’s footing because, historically, we’ve got a lot to live up to. Norton Kiritz established The Grantsmanship Center because he was deeply concerned that nonprofits making valuable social contributions had trouble getting grants. Norton began teaching proposal writing when no one else was doing it. In 1972, he founded The Grantsmanship Center because it needed to be done and no one else was leading the way.