Table of Contents

• What Is In-Kind, Anyway?

• In-Kind in Your Project Budget vs. Your Organizational Budget

• The Funder Threshold Question

• Why Organizational Capacity Still Matters

• The CPA Conversation You Need to Have

• How to Present In-Kind Compellingly

• FAQ

One of the questions I get from clients — and from grant writers helping their clients — is some version of this: "We have a lot of in-kind support. Can we include it in our budget?"

The short answer is almost always yes. But the longer answer, which is the one that actually helps your organization, involves understanding which budget you're talking about, how in-kind is valued and documented, and what funders are actually looking for when they set those minimum budget thresholds.

Let me walk you through what I've seen in 25+ years of this work, including some examples that still stick with me.

What Is In-Kind, Anyway?

In-kind contributions are non-cash donations of goods or services that have a measurable dollar value. They can take a lot of forms:

• Space and facilities — donated office space, warehouse use, meeting rooms, performance venues

• Equipment and supplies — donated computers, instruments, vehicles, materials

• Personnel and volunteer time — board members donating professional services, volunteers providing skilled labor

• Professional services — donated legal, accounting, marketing, or consulting services

• Other goods — donated food, clothing, furniture, printing, technology

Two of my favorite examples illustrate just how significant in-kind can be for a nonprofit. The Starlight Children's Foundation once operated out of a warehouse donated by Nintendo — that's not a small line item. And at St. Francis House, the Executive Director was a nun who, by her vow of poverty, did not accept a salary. The leadership of the entire organization was, in essence, an in-kind contribution.

Both are real. Both are meaningful. And both need to be handled carefully when it comes to grant budgets.

In-Kind in Your Project Budget vs. Your Organizational Budget

This is the distinction that trips up most clients — and honestly, a lot of grant writers too. These are two different things.

Your project budget is what you submit with a specific grant application. It shows the costs of the particular program or project the funder would be supporting, and how those costs will be covered. Including in-kind here is common, expected, and often encouraged. It demonstrates that your community is invested in this work and that grant dollars will be leveraged by additional support.

If you're running a performance program and a supplier donates piano rentals for every show, that belongs in your project budget. If a board member who is a composer is contributing their creative work to the project at no charge, that has value and it belongs in the budget too — clearly labeled as in-kind.

Your organizational budget is a different animal. This is your overall annual operating budget — the number that appears on your IRS Form 990. It reflects your organization's total financial activity for the year.

When clients ask me about adding in-kind to their organizational budget specifically to reach a funder's minimum budget threshold, I have to pump the brakes. That's a different conversation.

The Funder Threshold Question

Budget thresholds exist because funders use them as a quick proxy for organizational size and stability. "We only fund nonprofits with an annual budget of $250,000 or more" is shorthand for: we want to know you have the infrastructure to manage this money responsibly.

Here's where I always advise clients to start: confirm with the funder exactly what they mean.

Most funders who set a budget threshold are looking at your 990 — specifically the total revenue or total expenses line. But not all of them specify. Before assuming your in-kind contributions will or won't count toward their definition, reach out and ask. I've seen funders say "organizational budget excluding in-kind revenue" right in their application guidelines. I've also seen funders who are happy to count documented in-kind if it's consistent with how you file.

The worst thing you can do is make an assumption, inflate a number, and then have it not match your financial statements when they ask for documentation. That's not a conversation you want to have.

Why Organizational Capacity Still Matters

Even if a funder does allow you to count in-kind in your organizational budget, I want my clients to think carefully about what that budget actually communicates.

Funders set minimum budgets because they want to know you have the capacity to manage a grant. That means paid staff, financial systems, reporting processes, and administrative infrastructure. A $100,000 organizational budget that is mostly in-kind contributions — donated space, donated leadership, donated services — may technically hit a $100k threshold but still leave a funder wondering: who is doing the day-to-day operations work? Who is filing the reports? Who is answering the phone?

This doesn't mean in-kind devalues your organization. It absolutely doesn't. The Starlight Children's Foundation example shows how in-kind support from a major corporate partner can represent serious community investment. But if a funder's concern is organizational stability, a budget built primarily on in-kind contributions tells a different story than one built on earned revenue, individual donations, and diverse grant funding.

My advice to clients in this situation: use in-kind to tell the story of your community partnerships and support. Be transparent and proud of it. But also work on diversifying your revenue base so that the organizational budget thresholds become a non-issue over time.

The CPA Conversation You Need to Have

This is the piece clients most often skip, and it's the one that can create the most problems down the road.

How you value, document, and report in-kind contributions has IRS implications. Your accountant needs to know how you're currently booking in-kind donations — and if you're not booking them at all, that's a conversation you need to have before you start including them in grant budgets.

A few things to sort out with your CPA or financial advisor:

• How are in-kind donations currently recorded in your financial statements?

• How is value determined? Fair market value rules apply, and they vary by the type of contribution.

• What documentation do you have from donors? For services and goods, you typically need written acknowledgment from the donor with a description and value.

• Are in-kind contributions reflected on your 990? If you're reporting in-kind in your grant budgets but they're not showing up on your financial statements, that inconsistency will raise flags.

Consistent documentation and accounting for in-kind doesn't just protect you with grant funders — it also strengthens your organization's credibility with auditors and donors overall.

How to Present In-Kind Compellingly

Once you've confirmed that in-kind is appropriate to include and you have your documentation in order, here's how to make it work for you in a grant budget — not just satisfy a requirement, but actually strengthen your application.

Be transparent and specific. Don't lump in-kind into a vague line. Name the contributor, describe the contribution, and provide the valuation method. "Donated warehouse space — Nintendo Corporation — 12 months at fair market rate of $X/month" tells a much more compelling story than "donated space — $X."

Show the match. Many funders love to see that their dollars are being leveraged by community support. In-kind contributions are one of the best ways to demonstrate that your organization has buy-in beyond the grant check.

A "match" — sometimes called a cost share — is the portion of your project's total cost that your organization covers with non-grant funds. When a funder requires a 1:1 match, for example, they're asking you to bring an equal amount to the table: a $50,000 grant requires $50,000 in matching funds. When in-kind contributions can count toward that match, they become a powerful tool for demonstrating community investment — proof that grant dollars are being leveraged by support that already exists in your ecosystem.

One useful resource for quantifying volunteer involvement: the Independent Sector publishes an annual value of volunteer time that can help you put a dollar figure on general volunteer contributions for grant narrative or supplemental budget purposes: Value of Volunteer Time – Independent Sector. That said — and this is important — using this rate to describe or tell the story of your volunteer base is not the same as counting general volunteer time as in-kind on your financial statements. The IRS standard for reporting in-kind contributions on your 990 requires skilled or professional services, not general labor. So by all means, use the Independent Sector rate as a storytelling and quantification tool. Just don't treat it as an accounting entry.

Separate columns, not separate budgets. In a grant project budget, consider showing a column for "cash" and a column for "in-kind" so reviewers can immediately see both the total project cost and how it's being covered. This kind of transparency builds trust.

Educate your client. If you're a grant writer working with a nonprofit, take the time to explain not just what in-kind is, but why it matters — to funders, to their 990, and to their long-term financial health. The CPA conversation I mentioned? You might be the one who prompts them to have it.

Frequently Asked Questions About In-Kind in Grant Budgets

Can volunteer time be counted as in-kind in a grant budget?
Yes — but only for skilled volunteer services. The IRS distinguishes between skilled volunteer time (an attorney donating legal advice, a composer donating creative work) and general volunteer time (stuffing envelopes). Skilled services can be valued at the professional rate. General volunteer time is typically not reported as in-kind on financial statements, though some grant applications may ask you to quantify it separately.

Does in-kind count toward matching requirements?
Often yes — but always check the funder's guidelines. Many federal and foundation funders explicitly allow in-kind contributions to satisfy match requirements. Others require cash match only. This is a question worth asking before you invest time in an application.

What if a funder asks for an organizational budget that excludes in-kind?
Follow the instructions exactly. Some funders — particularly those using a standardized common grant application — will specify whether they want the budget with or without in-kind. When in doubt, ask. They'd rather answer a quick question than receive an application that doesn't meet their criteria.

How do I value donated space?
Use fair market value — what it would cost to rent comparable space in the same geographic market. Get a letter or documentation from the donor confirming the donation and the fair market value they're assigning to it.

My client wants to include in-kind in their org budget to reach a funder threshold. Is that okay?
This is one of the most common situations I walk clients through, and the answer has a few layers.

First, check the funder's guidelines carefully for how they define "organizational budget." Some funders specify the exact line from the 990 they want (total revenue, total expenses), and some explicitly state whether in-kind counts. If it's not clear, contact the funder and ask before you invest time in the application. Most program officers would rather answer a quick question than receive a submission that doesn't meet their criteria.

Second — and this is the part clients often don't think about until it's too late — the in-kind needs to already be reflected in your financial statements. You can't include in-kind in a grant budget to hit a threshold if it's not actually being documented and recorded in your organization's books. If the funder asks for financial statements or a 990 as backup documentation (and many do), the numbers need to match. In-kind that shows up in your grant application but not in your financials raises an immediate red flag.

So the real question isn't just "does the funder allow it?" It's also: "Is this in-kind properly documented and consistently reported in our financial statements?" If the answer to the second question is no, that's the problem to solve first — with your client and their CPA — before worrying about whether it will satisfy a threshold.

Understanding in-kind is one of those topics that sounds straightforward until you're actually in the middle of a client situation — staring at a $100,000 organizational budget, a $250,000 funder threshold, and a client asking if donated piano rentals can close the gap. The answer, as always in grant writing, starts with: it depends — and then gets a lot more interesting from there.

If you want to make sure you're building grant project budgets that handle in-kind correctly and clearly, check out my Grant Project Budget Template in the shop. It includes a dedicated in-kind column and coaching notes to help you present your budget with confidence. And if your organization needs a system for tracking in-kind donations throughout the year, the In-Kind Donation Tracking Log is the tool you've been missing.

Got a question about in-kind that I didn't cover here? Drop it in the comments — I read every one.

Allison is a grant writing educator with 25+ years of experience. She is the founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing and creator of the Certificate in Grant Writing program.

When it's time to write the evaluation section of a grant proposal, there's a strong gravitational pull toward one familiar tool: the survey. Surveys are everywhere because they're flexible, affordable, and easy to explain to a funder. But here's the thing — if surveys are the only tool you ever reach for, you're going to miss opportunities to show funders the full picture of what your project actually accomplishes.

Surveys can't always capture what matters most. Some populations won't respond to them. And some funders are quietly tired of reading "we will administer a participant satisfaction survey" for the hundredth time this quarter.

The good news? There are at least sixteen well-established evaluation tools in the grant writer's toolkit, and choosing the right combination can transform a forgettable evaluation plan into one that makes a reviewer sit up and pay attention. This article walks through sixteen of them, organized by what they actually help you measure, so you can pick the right tool for the job — without overcomplicating things for the organization you're writing for.

Table of Contents

• Why "Just Send a Survey" Isn't Always the Right Answer

• Category 1: Measuring Engagement

• Category 2: Measuring Learning

• Category 3: Measuring Impact

• Right-Sizing Your Evaluation Plan

• Frequently Asked Questions

Why "Just Send a Survey" Isn't Always the Right Answer

Surveys are a fine tool. They're often the right tool. But defaulting to surveys without considering alternatives creates a few real problems for the projects we write about:

• Survey fatigue is real. Participants in social service programs are often asked to complete surveys at every turn. Response rates suffer, and the data gets thinner.

• Some questions need depth, not breadth. A multiple-choice question can't capture why a family stayed in stable housing for the first time in five years.

• Some populations are harder to reach by survey. Communities with low literacy, language barriers, or distrust of formal institutions may not respond — and the data you do collect skews toward the people who already feel comfortable in the system.

• Funders have seen it all. A proposal that thoughtfully matches tools to questions stands out from one that lists "pre- and post-survey" as the entire evaluation plan.

The fix isn't to abandon surveys — it's to know what else exists so you can pick the right combination of two or three tools that actually answer your evaluation questions. And yes, that combination might still include a survey. The goal is to make surveys a choice instead of a default.

Let's get into it.

Category 1: Measuring Engagement

These tools help you understand who participated in a program, how they participated, and what they thought of the experience. They answer questions like: Who showed up? What did they think? How did they behave? This is the most familiar category, but it also contains some of the most underused tools.

1. Surveys and Questionnaires

What it is: Structured sets of questions delivered on paper, online, or in person. Surveys collect demographic data, opinions, motivations, preferences, and perceived barriers, and they work for both quantitative and qualitative data. Feedback forms are a streamlined cousin — quick reactions captured at the end of an event or program.

Best for: Reaching a large number of people quickly, gathering both numbers and short narrative responses, and measuring satisfaction or self-reported change.

Grant writer's planning tip: When you write surveys into a proposal, name the type of data you'll collect and how you'll use it. "We will administer a 10-question post-program survey to measure participant-reported gains in financial literacy" is far stronger than "we will survey participants." And keep it short — focused surveys produce more reliable, more honest responses than long ones.

2. Interviews

What it is: One-on-one conversations conducted in person or by phone. Interviews are flexible by design — the interviewer can adapt questions based on what they're hearing — and they're especially valuable when the subject matter is sensitive or confidential.

Best for: Gathering deep, candid insight from a small number of people. Interviews shine when you need to understand the why behind something, or when participants are unlikely to open up in a group setting.

Grant writer's planning tip: Interviews require staff time, so be realistic about how many you propose. Ten well-conducted interviews with carefully chosen participants will give a project richer evaluation data than fifty rushed ones. Specify who will conduct them, roughly how long they'll take, and how the responses will be analyzed. One critical note: interview participants must be selected through a random sample, not hand-picked. It's tempting to interview the participants who had the best experience, but cherry-picking destroys the credibility of the data. Funders know the difference, and so do experienced reviewers. If you're proposing interviews, build a real sampling method into the plan.

3. Focus Groups

What it is: Facilitated group conversations, typically with five to ten participants, designed to surface qualitative information through dialogue and group interaction. A skilled moderator and a written transcript are essential.

Best for: Exploring community or stakeholder perspectives in depth, especially when the interaction between participants will surface insights no individual interview could. Focus groups are also one of the best tools available for working with youth and with non-English-speaking populations. With youth especially, the group dynamic is the magic — once one peer starts sharing, the others are far more likely to open up and follow suit, in a way they almost never would in a one-on-one interview with an unfamiliar adult. With non-English-speaking populations, hiring a facilitator who shares the participants' language or dialect will produce dramatically better data than a translated survey ever could. Participants relax, speak freely, and offer the kind of nuanced information that simply doesn't show up on a written instrument.

Grant writer's planning tip: Don't propose focus groups unless the organization has access to a competent facilitator. A poorly run focus group produces unusable data. If the organization doesn't have someone on staff with this skill — or doesn't have someone who speaks the participants' language — consider building a small line item into the budget for a contracted facilitator. Funders generally accept this as a legitimate evaluation cost, and for projects serving immigrant communities or youth, it's often the difference between meaningful evaluation data and a stack of polite non-answers.

4. Direct Observations

What it is: Trained observers monitor specific actions, activities, or behaviors using a checklist or log to ensure consistency. Done well, observation produces reliable real-world data without relying on participants' self-reports. The key word is specific — observers should be watching for clearly defined behaviors that have been agreed on in advance, not vague impressions.

Best for: Assessing program implementation, participant engagement, staff fidelity to a model, or behavioral change. The behavior being observed should be concrete enough that two different observers would record it the same way. In a children's art program, for example, an observer might track whether a child shows their finished piece to a peer or holds it close to their body — both are specific, observable indicators of pride in their work. Other examples include observing healthcare provider–patient interactions for communication compliance, or recording volunteer adherence to protocols in a habitat restoration project.

Grant writer's planning tip: The word "trained" is doing a lot of work in that definition. Observers need a clear protocol and a consistent rubric, otherwise the data drifts. In your proposal, name the specific behaviors that will be monitored and mention who will conduct the observations and how consistency will be maintained. This small level of detail signals real evaluation rigor.

5. Online Analytics

What it is: Digital tracking tools — Google Analytics is the most common — that measure user engagement, participation, and reach across websites, online courses, social media, and digital programs.

Best for: Any digital or hybrid program. Online learning platforms can track student engagement with course materials and assignment completion. Advocacy campaigns can track reach and engagement on action alerts. Communications-heavy projects can track audience growth.

Grant writer's planning tip: Many funders now require digital metrics for any program with an online component. The good news is that this is one of the least burdensome tools available — the data collects itself. The catch is that the organization needs to actually have analytics installed and someone who knows how to pull a report. Confirm both before proposing it.

Category 2: Measuring Learning

When a project is designed to teach, train, or build skills, you need tools that can show change over time. These four are built for exactly that — measuring what people know, what they can do, and how they've grown.

6. Pre- and Post-Tests

What it is: A test administered before a learning experience and again after, designed around specific learning objectives. Comparing the two scores produces a clear, quantifiable measure of participant progress.

Best for: Educational programs, training sessions, and skill-building workshops. Capital campaigns can also use a version of this — pre- and post-occupancy surveys gather staff or community input on how a new space improves workflow or safety compared to the old one.

Grant writer's planning tip: The test only measures what it's designed to measure, so the test questions need to map directly to the program's learning objectives. In your proposal, mention this connection explicitly. Reviewers love seeing that the evaluation tool was built around the program goals, not bolted on at the end.

7. Performance-Based Evaluation

What it is: Assessment through tasks, demonstrations, or simulations of real-world competencies. Instead of asking participants what they learned, you ask them to show you.

Best for: Skill-building and training programs where the proof is in the doing — a teacher observing a student's hands-on project, a workforce program watching a participant complete a job-related task, a youth program judging a final presentation.

Grant writer's planning tip: This method is especially compelling to funders because it produces direct evidence of competency. If the program involves any kind of skill that can be demonstrated, propose this alongside (or instead of) a written test.

8. Self-Assessments

What it is: Structured tools or rubrics that participants use to evaluate their own skills, knowledge, or experiences. Unlike a test, the goal isn't an objective score — it's reflection and self-reported growth.

Best for: Programs centered on personal development, leadership growth, or skill building where the participant's own perception of progress matters as much as outside measurement.

Grant writer's planning tip: Pair self-assessments with at least one other tool. Self-reported data is meaningful, but on its own, it can feel soft to a skeptical reviewer. A self-assessment plus a performance-based evaluation tells a much stronger story than either one alone.

9. Journals or Portfolios

What it is: Written or visual records built up over time that document experiences, work, growth, or change. Portfolios collect tangible work products; journals capture reflection or systematic recording. Journals don't have to be kept by the program participants themselves — staff can also keep journals as a structured way to document what they're seeing in the field.

Best for: A wider range of programs than people realize. Creative and educational programs are the obvious fit — students can build portfolios across a school year, and internship participants can journal about their experiences working with marginalized communities. But journals are also a fantastic tool for environmental and animal welfare projects. A habitat restoration program might keep a journal documenting the survival rates of new native plants over time. An animal shelter might keep journals tracking individual animals' anxiety levels, behavior changes, and adjustment over their stay. In both cases, the journal becomes a structured record of change that funders can actually use.

Grant writer's planning tip: Journals and direct observations often go hand in hand — observers watch for specific behaviors and record what they see in a journal or log. If you're proposing one, consider whether the other belongs in the plan too. Together, they produce a much fuller picture than either does alone. As with portfolios, frame the dual purpose where it applies: the journal is both an evaluation instrument and, often, a tool that deepens the program itself.

Category 3: Measuring Impact

These tools step back from individual participants to examine patterns, stories, and systems. They answer the biggest question funders have: what actually changed in the world because of this project? Several of the tools in this category are powerful options for action research and community-driven evaluation, and they're some of the most underused tools on this list.

10. Document and Record Review

What it is: Analysis of existing records, reports, or logs to track trends like attendance, participation rates, completion of milestones, or other measurable outcomes already being recorded somewhere.

Best for: Projects where the relevant data is already being collected for other reasons. A housing program can review eviction records to evaluate tenant stability. An advocacy campaign can review voting records or policy changes to evaluate impact.

Grant writer's planning tip: This is one of the least burdensome evaluation methods available — no new data collection required. If the organization already keeps the records, you're getting evaluation data essentially for free. Always ask the program staff what they're already tracking before designing brand-new instruments.

11. Case Studies

What it is: In-depth analysis of a specific program, participant, or community, combining multiple data sources to create a comprehensive picture of impact. Case studies often blend interviews, document review, observation, and outcome data into a single narrative.

Best for: Illustrating individual success stories or unique challenges in a way that resonates with funders who want qualitative evidence alongside the numbers. A case study might follow a single family's journey through a homelessness prevention program, or document a community's success in reducing single-use plastics through local legislation.

Grant writer's planning tip: Funders love case studies because they're memorable. One compelling case study can do more emotional work in a final report than a hundred survey responses. Propose two or three case studies as part of a broader evaluation plan, and identify in advance how participants will be selected so the stories are representative, not cherry-picked.

12. Network Mapping

What it is: A method for evaluating relationships, collaborations, or networks within a community or organization. Network mapping visually documents connections to assess the strength and spread of influence.

Best for: Collaborative initiatives, coalition-building work, scientific research collaborations, and community health initiatives where the connections between people and organizations are the point. A network map can analyze partnerships between service providers, nonprofits, and government agencies in a community health initiative.

Grant writer's planning tip: This is one of the most underused tools on this list — and the one most likely to make a reviewer take notice. If the project involves building or strengthening partnerships, network mapping shows growth that no survey can capture. There are free and low-cost tools available for basic mapping, so this doesn't require an enormous budget to propose credibly.

13. Outcome Harvesting

What it is: A method developed for evaluating projects with complex, hard-to-predict outcomes. Instead of starting with predetermined indicators and measuring against them, evaluators "harvest" evidence of actual changes that occurred — then work backward to determine whether and how the project contributed. It flips the traditional logic model on its head.

Best for: Advocacy campaigns, systems-change work, capacity-building projects, and any initiative where the most important outcomes can't be predicted at the start. Especially valuable for action research and projects working in unpredictable environments.

Grant writer's planning tip: This method has serious credibility with funders who support advocacy and policy work — they often prefer it over rigid pre-set indicators because it captures real-world change. If the project involves influencing systems or policies, outcome harvesting deserves a serious look. Mention by name in your proposal and briefly explain how the harvesting will be conducted.

14. Most Significant Change

What it is: A participatory storytelling method where stakeholders collect stories of change from participants and then collectively decide which stories represent the most significant changes the project produced. The selection process itself reveals what the community values most.

Best for: Community-driven projects, action research, programs working with marginalized populations, and initiatives where the participants' own perspectives on what mattered should drive the evaluation. This method honors lived experience in a way most evaluation tools don't.

Grant writer's planning tip: Most Significant Change pairs beautifully with quantitative tools — the numbers tell funders the scope of the work, and the stories tell them the meaning. Propose it for any project where community voice is central to the work. Funders supporting equity-focused work increasingly recognize this method as rigorous.

15. Photovoice

What it is: A participatory method where community members document their experiences, environment, or concerns through photography and then discuss the images in facilitated group sessions. The photos become both data and a tool for advocacy.

Best for: Community health projects, environmental justice work, youth programs, and any initiative working with populations whose voices are often missing from formal evaluation. Photovoice gives participants real authorship over how their experience is represented.

Grant writer's planning tip: This method is both an evaluation tool and a community engagement strategy, which makes it especially attractive for projects that want to demonstrate authentic participation. It does require facilitation skill and ethical protocols around photography (especially when minors or sensitive settings are involved), so plan for that in the budget and timeline.

16. Ripple Effect Mapping

What it is: A facilitated group reflection method that traces the unexpected, indirect, and longer-term effects of a program. Participants gather to map out how the project's effects rippled outward — into other programs, relationships, decisions, and community changes that no one originally planned for.

Best for: Capacity-building projects, community development work, training programs whose graduates go on to influence others, and any initiative where the most interesting outcomes happen after the formal program ends. A great fit for action research because it surfaces what participants themselves see as the most meaningful effects.

Grant writer's planning tip: Ripple Effect Mapping is especially powerful for end-of-grant or post-grant evaluation. If you're writing a multi-year proposal or one that includes a final evaluation phase, propose this as a culminating activity. It produces visual results that are easy to include in a final report and memorable for funders.

Right-Sizing Your Evaluation Plan

Here's the most important thing I can tell you about evaluation tools: more is not better.

A small organization with two staff members and a one-year grant doesn't need to deploy seven evaluation methods. Two or three well-chosen tools, matched carefully to the project's evaluation questions, will serve most projects far better than a kitchen-sink approach that no one has the capacity to actually carry out. (I wrote a whole article on this — if you haven't read it yet, take a look at Right-Sized Evaluation: Why More Isn't Always Better.)

When you're planning the evaluation section of a proposal, ask yourself:

• What are the two or three things this project absolutely must measure? Start there. Don't measure things just because you can.

• What does the organization already collect? Build on existing data before designing new instruments.

• Who will actually do this work? If the answer is "the executive director, in her spare time," scale accordingly.

• What combination of qualitative and quantitative data will tell the strongest story? A mix is almost always more compelling than a single type.

Funders aren't looking for evaluation plans that prove you know every tool in the book. They're looking for plans that prove you've thought carefully about what matters, picked the right tools for the job, and built something the organization can realistically execute. That's the mark of a grant writer who understands evaluation — and it's exactly the kind of thinking that gets proposals funded.

If you want to go deeper on evaluation planning and the rest of the grant writing process, the Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing walks through these decisions in detail — including how to match the right tools to your project, how to write evaluation sections that funders actually want to read, and how to build the advanced strategies that separate professional grant writers from the rest of the field.

Right-Sizing Your Evaluation Plan

How many evaluation tools should I include in a grant proposal? Two or three is usually the sweet spot. Enough to triangulate your data and show both qualitative and quantitative evidence, but not so many that the organization can't realistically execute the plan within the grant period.

Do funders prefer quantitative or qualitative data? Most funders want both. Quantitative data shows scale and measurable change; qualitative data shows the human story behind the numbers. A strong evaluation plan uses tools from both categories.

What if the organization doesn't have an evaluator on staff? Many small organizations don't, and that's fine. Some grants will allow a small line item for a contracted evaluator, especially for focus groups or more rigorous designs. Otherwise, lean on tools that don't require specialized expertise — surveys, document review, self-assessments, and online analytics are all manageable for non-evaluators.

Which evaluation tools work best for action research? Outcome Harvesting, Most Significant Change, Photovoice, and Ripple Effect Mapping are all especially well-suited to action research. They're participatory by design, they honor community voice, and they're flexible enough to capture outcomes that emerge over the course of the project rather than being predicted at the start.

Can AI help me design an evaluation plan? Yes, with a caveat. AI is genuinely useful as a brainstorming partner. Describe the project's objectives, the population it serves, and the organization's capacity, and ask for tool recommendations that fit the scale. Then refine the suggestions with the program team. AI gives you a starting point — your judgment and the organization's expertise turn it into a real plan.

What's the biggest mistake grant writers make in the evaluation section? Defaulting to surveys without considering whether they actually fit the project. The second biggest mistake is proposing more evaluation than the organization can realistically carry out. Right-sizing matters.

 Your Turn: What's in Your Evaluation Toolkit?

Sixteen tools are a lot — but it's not all of them. Evaluation is a big, evolving field, and experienced grant writers and program staff are using creative methods I haven't even touched on here.

So I want to hear from you: what other evaluation tools have you used in your grant-funded projects? Have you tried something that worked beautifully (or fell flat)? Is there a method you swear by that didn't make this list?

Drop a comment below and tell me about it. If your suggestion is a good fit, I'll add it to the article — with credit — so other grant writers can learn from your experience. Let's build the most useful evaluation toolkit on the internet, together.

Table of Contents

1. What Is a Letter of Support (and Why Should You Care)?

2. Letter of Support vs. Letter of Commitment: Know the Difference

3. The Golden Rule: Write It Yourself

4. Community Support Letters vs. Working Partnership Letters

5. The Legislator Play

6. After You Hit Submit: Thank Your Letter Writers

7. FAQ

What Is a Letter of Support (and Why Should You Care)?

If you've ever submitted a grant proposal, you've probably seen the line buried somewhere in the application guidelines: "Please include letters of support from partnering organizations." Sometimes it's required. Sometimes it's listed as optional. And sometimes there's no mention of it at all — which is exactly when a well-placed letter of support can set your proposal apart from the stack.

So what exactly is a letter of support? At its core, it's a document from an external organization, agency, or individual that says, "We believe in this project, and here's why." It demonstrates that your work doesn't exist in a vacuum — that your community, your partners, and your stakeholders are invested in what you're proposing to do.

Think of letters of support as the credibility section of your proposal that someone else writes on your behalf. They tell the reviewer that real people and real organizations have enough confidence in your project to put their name on it.

Here's the thing most grant writers miss: even when letters of support aren't explicitly required, including them is almost always a good idea. They add weight to your proposal. They show that you've done the legwork of building relationships. And in a competitive funding environment — which, let's be honest, is every funding environment right now — they can be the difference between a proposal that reads like a wish list and one that reads like a community-backed plan of action.

But here's the catch: not all letters of support are created equal. And most of them? They're not very good.

Letter of Support vs. Letter of Commitment: Know the Difference

Before we go further, let's clear up something that trips up a lot of grant writers: letters of support and letters of commitment are not the same thing, and some funders care very much about the distinction.

A letter of support is an endorsement. It says, "We believe in this project, and we think it's important." It demonstrates goodwill, community backing, and alignment with the project's goals. But it doesn't necessarily promise that the writer will contribute resources or participate directly.

A letter of commitment, on the other hand, is a promise. It says, "We are committing specific resources to this project — here's exactly what we'll provide." That might be funding, staff time, facility access, equipment, or services. It's a binding pledge that the funder can hold you and your partner accountable for.

Some funding opportunities ask for one or the other. Some ask for both. Some don't distinguish between them at all. Read your guidelines carefully. When in doubt, err on the side of being more specific — a letter that includes concrete commitments is always stronger than one that's purely endorsement. And if the funder asks for letters of commitment, make sure your partners understand they're making a real promise, not just offering moral support.

The Golden Rule: Write It Yourself

I'm going to share something that might sound counterintuitive: the best way to get a great letter of support is to write it yourself.

I learned this the hard way. Early in my career, I was working on a federal grant application with a tight deadline — as if there's any other kind. I had sent out requests for letters of support to several partner organizations weeks in advance. I was organized. I was proactive. I was feeling good about my timeline.

And then the deadline started creeping closer. And closer. And I hadn't heard back from half of my partners. The ones who did respond? Let's just say the letters were... underwhelming. Generic. The kind of letter that says, "We support this project" without ever mentioning what the project actually is. One of them had spelling errors. Another addressed it to the wrong organization.

That was the last time I left letters of support in someone else's hands.

Here's what I do now, and what I recommend to every grant writer I teach: you write the letter, and then you ask your partner to review it, add their own personal touch, and sign it on their letterhead.

Why does this work so much better? Because you know the details of the grant. You know the project name, the applicant organization, the funder, the goals, and the timeline. You know what the reviewer needs to see. Your partners — no matter how supportive they are — don't have that information at their fingertips, and they certainly don't have time to dig through an RFP to figure out what to emphasize.

When you draft the letter, you control the quality. When you hand it to your partner for their edits, you give them ownership. It's a win-win.

Every letter of support you draft should include:

• The full name of the project or program

• The name of the applicant organization

• The name of the funder (yes, specifically — not "Dear Grant Committee")

• A clear statement of the relationship between the partner and the applicant

• Specific details about what the partner will contribute or how they're involved

• Contact information for the person signing the letter

That last point matters more than you think. A letter signed by the executive director with their direct phone number and email tells the reviewer this is a real relationship, not a favor someone did over lunch.

A note on who signs the letter: Get the highest-ranking person you reasonably can. A letter signed by an executive director or CEO carries significantly more weight than one from a program coordinator. It signals that the organization's leadership — not just one enthusiastic staff member — has endorsed and authorized this commitment. If the ED can't write the letter, that's fine. But they should be the ones signing it.

A note on length: Keep it to one page. Two pages maximum if the partnership is complex and the details warrant it. Reviewers are reading dozens of proposals. A concise, meaty one-pager will always outperform a rambling two-pager. Every sentence should earn its place.

Community Support Letters vs. Working Partnership Letters

Not all letters of support serve the same purpose, and recognizing the difference will make your proposal stronger.

Community Support Letters

These are your broad endorsement letters. They come from organizations, leaders, or stakeholders in your community who believe in the work you're doing and want to go on record saying so. A community support letter might come from a local United Way chapter, a school district superintendent, a faith-based organization, or a neighborhood association.

Community support letters demonstrate that your project has buy-in beyond your own four walls. They tell the reviewer, "This isn't just one organization's idea — the community wants this."

Even these letters should be specific. They should name the project, reference the community need, and explain why the letter writer believes this particular approach will make a difference. A letter that says "We wholeheartedly support Organization X's important work in our community" is a puff piece. A letter that says "We have seen firsthand the gap in after-school programming for middle school students in the Eastside corridor, and Organization X's proposed STEM mentoring initiative directly addresses a need our families have identified for the past three years" — now that's a letter that does some heavy lifting.

Working Partnership Letters

This is where letters of support become truly powerful — and where most people drop the ball.

If you have a working partnership with another organization on the proposed project, the letter of support needs to spell out exactly how that partnership functions. This is not the place to be vague. Reviewers want to see that you've actually thought through the logistics, not just exchanged pleasantries at a networking event.

A strong working partnership letter should address:

• The specific role each partner plays. Who does what? What services does the partner provide? What does the applicant provide? How do the pieces fit together?

• How money moves. If there's a financial component to the partnership, the letter should outline it clearly. Is the partner receiving a subaward? How much? For what services? Spell it out.

• Subcontractor responsibilities. If a partner is serving as a subcontractor, the letter should acknowledge joint responsibility for reporting and deliverables. This tells the reviewer that both organizations understand their obligations — not just the applicant.

• Timeline and coordination. How often will the partners communicate? Who is the point of contact? Is there a shared governance structure?

• In-kind contributions with dollar values. If a partner is providing space, staff time, equipment, or expertise rather than cash, don't just mention it — quantify it. "We will dedicate 200 square feet of classroom space for weekly programming, valued at $12,000 annually" is infinitely more persuasive than "We will provide space for the program." Funders want to see that both parties understand the real value of what's being contributed.

• The partner's qualifications and track record. Why is this the right partner for this work? A brief statement about the partner organization's relevant experience and expertise tells the reviewer this isn't a random collaboration — it's a strategic one. "As the region's largest provider of workforce development services, having served over 3,000 job seekers in the past five years, we are uniquely positioned to support participant recruitment and career placement for this initiative."

• What the partner gets out of it. Reviewers are smart. They know that the strongest partnerships are mutually beneficial, not one-sided favors. The letter should articulate how this project aligns with the partner's own mission or strategic plan. When a reviewer can see that both organizations have skin in the game, the partnership reads as sustainable, not transactional.

• Population access and referral commitments. If the partner is referring clients, recruiting participants, or providing access to a target population, spell out the specifics. How many people? Through what channels? On what timeline? "We will refer a minimum of 50 eligible families per quarter through our intake process and existing case management relationships" gives the reviewer confidence that your participant numbers aren't wishful thinking.

• Sustainability beyond the grant period. This is the one that separates good letters from great ones. Any indication that the partnership will continue after the funding ends tells the reviewer that this project has legs. Maybe the partner commits to continuing referrals. Maybe they'll absorb a program component into their existing services. Even a sentence about long-term intentions signals that this isn't a one-and-done collaboration.

Think of it this way: if a reviewer reads your partnership letter and still has questions about how the collaboration actually works, the letter didn't do its job.

The Legislator Play

Here's a move that not enough grant writers are making: asking your elected officials for letters of support.

Yes, you can do this. And yes, it's worth the effort.

A letter of support from a state legislator, a member of Congress, or even a city council member adds a layer of credibility that few other letters can match. It signals to the funder that your project has visibility and support at the policy level — and for federal grants especially, that kind of endorsement carries weight.

But here's the thing: legislator offices are busy. They get hundreds of requests. If you send a vague email asking your state senator to "write a letter supporting our grant," you're going to get one of two things: silence, or a form letter so generic it might as well be addressed "To Whom It May Concern."

So apply the same golden rule: write the letter for them.

Draft a letter that includes all the relevant project details, explains why the project matters to their constituents, and connects the work to issues the legislator cares about. Then send it to their office with a clear, polite request: "We've drafted a letter for your review and would welcome any edits. We'd love the opportunity to brief you or your staff on the project."

That briefing is the key. Don't skip it. Whether you get five minutes with a legislative aide or a phone call with the legislator themselves, take the time to walk them through what you're doing and why it matters. This accomplishes two things:

First, it makes the letter authentic. A legislator who actually understands your project can add a sentence or two in their own voice that transforms a drafted letter into a genuine endorsement.

Second — and this is the long game — it puts your project on their radar. Legislators who understand and support your work today may become advocates for your funding tomorrow. That conversation could lead to a future appropriation, a mention in a committee hearing, or ongoing support that extends well beyond a single grant cycle.

After You Hit Submit: Thank Your Letter Writers

This one is quick but important: after you submit the proposal, circle back to every person and organization that provided a letter of support. Send a thank-you. Let them know the proposal went in. And when you hear back from the funder — win or lose — let them know the outcome.

This isn't just good manners (though it is). It's strategic. The people who write letters for you today are the same people you'll need letters from next year. Keeping them in the loop builds trust, strengthens the relationship, and makes them far more likely to say yes the next time you ask. Nobody wants to write a letter and then never hear what happened.

A quick email is all it takes. Something like: "Thank you for your letter of support for our XYZ proposal to the ABC Foundation. We submitted on time and expect to hear back in three months. I'll keep you posted — and I appreciate your partnership."

That's it. Thirty seconds of your time. A lifetime of goodwill.

FAQ

How many letters of support should I include in a grant proposal? If the application specifies a number, follow it. If it doesn't, aim for quality over quantity. Three strong, specific letters will serve you better than five generic ones. Match your letters to the story your proposal is telling — community letters for broad support, partnership letters for collaborative projects, and legislator letters when policy-level credibility matters.

What if my partner changes the letter I drafted and I don't like their edits? This happens, and it's a judgment call. If the edits are stylistic, let them go — it's their letter now, and their voice makes it more authentic. If they've removed critical details (like the project name or their specific role), gently explain why those details matter for the reviewer and ask if you can work together on a version that feels right to both of you.

Should letters of support be addressed to the funder or "To Whom It May Concern"? Always address the letter to the specific funder when possible. "Dear [Program Officer Name]" or "Dear [Foundation Name] Review Committee" tells the reviewer this letter was written for this proposal, not pulled from a filing cabinet. It's a small detail that signals intentionality.

Can I use the same letter of support for multiple grant applications? You can reuse the relationship, but not the letter. Each letter should reference the specific grant, the specific funder, and the specific project. Reviewers can spot a recycled letter instantly, and it undermines the credibility you're trying to build.

When should I ask for letters of support — at the beginning of the grant process or closer to the deadline? Start early. As soon as you know you're applying, reach out to your partners and begin drafting. Give them at least two to three weeks to review and sign — more if you're working with a legislator's office. Chasing letters the week before a deadline is a stress you don't need.

What's the difference between a letter of support and a letter of commitment? A letter of support is an endorsement — it says the writer believes in your project. A letter of commitment goes further — it pledges specific resources like funding, staff time, or facilities. Some funders require one or the other, so read your guidelines carefully. When in doubt, include concrete commitments in your letters; a letter that promises something specific is always stronger than one that just cheers from the sidelines.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Grant Writing is forthcoming in 2026.

Your Turn! Reply and Comment

👉 What's your letter of support horror story — or your secret weapon? Have you ever gotten a letter so generic it hurt, or one so good it made a reviewer's day? I'd love to hear your experiences. Share in the comments below!

And if you're tired of scrambling for letters at the last minute, download my Letter of Support Template — it's a plug-and-play framework you can customize for community partners, working partnerships, and legislator offices.

Want more grant writing tips delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the Spark the Fire Newsletter.

Table of Contents

• Introduction

• Before You Apply: Strategy Myths

• Myth 1: Call foundations for their award rate—if it's not at least 20%, don't apply

• Myth 2: The spray and pray method works

• Myth 3: Grantmakers don't want you to call before applying

• Myth 4: You need 501(c)(3) status to get funding

• While You're Writing: Process Myths

• Myth 5: The first thing to do when writing a grant is to start writing

• Myth 6: Use as many statistics as possible to prove need

• Myth 7: In character-count applications, there's no room for photos or infographics

• After You Submit: Outcome Myths

• Myth 8: When renewing a grant, write the same thing year after year

• Myth 9: If you didn't win, your proposal wasn't good enough

• About the Profession: Expertise Myths

• Myth 10: I won a grant ten years ago, so I'm just as qualified as you

• Myth 11: You don't need certification to be a grant writer

• Myth 12: Learning grant writing is about learning to build a business that earns $10K per month

• FAQs

I've been writing grants for more than twenty-five years. I remember going to the library and flipping through a massive research book called the Foundation Databook to find grant opportunities. I remember submitting applications on several reams of paper, stuffing them into boxes, not envelopes, and mailing them off with a prayer. I remember the days before cloud collaboration—when you'd send a draft to your team and get five completely different revised versions back, then somehow had to piece them together like a jigsaw puzzle.

So take it from me, someone who has been in this field a long, long time: there are no shortcuts to learning grant writing.

And yet, shortcuts are exactly what a lot of grant writing advice promises these days. Some of it is well-intentioned but misguided. Some of it is outdated. And some of it is just plain wrong—repeated so often it starts to sound true.

In this article, I'm going to walk you through twelve pieces of grant writing advice I've been hearing lately that you should ignore. If you're getting frustrated by the bad advice out there too, I'd love to hear the myths you want to bust. Share them in the comments below.

Here are my top twelve.

Before You Apply: Strategy Myths

Myth 1: Call foundations for their award rate—if it's not at least 20%, don't apply

I heard this advice from a fellow grant instructor: figure out how many applicants applied last year, divide by the number that were awarded funding, and if that number isn't at least 15–20%, don't bother applying.

I think she was well-intentioned, but she wasn't fully thinking it through.

Here's the problem with this approach. First, what are those award rates even based on? The total number of applications received? The number that made it past initial screening? The number from organizations that were actually a good fit? These numbers can mean wildly different things depending on how a foundation tracks them—if they track them at all.

 Second, most grantmakers don't publish this information. And if you're going to take the time to call a program officer, you don't want to spend it asking for abstract statistics. You want to talk about what actually matters: mission match. That's what they want to discuss. That's what will help you make a smart decision about whether to apply.

 Third—and this is the big one—a huge portion of the applications any foundation receives are poorly written, off-mission, or clearly rushed. When you submit a targeted, well-crafted proposal to a funder who's genuinely aligned with your work, you're not competing against the whole pile. You're competing against the handful of applicants who did their homework.

 Here's the truth: grant writing is about fit, not odds. A foundation with a 10% award rate that's perfectly aligned with your mission is a better bet than one with a 50% rate where you're stretching to make the connection.

 Focus on match. Always.

Myth 2: The spray and pray method works

I'll be honest: I'm guilty of this one from when I first started writing grants. Send out as many applications as possible. Cast a wide net. Something's bound to stick, right?

Wrong. And I learned that the hard way.

Times have changed, and so has strategy. Foundations are overwhelmed with applications—many of them poorly targeted, hastily written, and clearly submitted by people who didn't bother to read the guidelines. The result? Some foundations have stopped accepting unsolicited applications altogether. They've closed their doors because the spray-and-pray crowd made it impossible to find the gems in the pile.

The organizations that win grants consistently aren't the ones submitting the most applications. They're the ones building relationships. They're picking up the phone. They're attending foundation webinars. They're having their Executive Director connect with program officers at conferences. They're doing the hard work that we never seem to have time for—but that makes all the difference.

Relationship-building is the hardest part of grant writing. It's also the most important. And a lot of it comes down to pushing your Executive Director to prioritize it. You don't have to do it all yourself—you just need to set them up for success.

I've seen EDs who do this brilliantly. They make the calls, they send the thank-you notes, they remember the program officer's name and ask about their work. And their organizations have multi-year relationships with funders who trust them. That's not luck. That's strategy.

For more on why spray and pray is killing your grant success, read my article on Why 2026 is the Year to Stop Writing Grant Proposals to Every Foundation.

Myth 3: Grantmakers don't want you to call before applying

I get why this myth persists. Back in the day, a lot of grant guidelines actually did say "no preliminary contact allowed." I remember seeing that language everywhere. And if you've been in the field long enough, that rule might still be rattling around in your head.

But that's not how it works anymore—at least not for most funders.

Today, program officers are actively working to find good awardees. They want successful partnerships. They want stories they can share with their boards about the impact their foundation is making. And they really, really don't want to waste time reviewing applications from organizations that aren't a good fit.

So when you call to ask whether your project aligns with their priorities, you're not being a nuisance. You're being respectful of everyone's time—theirs and yours.

Of course, there are exceptions. Some federal grants and highly competitive national foundations still have strict no-contact policies during open application periods. Always read the guidelines. But for most private and family foundations? Pick up the phone. Send an email. Ask if your project sounds like something they'd want to fund.

Nine times out of ten, they'll appreciate it.

For my best tips on how to approach these calls, check out my article on The Art of the Phone Call: How to Stand Out With Funders.

<a id="myth-4-you-need-501c3-status-to-get-funding"></a>

Myth 4: You need 501(c)(3) status to get funding

If I had a dollar for every time someone told me their organization couldn't apply for foundation grants because they weren't a 501(c)(3), I'd have enough money to fund a few grants myself.

Here's the reality: foundations want to fund charitable work. They care about impact. What they don't want is their money going to a private entity that's going to pocket the profits. But that doesn't mean 501(c)(3) is the only game in town.

I've worked with parks and recreation departments. I've worked with associations of apprenticeships. I've worked with schools and quasi-governmental agencies. And I've gotten them all grants from foundations whose guidelines explicitly said "501(c)(3) organizations only."

How? I called and asked.

501(c)(4) organizations can often apply. Schools and government entities almost always can. Fiscal sponsorship is a well-established workaround for grassroots groups that haven't incorporated yet. The point isn't your tax status—it's whether your work is charitable in nature and whether you have the infrastructure to manage a grant responsibly.

So if you see "501(c)(3) only" in the guidelines, don't click away. Pick up the phone. Explain what your organization does and its legal status. Ask if you're eligible. The worst they can say is no—and more often than you'd expect, they'll say yes. Read my article for more information Only Nonprofits Get Foundation Grants, Right…? Wrong.

While You're Writing: Process Myths

<a id="myth-5-the-first-thing-to-do-when-writing-a-grant-is-to-start-writing"></a>

Myth 5: The first thing to do when writing a grant is to start writing

You've probably done this. I know I have.

You open the application, skim the guidelines, and dive straight into the narrative. It's the fun part, right? The storytelling. The vision. The part where you get to make the case for why your organization deserves this funding.

And then the clock starts ticking. Days pass. You're deep into the program description. You finally go back to re-read the full guidelines and realize you need a letter of support from a partner organization. You need an ink signature from your board chair. You need a updated balance sheet, and your finance director is at a conference.

And the board chair? On vacation.

Suddenly that deadline isn't looking so comfortable anymore.

Here's the grant writing tip that will save you more stress than any other: start with the attachments. Before you write a single word of narrative, read through everything the application requires. Make a list of every document, every signature, every piece of information you'll need to collect from someone else. Send those requests immediately.

Then start writing.

This approach gives your partners time to respond. It gives you time to chase down that balance sheet or get updated demographic data from the program manager. And it means you'll never again find yourself at 11:47 PM the night before a deadline, frantically refreshing your inbox and hoping someone comes through.

Trust me. Attachments first. Always.

<a id="myth-6-use-as-many-statistics-as-possible-to-prove-need"></a>

Myth 6: Use as many statistics as possible to prove need

More data is better, right? If one statistic shows there's a need, ten statistics will really drive the point home.

Not quite.

I once read a proposal that included a statistic so startling I actually stopped and looked it up. Turns out it was completely false—either made up or wildly misquoted from its original source. And in that moment, I lost all trust in the proposal. Every other claim, every other number, every heartfelt story about impact—I couldn't believe any of it. The organization might have been doing incredible work, but I'd never know, because they'd destroyed their credibility with one bad stat.

Here's what grantmakers actually want: a few well-chosen, properly cited statistics that clearly establish the need your program addresses. That's it. You're not writing a dissertation. You're making a case.

And citations matter enormously. When you cite your sources, you're telling the grantmaker, "You can trust me. I did my homework. I'm not making this up." Even if a statistic is surprising or a little startling, a solid citation and reference list gives it credibility.

For more on how to approach data in your proposals without going overboard, check out my article on Right-Sized Evaluation in Grant Writing: What It is and How to Do It.

<a id="myth-7-in-character-count-applications-theres-no-room-for-photos-or-infographics"></a>

Myth 7: In character-count applications, there's no room for photos or infographics

I sat down with a program officer who manages grants for several family foundations and asked him point-blank: "What do you really like to see in grant proposals?"

His answer surprised me: "Pictures on every page."

He explained that when he met with the families funding the foundations to go over the grant requests, they were always drawn to the photos. Photos of programs in action. Simple infographics showing outcomes. Images that brought the work to life.

But what about those character-limited online applications where you're counting every keystroke? Surely there's no room for visuals there?

Think again.

Most online applications include opportunities to upload attachments—budgets, logic models, letters of support. And there's nothing stopping you from including visuals in those documents. An annual report with full-color photos be uploaded as a supplemental attachment. Your budget narrative can include a simple infographic showing how funds will be allocated. Your logic model can be designed to be visually engaging rather than a wall of text boxes.

The text boxes might be character-limited. Your creativity doesn't have to be.

<a id="after-you-submit-outcome-myths"></a>

After You Submit: Outcome Myths

<a id="myth-8-when-renewing-a-grant-write-the-same-thing-year-after-year"></a>

Myth 8: When renewing a grant, write the same thing year after year

I get it. You won the grant last year with this proposal. Why mess with success?

Here's why: grantmakers don't like reading the same old proposal any more than you like resending the same boring information.

When a foundation invests in your organization, they're entering a relationship with you. They want to know what's happening. They want to hear how the community has changed, how your organization has adapted, what you've learned, what's working, what challenges you've faced. They want to see that you're paying attention to the world around you—not just running the same program on autopilot.

Renewal applications are an opportunity to show growth, responsiveness, and impact. Update your statistics. Share new stories that describe the current community conditions. Describe how you've adjusted your approach based on what you've learned. Show the funder that their investment is going toward a living, breathing organization that's actively engaged with its community.

Do better than copy-paste. Your funder deserves it. And honestly? So does your program.

<a id="myth-9-if-you-didnt-win-your-proposal-wasnt-good-enough"></a>

Myth 9: If you didn't win, your proposal wasn't good enough

Rejection stings. And when you've poured hours into a proposal—crafting the narrative, gathering the attachments, getting all those signatures—it's natural to take it personally when the answer is no.

But here's something I've learned after twenty-five years in this field: there are so many factors that go into a funding decision, and a lot of them have nothing to do with the quality of your proposal.

Maybe the foundation's priorities shifted after they published their guidelines. Maybe they received an unusually high number of applications that cycle. Maybe a board member had a personal connection to another organization working in your space. Maybe your project was great but just slightly outside their geographic focus. Maybe they loved your work but had already committed their funds before your application even arrived.

I know a grant writer who submitted a strong application for a $10,000 grant and didn't get it. Instead of walking away, she followed up. She built a relationship with the program officer. In their conversations, she learned that another initiative her organization was running was actually a much better fit for the foundation's priorities. The result? A $300,000 grant.

That's not a typo. A $10K rejection turned into a $300K award—because she didn't assume the rejection meant her work wasn't good enough.

When you get a no, don't just move on. Ask for feedback. Build the relationship anyway. You might be surprised where it leads.

<a id="about-the-profession-expertise-myths"></a>

About the Profession: Expertise Myths

<a id="myth-10-i-won-a-grant-ten-years-ago-so-im-just-as-qualified-as-you"></a>

Myth 10: I won a grant ten years ago, so I'm just as qualified as you

I hear this constantly.

Everyone you talk to has written a grant before, and they love to tell you about it. "Oh, I wrote a grant once and we got funded. It's not that hard—anyone can do it."

And I smile and nod, because what else can you do?

But here's what I want to say: the grant landscape has changed dramatically over the past decade. Competition has increased exponentially. Foundations are more sophisticated in their review processes. Funders expect more detailed evaluation plans, clearer logic models, and stronger evidence of community engagement. The bar has risen.

Winning a grant in 2015 is not the same as winning a grant in 2025. The strategies that worked then may not work now. The formatting expectations have changed. The questions applicants are expected to answer have gotten more complex.

If you're a professional grant writer, don't be afraid to claim your expertise. You've kept up with the field. You've adapted to changing expectations. You've invested in your professional development. That matters. And it's okay to say so—kindly, professionally, but confidently.

<a id="myth-11-you-dont-need-certification-to-be-a-grant-writer"></a>

Myth 11: You don't need certification to be a grant writer

Technically, this is true. There's no licensing board for grant writers. No one's going to arrest you for writing a grant without credentials.

And that's exactly the problem.

Anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a grant writer. There's no barrier to entry. Which means the field is full of people with wildly varying levels of skill, knowledge, and ethics. Some are excellent. Some are learning. And some are taking money from nonprofits that can't afford to waste it, delivering subpar work that damages those organizations' relationships with funders.

Only about 25% of grant writers hold a professional certification. Which means if you do have one, you immediately stand out. You're signaling to clients and employers that you've invested in your professional development, that you've met a standard, that you take this work seriously.

I believe in elevating the grant profession. I believe in demonstrating that grant writing is a skilled discipline, not something anyone can do after watching a YouTube video. And certification is one way we do that. Ready to earn your certification? Check out the Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing course.

<a id="myth-12-learning-grant-writing-is-about-learning-to-build-a-business"></a>

Myth 12: Learning grant writing is about learning to build a business that earns $10K per month

You've probably seen the ads. "Learn grant writing and build a six-figure business!" "Start earning $10K a month as a freelance grant writer!" "This course will teach you everything you need to launch your grant writing empire!"

And look, I'm all for grant writers earning good money. This is skilled work. You deserve to be well-compensated.

But here's the problem with courses that focus primarily on the business side: you actually have to know how to write grants first.

Being a good business person matters. Marketing yourself matters. Setting rates and managing clients and building systems—all of that matters. But if you don't have deep knowledge of grant writing itself, your business is built on sand. You might land a few clients. You might even collect some fees. But eventually, your clients are going to realize you're not as experienced or knowledgeable as you should be. The grants won't come through. The relationships will sour. And you'll be left holding nothing but a big bill from the overpriced course that promised to help you hustle.

There's no quick way to learn grant writing. It's a craft. It takes time. It takes practice. It takes feedback from people who know what they're doing.

Invest in real training. Take an in-depth course where you actually write proposals and receive feedback on your work. Build your skills before you build your business. The business will come—but only if the foundation is solid.

<a id="faqs"></a>

FAQs

What's the most common grant writing mistake beginners make? Starting to write before they've gathered all the required attachments and information. It leads to last-minute panic and missed deadlines.

Should I apply for grants even if my organization isn't a 501(c)(3)? Often, yes. Schools, government agencies, 501(c)(4)s, and organizations with fiscal sponsors are frequently eligible even when guidelines say "501(c)(3) only." Always call and ask.

How many grants should I apply for at once? Quality over quantity. A few well-researched, carefully crafted applications to foundations that align with your mission will outperform a dozen rushed, generic submissions every time.

Is grant writing certification worth it? Yes. Only about 25% of grant writers are certified, so having a credential immediately sets you apart and signals your commitment to professional standards.

What should I do if my grant application is rejected? Don't take it personally. Ask for feedback if possible, and continue building the relationship with the funder. Rejection often has nothing to do with the quality of your proposal.

How do I know if a foundation is a good fit before I apply? Call or email the program officer. Ask about their current priorities. Discuss your project briefly. Most program officers appreciate applicants who do this—it saves everyone time.

What is the best grant writing course? Spark the Fire's Certificate in Grant Writing course. It's an in-depth program with individualized feedback on your actual writing—not a one-size-fits-all video series. You'll build real skills with real support, which is exactly what it takes to become a confident, successful grant writer.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Grant Writing is forthcoming in 2026.

Your Turn

What grant writing myths would you like to bust today? I'd love to hear the bad advice you've encountered in your grant writing journey. Please comment below—let's bust these myths together.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: Why I'm Revisiting This Conversation Now

2. What Is Right-Sized Evaluation, Anyway?

3. The Goldilocks Problem: Too Much, Too Little, or Just Wrong

4. Let the Academics Do the Heavy Lifting: How to Borrow Existing Research

5. The CART Principles: Your New Best Friends

6. A Real-World Case Study: Soccer Without Borders

7. Building a Culture of Learning, Not Just Reporting

8. Empowering Language and the Evaluation Connection

9. Trust-Based Philanthropy and the Shifting Evaluation Landscape

10. Practical Steps to Right-Size Your Evaluation Today

11. FAQ

Introduction: Why I'm Revisiting This Conversation Now

Here's something I hear from nonprofit leaders all the time: they know evaluation matters, but they're not sure they're doing it right.

Not because they don't care about outcomes — they got into this work precisely because they care about outcomes. The uncertainty comes from a very specific place: the feeling that whatever they're doing to measure their impact isn't rigorous enough, isn't fancy enough, or isn't generating the kind of data that will make a funder's eyes light up during a site visit.

Two years ago, I sat down with Mary Connor, co-founder of Soccer Without Borders, for my Spark the Fire Interviews series. Mary had just won first place in the GrantStation grant writing contest, and I wanted to pick her brain about what made her proposal stand out from the pack. We covered storytelling, empowering language, trust-based philanthropy—all the things I teach my grant writing students.

But the part of our conversation that has stuck with me most—the part I keep coming back to in my workshops, my classes, and my own late-night grant writing sessions—was what Mary said about evaluation.

I've been teaching grant writing and nonprofit capacity building for years, and I'll be honest: I wasn't expecting a conversation about evaluation to be the thing that kept me up at night. But here we are.

I'm bringing this interview back now because what Mary described two years ago has only become more urgent. Federal funding landscapes are shifting. Foundation giving is tightening. The competition for every grant dollar has intensified in ways that would have felt unthinkable a decade ago. Nonprofits are being asked to do more with less, prove more with fewer resources, and somehow demonstrate transformative impact on budgets that barely cover payroll.

In this environment, the organizations that will win funding aren't necessarily the ones with the biggest evaluation budgets or the fanciest data dashboards. They're the ones that can clearly articulate what they do, why it works, and how they know—without overpromising or pretending to be something they're not.

That's what right-sized evaluation is about. And Mary Connor gave me one of the best real-world examples I've ever seen.

Let me walk you through what I learned from our conversation and why it matters even more today than when we first talked.

What Is Right-Sized Evaluation, Anyway?

Right-sized evaluation is the practice of designing monitoring and evaluation systems that are proportionate to your organization's size, budget, capacity, and stage of development. It's the Goldilocks principle applied to data: not too much, not too little, but just right.

The term gained significant traction with the publication of The Goldilocks Challenge: Right-Fit Evidence for the Social Sector by Mary Kay Gugerty and Dean Karlan (Oxford University Press, 2018), which won the Terry McAdam Award for best book in nonprofit management. The book argues that organizations fall into one of three traps when it comes to monitoring and evaluating their programs: collecting too few data, collecting too much data, or collecting the wrong data entirely.

Sound familiar? If you've ever spent an entire afternoon wrestling with a logic model that felt more like a logic prison, you know exactly what they're talking about. I certainly have, and I see my students struggling with this every quarter.

Right-sized evaluation rejects the premise that every nonprofit needs to conduct a randomized controlled trial to prove it matters. Instead, it asks a much more useful question: What do we need to know to get better at what we do, and what can we credibly show our funders and stakeholders?

In today's hyper-competitive funding environment, that question isn't just philosophical. It's strategic. The organizations that can answer it clearly are the ones writing the proposals that rise to the top of the pile.

The Goldilocks Problem: Too Much, Too Little, or Just Wrong

In my years of teaching and consulting, I've seen three portraits play out again and again. I bet you'll recognize them instantly.

The Data Hoarder. This organization collects everything. Pre-tests, post-tests, quarterly surveys, annual surveys, focus groups, case studies, participation logs, attendance trackers, and probably the barometric pressure on the day of each program session. Their staff spends more time entering data than delivering programs. Their reports are 40 pages long. Nobody reads them. The data sits in a Google Drive folder that someone named "EVALUATION FINAL FINAL v3 (2)." Their program staff resents the paperwork. Their participants are exhausted from being surveyed. And when you ask the executive director what they've learned from all this data, they stare at you like you've asked them to explain quantum mechanics in Swahili.

The Data Avoider. This organization "knows" their program works because they can see it in the faces of the people they serve. They have powerful anecdotal evidence and heartfelt testimonials. When a funder asks about outcomes, they share a moving story and hope that's enough. Sometimes it is. Often it's not. They struggle to articulate what success looks like in measurable terms—not because they don't care, but because nobody ever taught them how. Their board meetings include a lot of nodding and phrases like "we're making a real difference."

The Wrong Data Collector. This is perhaps the most tragic case. This organization has been diligently measuring things that have nothing to do with their actual theory of change. They track outputs when they should track outcomes. They measure satisfaction when they should measure behavior change. They've been counting heads when they should be counting milestones. It's not that they're not working hard at evaluation. They're working hard at the wrong evaluation.

When I reviewed Mary's winning grant proposal, I could immediately see that Soccer Without Borders had avoided all three traps. That's rare. And in a field where reviewers are reading dozens or hundreds of proposals, it stands out like a neon sign.

Right-sized evaluation offers an escape from all three of these traps—and in a competitive funding landscape, it gives you a genuine edge.

Let the Academics Do the Heavy Lifting: How to Borrow Existing Research

Here's the most liberating idea from the entire right-sized evaluation philosophy, and the thing Mary said in our interview that made me literally stop and scribble a note to myself:

You don't have to re-prove what's already been proven.

Read that again. Tattoo it on your forearm. Put it on a coffee mug. I might actually make that mug.

When I asked Mary about the evaluation section of her proposal—which, I should say, was deep—she described something that I think every nonprofit leader and grant writer needs to hear. She told me that early in her time as executive director, she was taught that evaluation exists on a continuum, from basic monitoring all the way to long-term impact evaluation. And she said something I found profoundly honest: when you come out of an academic environment, everything points to the rigorous study as the be-all and end-all. But there are concrete steps you can take and a journey you can go on as an organization that starts well before you get to that level.

Soccer Without Borders made a deliberate choice to align their program design with existing research rather than trying to generate new research themselves. As Mary explained it to me, people smarter than her in specific academic disciplines have already demonstrated that mentoring relationships matter—that kids are more likely to experience academic and mental health benefits if they have a positive mentor or role model in their life. A coach can be that mentor. But the organization needed to show, through feedback and rigorous monitoring, that they had created the conditions for that relationship to form and that the kids actually experienced their coaches that way.

Her point was sharp: every community organization should not have to bear the burden of measuring and re-proving the same thing. If research has already demonstrated at a country level that every year of schooling adds an estimated 10% to lifetime income, then her organization's job was to keep kids in school. Their job was not to re-prove the link between education and economic outcomes. That's already been established.

When she said that, I wanted to stand up and applaud. Because this is exactly the mindset shift I've been trying to teach my students, and hearing it from a practitioner who had just won a national grant writing contest was the validation I needed.

Here's how this approach works in practice for your next proposal:

Step 1: Identify the evidence base for your work. What does the research literature say about the type of intervention you're delivering? If you run an after-school tutoring program, there are decades of research on effective tutoring practices. If you operate a food bank, there's robust evidence on the relationship between food security and health outcomes. You don't need to generate this evidence yourself—you need to use it.

Step 2: Design your program to align with the evidence. This means being intentional about program components. If research shows that mentoring relationships are a key driver of youth outcomes, you need to design your program to facilitate meaningful mentoring relationships—not just check a box that says "mentor assigned."

Step 3: Monitor fidelity of implementation. This is the piece most organizations skip, and it's the piece that made Mary's proposal sing. It's not enough to say you have a mentoring program. You need to demonstrate that the mentoring is actually happening the way you designed it. Do participants actually perceive their coaches as mentors? Do they feel safe? Is the dosage sufficient?

Step 4: Track realistic, right-sized outcomes. For Soccer Without Borders in Nicaragua, that meant tracking academic advancement—keeping kids in school past the documented drop-off points of fourth grade and the end of primary school. They could point to the research showing that each additional year of education produces measurable benefits, and then show that their program was contributing to keeping girls enrolled. They didn't need to measure the lifetime economic output of their participants 20 years from now. They needed to track whether girls were staying in school.

As Mary put it to me: her organization's contribution was to keep kids in school, create the best possible conditions for girls to reach their full potential. Their contribution was not to generate new research for the world. That distinction is everything—and in her grant proposal, she was able to tie their small, focused contribution to big frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals and Ernst & Young's research on the benefit of sport for future women leaders. She described it to me as "A plus B equals we'll see"—if you design it with intention and rigorously measure that you're doing what you say you do, the reader can draw the link.

That's right-sized evaluation. And in a competitive grant landscape, it's devastatingly effective.

The CART Principles: Your New Best Friends

Gugerty and Karlan's Goldilocks Challenge introduces the CART framework, which gives organizations four principles for building a data strategy that's actually useful. I teach this to my students as a diagnostic checklist for whether your evaluation system is serving you or just torturing you.

C – Credible: Data are high quality and analyzed appropriately. Ask yourself: Would a skeptical but fair reviewer trust this evidence?

A – Actionable: Data will actually influence future decisions. Ask yourself: Will we change anything based on what we learn?

R – Responsible: Data collection creates more benefits than costs. Ask yourself: Is the burden on staff, clients, and partners justified by what we'll learn?

T – Transportable: Data builds knowledge that can be used in the future and by others. Ask yourself: Could another organization or our future selves use these findings?

The CART framework is powerful because it forces you to ask hard questions before you design your evaluation, not after. It's the organizational equivalent of measuring twice and cutting once.

The "Responsible" principle deserves special attention because it's the one most nonprofits ignore. As the Bridgespan Group has noted, nonprofit staff time is limited, as is that of constituents and partners. Every minute a youth participant spends filling out a survey is a minute they're not in your program. Every hour a frontline staff member spends entering data is an hour they're not building the very relationships that your theory of change depends on. Right-sizing data collection means thinking carefully about the tools you use, the amount of data you collect, and the time it takes to collect it.

Perhaps sampling a representative set of participants tells you just as much as surveying everyone. Perhaps quarterly check-ins are more useful than monthly ones. Perhaps a five-question feedback form is more honest and actionable than a 50-question assessment that participants fill out with increasing resentment and decreasing accuracy.

When I look at grant proposals today—as a writer, a reviewer, and a teacher—I can tell immediately when an organization has thought through these principles versus when they've just thrown spaghetti at the evaluation wall. Reviewers can tell too. And when every point on a scoring rubric matters, that clarity is a competitive advantage.

A Real-World Case Study: Soccer Without Borders

When I first read Mary's winning proposal, I hadn't yet heard of Soccer Without Borders. By the time I finished, I was genuinely moved—not just by the work, but by the intellectual honesty of how they presented it.

Soccer Without Borders operates direct service programming in Nicaragua, Uganda, and across the United States, using soccer as a vehicle for youth development and education. Their Nicaragua program, the subject of the winning proposal, operates on what Mary described to me as approximately $120,000 or less.

That's not a budget that accommodates a formal impact evaluation team. And here's what I want every one of my students and colleagues to understand: it doesn't need to.

Here's what Soccer Without Borders did instead, and it's a masterclass in right-sized evaluation:

They identified the evidence base. Research overwhelmingly shows that mentoring relationships improve academic outcomes and mental health for youth. Post-Title IX research in the United States has documented the connection between women's participation in sport and advancement in business and education. Organizations like EY (Ernst & Young) have published research on the benefits of sport for future women leaders.

They designed with intention. The program wasn't just "soccer for kids." It was designed around evidence-based principles: creating safe spaces, fostering mentoring relationships between coaches and participants, building a pathway from participant to coach that develops local women leaders. When Mary first went to Nicaragua in late 2007/early 2008, there was essentially no women's sports infrastructure. They had to build it from the ground up—and they did so with the research literature as their guide.

They monitored what mattered. Instead of trying to measure everything, they focused on whether the conditions for success were being created. Did participants perceive their coaches as mentors? Did they feel safe? Was the program creating the relationship dynamics that research says produce positive outcomes? This is process evaluation—monitoring fidelity of implementation—and it's exactly right-sized for an organization of their scale.

They tracked realistic outcomes. Academic advancement. Keeping girls in school past the documented dropout cliffs. And here's something that gave me chills when Mary told me: more than two-thirds of the women now leading the program came through it as participants. Mary met them in 2008 as kids. Now they're coaching and paying it forward to girls in their own communities. That was always the vision—and it took years to realize. You can't achieve that in year one.

They connected the dots without overreaching. In her proposal, Mary linked their focused contribution to larger frameworks like the UN Sustainable Development Goals and EY's research on sport and women's leadership. She didn't pretend her $120,000 program had independently proven the long-term economic impact of girls' education. She showed that they were doing their part in a larger ecosystem, doing it well, and doing it consistently.

That is not a hedge. That is intellectual honesty. And when I tell you it's more compelling to a thoughtful reviewer than inflated claims of impact—I mean it. I've sat on enough review panels to know.

Building a Culture of Learning, Not Just Reporting

One of the most striking things Mary said in our interview—and the thing I now quote in almost every workshop I lead—was this: evaluation should be mostly about feedback and making your program better. If you create a culture of collecting information from your participants in order to improve your program, that's when you're going to get better. If you're only collecting information because you have to report it to somebody who doesn't really care, that's a problem. The data you collect should be stuff you actually want to know.

I remember nodding so hard I probably looked ridiculous on camera.

This distinction—between evaluation-for-learning and evaluation-for-compliance—is one of the most important in the nonprofit sector, and it maps perfectly onto the CART framework's "Actionable" principle. If you're not going to change anything based on the data, why are you collecting it?

Here's a practical test I now give my students that I developed after my conversation with Mary:

The Monday Morning Test. When your latest batch of participant feedback comes in, does your team gather around it on Monday morning, eager to see what it says? Or does it sit in someone's inbox until the quarterly report is due? If it's the former, you have a learning culture. If it's the latter, you have a compliance culture. The data doesn't change, but the organizational posture toward it is everything.

Organizations with genuine learning cultures tend to collect less data overall, but they use what they collect more intensively. They have shorter surveys with more focused questions. Their staff meetings include time to discuss what the data is telling them. Program adjustments happen in real-time, not once a year when the evaluation report drops.

Mary's advice was refreshingly direct: don't try to do too much or pretend your program is doing too much. Be proud of what you're actually doing and show the thought you've put into it.

In a grant landscape where reviewers are reading their thirtieth proposal of the week, that kind of clarity and confidence is magnetic. It's the difference between an organization that knows who it is and one that's trying to be everything to everyone.

Empowering Language and the Evaluation Connection

This is where our conversation took a turn that connected two of my greatest passions—storytelling and evaluation—in a way I think many organizations miss.

As many of you know, I've been traveling around the country leading workshops at conferences on using empowering language in grant writing and storytelling. This work is deeply personal to me, and during my interview with Mary, I shared some research (conducted at Stanford) finding that not only did program participants have better outcomes when empowering language was used, but that donors are equally motivated to give when organizations use empowering language as opposed to deficit-based or shaming language.

That was a lightbulb moment in our conversation because it connects directly to how organizations frame their evaluation data.

Consider two ways of presenting the same findings:

Deficit framing: "75% of participants came from food-insecure households. After 12 months in our program, food insecurity dropped to 40%."

Strengths-based framing: "Participants in our program demonstrated remarkable resilience, with 60% of families achieving food security within 12 months—a journey supported by our wraparound services and the community networks families built together."

Same data. Radically different narrative. The first positions your participants as problems to be solved. The second positions them as agents of their own transformation.

What I noticed in Mary's proposal—and what I told her during our interview—was that the quotes she used from participants showcased individuals on a journey. She didn't pull a quote about how terrible life was before Soccer Without Borders arrived. She chose quotes that showed people in motion, growing, leading. The women in the program weren't victims of their circumstances. They were, as Mary described one leader named Natalia, incredible people who were born into different circumstances and whose resilience and strength should be how they show up in an application.

Mary wrote the proposal from a first-person plural perspective—"we do this, this is our vision and story"—and she named leaders by name. She told me she intentionally tried to center the staff and kids in Nicaragua as the heroes of the story, not the American writing the proposal. And they are the heroes—that wasn't a narrative strategy, it was the truth.

Soccer Without Borders even invited researchers to examine whether their program dynamics fell into a white savior narrative—and received positive feedback that their model of authentic collaboration and intentional development of local women leaders transcended those dynamics.

The lesson for your next proposal? Your evaluation data isn't just numbers. It's a story. And how you tell that story—whether in a grant proposal, a board report, or an annual impact summary—either honors or diminishes the people at the center of your work. I wish this could become not just a norm but a rule in our field: participants are the heroes, never the victims.

Trust-Based Philanthropy and the Shifting Evaluation Landscape

Our interview touched on trust-based philanthropy, and two years later, this topic has only grown more urgent.

I asked Mary about trust-based philanthropy because I believe there is a change coming in terms of how proposals are submitted and how organizations demonstrate their work. Mary's response was one of the most honest reflections on equity in grant writing I've ever heard.

She pointed out something I think about constantly: she has a master's degree in social sciences and an undergraduate degree in a writing-heavy major, and the winning grant proposal still took her over 40 hours and three weeks to write—with help from a colleague. If the system requires that level of education and expertise to even submit a proposal, how are we going to shift power and investment dynamics into communities that have been historically underinvested in? She raised the layers that compound this problem: language barriers, technology access, the simple fact that her staff in Nicaragua—the very people whose work the proposal described—could not have applied directly under the current system.

That hit me hard. I teach grant writing, which means I'm operating within a system that I also believe needs fundamental reform. Trust-based philanthropy and right-sized evaluation share a common ancestor: the recognition that the current system of demonstrating impact creates costs that often outweigh benefits, especially for small organizations and those led by and serving marginalized communities.

Two years ago when Mary and I talked, trust-based philanthropy felt like a promising trend. Today, as competition for grant awards has intensified and many organizations are fighting for survival, the need for a more equitable and proportionate approach to evaluation isn't just nice-to-have. It's essential. The organizations doing the deepest work in the most underserved communities are often the least equipped to navigate a 20-page narrative with 40+ questions and a multi-tab budget spreadsheet—not because they lack capability, but because the system wasn't designed for them.

I'm hopeful. I'm seeing movement toward more streamlined applications, shared measurement systems, and funders who understand that not every grantee needs to independently prove what the evidence base has already established. But we're not there yet. And until we are, right-sized evaluation gives smaller organizations a way to compete with honesty and integrity rather than bluster and bloat.

Practical Steps to Right-Size Your Evaluation Today

Ready to stop over-measuring, under-measuring, or wrong-measuring? Here's the roadmap I share with my students, informed by my conversation with Mary and grounded in the Goldilocks framework.

1. Start with your theory of change. Before you collect a single data point, articulate why you believe your activities will produce your intended outcomes. What are the causal links? What evidence supports those links? This is the foundation everything else builds on. Mary was taught this early in her leadership journey—that evaluation starts with evidence-based design, not with a survey instrument.

2. Conduct a literature scan. You don't need a PhD for this. Google Scholar, SSRN, and plain-language research summaries from organizations like the Bridgespan Group, SSIR (Stanford Social Innovation Review), and Child Trends can give you a solid grounding in the evidence base for your type of intervention. What has already been proven? What don't you need to re-prove?

3. Design your program to align with the evidence. Be intentional about program components. If research says dosage matters, track dosage. If research says relationship quality matters, design for it and measure it. Soccer Without Borders didn't accidentally create a mentoring program—they designed one based on what the evidence said works.

4. Apply the CART test to every metric. For each piece of data you plan to collect, ask: Is it credible? Is it actionable? Is it responsible? Is it transportable? If the answer to any of these is no, reconsider.

5. Monitor implementation fidelity. Are you doing what you said you'd do? This is often the most neglected layer of evaluation and the one most useful for organizational learning—and, I'd argue, the most persuasive in a grant proposal. Process data—participation rates, session quality, participant feedback, staff observations—helps you improve in real time and shows reviewers that you're serious about quality.

6. Track realistic outcomes. Choose outcomes that are ambitious but achievable within a reasonable timeframe. Not everything has to be a long-term impact measure. Short-term outcomes (knowledge gained, attitudes shifted, behaviors adopted) and medium-term outcomes (school retention, employment, health indicators) are valuable and measurable. As Mary told me: pick what's right-sized for your organization and say, "Here, this is what we can control. This is what our program is designed to do."

7. Build a feedback loop. Evaluation without action is just expensive curiosity. Create structures—staff meetings, quarterly reviews, annual retreats—where data is discussed and used to make real program decisions. Make it stuff you actually want to know.

8. Tell the story honestly. Connect your data to the bigger picture using the evidence base. Show how your right-sized contribution fits into a larger ecosystem of change. Don't overstate. Don't understate. Be proud of what you're doing and show the thought behind it. In Mary's words: that needs to be enough. And having sat on review panels and judged proposals, I can tell you—when it's done well, it absolutely is.

FAQ

Q: What's the difference between monitoring and evaluation?

Monitoring is the ongoing, routine collection of data about your program's activities and outputs—think of it as checking the dashboard while you're driving. Evaluation is a more formal assessment of whether your program is achieving its intended outcomes—more like an annual vehicle inspection. Both are important, and right-sized evaluation includes both. For most small and mid-sized organizations, strong monitoring is actually more valuable on a day-to-day basis than formal evaluation. Mary described this continuum beautifully—from measurement to monitoring to long-term impact evaluation—and emphasized that the early stages are where most organizations should focus their energy.

Q: Does right-sized evaluation mean I can just skip the hard stuff?

Absolutely not. Right-sized doesn't mean easy or superficial. It means proportionate and strategic. You still need rigor—your data still needs to be credible and high quality. What changes is the scope and methodology. A well-designed pre/post survey with thoughtful questions can be far more valuable than a poorly executed quasi-experimental design.

Q: What if my funder requires a formal impact evaluation?

Start a conversation. Many funders are open to discussing what "evaluation" means in context. Some may be satisfied with strong monitoring data and evidence of your program's alignment with existing research. Others may have specific requirements that you need to meet. Either way, the right-sized framework gives you a language for having a more productive conversation about what evidence is appropriate for your organization's size and stage. If you can articulate your theory of change and show how your monitoring data connects to a broader evidence base, you're in a strong position.

Q: How do I find existing research to support my program design?

Start with these free or low-cost resources: Google Scholar for academic research; the Bridgespan Group's practical guides; Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) for practitioner-oriented analysis; Child Trends for youth-serving organizations; the Urban Institute's Outcome Indicators Project for sector-specific metrics; and the book The Goldilocks Challenge by Gugerty and Karlan for a comprehensive framework. You can also look at what indicators peer organizations are using and what outcomes their funders have accepted.

Q: Won't funders think we're lazy if we don't do our own impact evaluation?

This is the fear I hear from my students all the time, but the reality is shifting. Increasingly sophisticated funders understand that expecting a $100,000 program to produce the same quality of evidence as a multi-million-dollar research study is neither reasonable nor efficient. What funders want to see is thoughtfulness: a clear theory of change, evidence-informed program design, strong implementation monitoring, and honest reporting on realistic outcomes. Mary Connor's grant proposal—which won first place in a national contest—did exactly this. She didn't pretend Soccer Without Borders had independently proven the long-term economic impact of girls' education. She showed that they were doing their part in a larger ecosystem, doing it well, and doing it consistently. The judges loved it. Enough said.

Q: How does right-sized evaluation relate to trust-based philanthropy?

They're natural allies. Trust-based philanthropy advocates for reducing the reporting burden on nonprofits, providing multi-year unrestricted funding, and trusting organizations to use data for their own learning and improvement rather than solely for donor accountability. Right-sized evaluation provides the practical framework for what evaluation looks like in a trust-based relationship: proportionate, learning-oriented, and honest about what a given organization can and should be measuring.

Q: What is the CART framework?

CART stands for Credible, Actionable, Responsible, and Transportable. Developed by Mary Kay Gugerty and Dean Karlan in The Goldilocks Challenge, it's a set of principles for building data collection systems that are useful rather than burdensome. Data should be high quality and trustworthy (Credible), should inform real decisions (Actionable), should create more benefits than costs for staff and participants (Responsible), and should build knowledge that can be used by others and in the future (Transportable).

Q: Can small organizations really do meaningful evaluation?

Yes—and in some ways, they can do it better than large ones. Small organizations are closer to their participants, can iterate faster, and can build genuine feedback loops without bureaucratic overhead. The key is focusing on what matters most. As the Bridgespan Group advises, prioritize a shorter list of outcomes, think carefully about how you collect data (sampling may be just as informative as surveying everyone), and focus on what's important rather than burying yourself in a mountain of data. Soccer Without Borders is living proof that a $120,000 program can have a world-class evaluation strategy—one that won a national competition, no less.

Q: How does right-sized evaluation give me a competitive advantage in grant writing?

In a crowded field, reviewers can immediately tell the difference between an organization that has genuinely thought through its evaluation approach and one that has copy-pasted boilerplate language about "pre/post assessments" and "continuous quality improvement." When you ground your evaluation in existing research, monitor implementation with intention, and track outcomes that are clearly within your sphere of influence, your proposal reads as confident, credible, and self-aware. That's exactly what Mary did—and it's exactly what reviewers are looking for.

Your Next Step

You don't need a massive evaluation budget or a PhD in research methods to write a compelling evaluation section. What you need is a clear theory of change, an understanding of the evidence base behind your work, and the confidence to be honest about what your organization can realistically measure and achieve.

If this article resonated with you, I'd encourage you to start with one action this week: identify one piece of published research that supports your program's approach and bookmark it for your next proposal. That's the first step toward right-sized evaluation — and toward an evaluation section that reviewers will actually believe.

Want to go deeper? Watch my full conversation with Mary Connor of Soccer Without Borders on the Spark the Fire Interviews, and pick up a copy of The Goldilocks Challenge by Gugerty and Karlan. And if you're ready to build the skills to turn insights like these into winning proposals, check out my Certificate in Grant Writing course — where we cover everything from evaluation design to empowering storytelling so you can write with confidence from the very first draft.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Grant Writing is forthcoming in 2026.

Your Turn! Reply and Comment

👉 Now I'm curious—what's been your biggest challenge in gaining grant writing experience? Have you tried any of these paths, and if so, what worked or didn't work for you? Share your experience in the comments below.

Want more grant writing tips delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the Spark the Fire Newsletter.

Two years ago, my conversation with Mary Connor of Soccer Without Borders changed how I think about evaluation, and it continues to shape how I teach grant writing today. In a funding landscape that's more competitive than ever, the principles of right-sized evaluation aren't just academically interesting—they're a survival strategy. For more on the Goldilocks framework, I recommend The Goldilocks Challenge: Right-Fit Evidence for the Social Sector by Mary Kay Gugerty and Dean Karlan (Oxford University Press, 2018). To learn more about Soccer Without Borders and their award-winning work in Nicaragua, Uganda, and across the United States, visit their website. And if you're a grant writer or nonprofit leader wrestling with evaluation, know this: you don't have to be Harvard. You just have to be honest, intentional, and right-sized. 

Table of Contents

1. The Experience Catch-22 Every New Grant Writer Faces

2. Traditional Paths to Getting Experience

3. A Fresh Approach: Learn Grant Writing by Reviewing Proposals

4. What Is the Unfunded List?

5. Why Reviewing Proposals Makes You a Better Grant Writer

6. How to Get Started

7. FAQ

8. Your Next Step

The Experience Catch-22 Every New Grant Writer Faces

If you've ever searched for grant writing jobs, you've likely noticed the frustrating pattern: nearly every position requires three to four years of experience. But how are you supposed to get experience if no one will hire you without it?

This is the question I hear most often from my students. They've completed their grant writing training, earned their Certificate in Grant Writing, and they're ready to launch their careers. But that experience requirement feels like a locked door with no key in sight.

The good news? There are more ways around this barrier than you might think. And today, I want to share several approaches—including one that might actually be enjoyable rather than feeling like unpaid labor.

Traditional Paths to Getting Grant Writing Experience

Let's start with the paths that already exist. Some of these you've probably heard before, but a few might be new to you. Each has its own advantages and drawbacks, and the right choice depends on your current situation, schedule, and career goals.

Volunteering for Nonprofits to write grants

This is the advice most people give when you ask how to get grant writing experience, and for good reason—it works. The basic approach involves reaching out to small nonprofit organizations, offering to write a grant or two pro bono, and using those completed proposals to build your portfolio.

How it works: You identify a nonprofit whose mission resonates with you, reach out to its executive director or development staff, and offer your services. Ideally, you'll find an organization that has identified funders they want to approach but lacks the capacity to write the proposals themselves. You write the grant, they submit it, and you gain a work sample for your portfolio.

The pros: This path gives you real-world experience writing complete proposals from start to finish. You'll navigate the full process—gathering information from program staff, researching the funder, drafting and revising, and meeting a deadline. If the grant gets funded, you have a compelling success story to share with future employers or clients. You're also building relationships in the nonprofit community, which can lead to paid opportunities down the road.

The cons: This can feel like taking on a second unpaid job, especially when you're already working full-time. Finding the right organization takes effort—you need one that's organized enough to provide you with the information you need but under-resourced enough to genuinely need your help. Some volunteers find themselves chasing down program managers for budget details or waiting weeks for feedback on drafts. The timeline can stretch far longer than anticipated, and if the organization is disorganized, the experience can be frustrating rather than educational.

Resume value: High, especially if you can show funded proposals. Employers and clients want to see that you've written real grants for real organizations. Even unfunded proposals demonstrate your ability to complete the work. Be prepared to discuss what you learned from the experience and how you'd approach things differently next time.

Landing a Position with a Grant Writing Firm That Trains New grant Writers

Some grant writing firms genuinely invest in developing talent from the ground up. Rather than requiring years of experience, they hire promising candidates and provide mentorship, feedback, and gradually increasing responsibility.

How it works: You research grant writing firms in your area or those that work remotely, looking specifically for those with a reputation for training new writers. You apply, interview, and if hired, you typically start with smaller tasks—research, editing, drafting sections of proposals—before taking on full proposals independently. The firm provides oversight, feedback, and quality control while you learn.

The pros: You get paid while you learn. You benefit from structured mentorship and feedback from experienced professionals. You see how a successful grant writing operation runs, learning not just the writing but also client management, project workflow, and business practices. The experience is legitimate employment, not volunteer work, which carries weight on your resume. And you're building professional relationships that can support your career for years to come.

The cons: These positions can be competitive. Firms that invest in training new writers are desirable employers, so you may be up against other candidates with similar qualifications. The pay for entry-level positions may be modest. And not every firm that claims to train new writers actually provides meaningful mentorship—some simply expect you to figure it out on your own while billing clients for your time.

Resume value: Very high. Paid employment at a grant writing firm signals to future employers and clients that someone was willing to stake their reputation and client relationships on your work. It's concrete, verifiable experience that's difficult to question.

How to find these firms: This is exactly why we created our Inside Grant Writing Businesses webinars, held on the first Thursday of each month at 10 am Central Time. Each webinar features a panel of grant-writing firm owners who share how they run their businesses, including how they hire and train new grant writers. You'll hear directly from these firm owners about what they look for in candidates, how they onboard new team members, and whether they're currently hiring. It's the best way to identify firms that genuinely invest in developing new talent versus those that expect you to arrive fully formed. BUTTON [Link to upcoming webinars https://sparkthefiregrantwriting.com/webinars]

Serving on Grant Review Panels for Funders

Many foundations and government agencies recruit community members and professionals to serve on their review panels. This experience puts you on the other side of the table, showing you exactly how funders evaluate proposals and make funding decisions.

How it works: Funders recruit reviewers through various channels—professional associations, community networks, or open calls on their websites. Once selected, you receive training on the funder's priorities and scoring criteria. You're then assigned a set of proposals to review independently, scoring them against the rubric and providing written comments. Many panels also include group discussions where reviewers debate scores and reach consensus on funding recommendations.

The pros: This is arguably the most valuable experience you can gain for understanding what makes proposals succeed or fail. You see dozens of proposals side by side, which quickly reveals patterns—what makes some applications stand out while others fall flat. You learn the specific language and priorities of funders in a way that's impossible to grasp from the outside. You also build relationships with funder staff and fellow reviewers, expanding your professional network.

The cons: These opportunities can be competitive, especially for well-known funders. Government review panels often have specific eligibility requirements—some prefer reviewers from certain geographic areas, professional backgrounds, or demographic groups. The time commitment during review periods can be intense, with tight deadlines for reading and scoring multiple lengthy proposals. And some panels offer only modest stipends or no compensation at all.

Resume value: Extremely high. Being selected as a grant reviewer signals that a funder trusted your judgment to help allocate their resources. It demonstrates insider knowledge of the funding process that most grant writers lack. In interviews, you can speak with authority about what reviewers actually look for because you've been one.

How to find these opportunities: Check with your local community foundation, state arts council, or government agencies that administer federal pass-through funding. Many post reviewer recruitment notices on their websites. Professional associations like the Grant Professionals Association sometimes share these opportunities with members. Once you've served on one panel, you're often invited back or referred to other funders seeking reviewers.

Writing Grants for Your Own Employer

If you're currently working at a nonprofit in a non-grant-writing role, you might already be sitting on an opportunity to build experience without changing jobs.

How it works: You approach your supervisor or executive director and express interest in taking on grant writing responsibilities. This might mean writing a proposal for a small foundation grant, assisting the development director with a larger application, or taking ownership of a recurring grant that comes up for renewal. You incorporate grant writing into your existing role, either formally by changing your job description or informally as a special project.

The pros: You get paid your regular salary while building grant writing experience. You already understand the organization's programs, budget, and culture, which eliminates the learning curve that volunteers face. You have built-in access to program staff and financial information. If your proposals get funded, you're directly contributing to your organization's success, which can lead to recognition, raises, or promotions. And you can speak to this experience as paid employment, not volunteer work.

The cons: Not every employer will say yes. Some may worry about pulling you away from your primary responsibilities. Others may have existing staff who handle grants and don't want to share the territory. The quality of mentorship varies—if no one in your organization has strong grant writing skills, you may be learning through trial and error rather than guidance. And if your organization has a troubled relationship with funders or a weak track record, it may be harder to achieve funding success.

Resume value: High. This is paid professional experience within an organization, which employers respect. You can point to specific grants you wrote, dollars raised, and programs funded. The experience also demonstrates initiative—you identified a need and stepped up to fill it.

How to approach the conversation: Frame your request around organizational benefit, not just your own career development. Come prepared with specific grant opportunities you've identified, a realistic timeline, and a plan for balancing grant writing with your current duties. Offer to start small with a single proposal before taking on more.

Subcontracting with Established Grant Writers

Some experienced grant writers take on more work than they can handle and look for trained writers to assist with various tasks. This arrangement lets you learn from a mentor while building your portfolio.

How it works: You connect with established freelance grant writers or small firms and offer to assist with their overflow work. This might include conducting prospect research, gathering data for needs statements, drafting sections of proposals, editing and proofreading, or formatting final submissions. As trust builds, you may take on larger portions of proposals or eventually full projects under the lead writer's supervision.

The pros: You learn directly from someone who's already successful in the field. You see how experienced professionals approach projects, manage client relationships, and solve problems. The work is often paid, even if at a lower rate than you'd earn independently. You build a relationship with someone who can refer clients to you, provide references, and offer ongoing mentorship. And you gain work samples without having to find your own clients.

The cons: Finding these opportunities requires networking and relationship-building—established writers won't hire you if they don't know you exist. The pay for subcontract work may be modest, especially when you're starting out. The work may be behind the scenes, meaning you can't always claim public credit for proposals you helped write. And quality varies—some lead writers are generous mentors while others simply want cheap labor.

Resume value: Moderate to high, depending on how you frame it. You can describe the types of proposals you worked on, the role you played, and the outcomes. Be honest about your level of contribution—saying you "assisted with" a proposal is different from saying you "wrote" it. If the lead writer is willing to serve as a reference, that adds significant credibility.

How to find these opportunities: Attend conferences and professional association meetings where grant writers gather. Join online communities and LinkedIn groups for grant professionals. Reach out directly to freelancers whose work you admire, introducing yourself and expressing interest in supporting their projects. The Grant Professionals Association is an excellent network for making these connections.

Pro Bono grant writing Work Through Organized Programs

Organizations like Catchafire and VolunteerMatch connect skilled volunteers with nonprofits seeking specific help, including grant writing. These platforms remove some of the friction from traditional volunteering by handling the matching process.

How it works: You create a profile on the platform, listing your skills and availability. Nonprofits post projects they need help with, including grant writing. The platform matches you with opportunities that fit your profile, or you browse and apply to projects that interest you. Once matched, you work directly with the nonprofit to complete the project within a defined scope and timeline.

The pros: The matching process is streamlined—you don't have to cold-call dozens of nonprofits hoping to find one that needs help. Projects are typically scoped with clear deliverables and timelines, which helps prevent the indefinite commitment creep that can happen with informal volunteering. The platforms often provide structure and accountability that benefits both volunteers and nonprofits. You can browse opportunities from anywhere, making it possible to find projects that match your interests even if local options are limited.

The cons: Popular opportunities can be competitive, with multiple volunteers applying for the same project. The scope defined on the platform may not match reality once you start working with the nonprofit. And because these platforms serve many types of skill-based volunteering, the volume of grant writing opportunities specifically may be limited depending on when you're looking.

Resume value: Moderate to high. Completing projects through these platforms demonstrates your ability to deliver results in a professional context. You can describe the projects, the organizations you helped, and the outcomes. Some platforms provide verification or badges that confirm your completed work.

Which platforms to try: Catchafire is specifically designed for skill-based volunteering and has a strong focus on nonprofit capacity building. VolunteerMatch is a broader platform with a wider range of opportunities. Taproot Foundation is another option that connects professionals with pro bono consulting projects, though grant writing opportunities may be less frequent.

Internal Grants at Your Workplace

Some large employers—including hospitals, universities, government agencies, and corporations—have internal grant programs or mini-grant competitions. Writing applications for these internal funding opportunities can build your skills in a lower-stakes environment.

How it works: Your employer allocates funding for internal projects and invites employees or departments to apply. These might be innovation grants, professional development funds, community engagement projects, or research seed funding. You write an application following the internal guidelines, your proposal is reviewed by a committee, and funding is awarded to selected projects.

The pros: The stakes are lower than external grant writing. You're working within a familiar environment with colleagues who can provide feedback and guidance. The application process often mirrors external grantmaking, giving you practice with needs statements, objectives, budgets, and evaluation plans. If your proposal is funded, you have a success story to share. And you're demonstrating initiative and leadership to your employer.

The cons: Not all employers have these programs. Internal grants are typically smaller in scope than external foundation or government grants, so the experience may not fully translate. The competition may be internal rather than open, which provides less insight into how external funders evaluate proposals. And the process may be less rigorous than external grantmaking, offering fewer learning opportunities.

Resume value: Moderate. This experience shows initiative and basic grant writing competence, but employers evaluating your candidacy for grant writing positions will likely want to see external grants as well. Frame internal grants as part of your learning journey rather than the entirety of your experience.

How to find these opportunities: Check your employer's intranet for funding announcements. Talk to colleagues in research administration, employee engagement, or corporate social responsibility departments. If your employer doesn't have formal internal grants, there may still be discretionary funds that managers can allocate—making a compelling case for a project you want to pursue is grant writing practice in itself.

Writing Grants for Your Local School or Fire Department

Sometimes the best place to start building experience is right in your own community. Local schools and fire departments frequently need grant funding but often lack dedicated staff to pursue it. These grants tend to be smaller and more straightforward than complex federal applications, making them ideal for new grant writers looking to build confidence and rack up some early wins.

How it works: You reach out to a local school principal, teacher, or fire chief and offer to help them apply for grants. For schools, this might mean helping an individual teacher apply for a classroom grant from organizations such as the American Association of Educators Classroom Grants, Fund for Teachers, the American Association of School Librarians Innovative Reading Grant, Dollar General Summer Literacy Grant, DonorsChoose, or local education foundations. For fire departments, you might pursue equipment grants from FEMA's Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation, or state-level emergency services funding. You gather the necessary information, write the proposal, and support them through submission.

The pros: These grants often have simpler applications and shorter turnaround times than large foundation or government grants, so you can complete projects quickly and see results faster. You may have a personal connection to the outcome—if your kids attend the school or you live in the fire district, you directly benefit from the funded programs. Teachers and fire chiefs are often deeply grateful for the help, which can lead to enthusiastic references and word-of-mouth referrals. And because these are real grants with real funding attached, any wins go straight into your portfolio as concrete evidence of your abilities.

The cons: The grant amounts are typically smaller, so you won't be able to claim you've secured six-figure funding through this path alone. Some school districts have policies about who can submit grants on their behalf, so you may need to navigate bureaucratic approval. And while the applications are simpler, you'll still need access to information like budgets, program descriptions, and organizational data, which requires cooperation from busy educators or first responders.

Resume value: Moderate to high for entry-level positions. Funded classroom or equipment grants demonstrate that you can identify opportunities, write winning proposals, and deliver results. Employers understand that everyone starts somewhere, and showing initiative in your own community reflects well on your character and commitment. As you build experience, these early wins become part of a larger story of growth.

How to get started: If you have children in school, start by talking to their teachers about whether they've considered applying for classroom grants. Many teachers know these opportunities exist, but don't have time to pursue them. For fire departments, contact your local station and ask to speak with whoever handles grants or administrative matters—in smaller departments, this is often the fire chief directly. Come prepared with a few specific grant opportunities you've researched so they can see you're serious and informed.

But here's an option that combines the accessibility of volunteering with a genuinely engaging learning experience—one that feels less like unpaid work and more like professional development.

A Fresh Approach: Learn Grant Writing by Reviewing Proposals

What if instead of writing grants for free, you could learn by reviewing them?

Think about it. When you review someone else's proposal, you see what works and what doesn't. You notice where the narrative loses momentum, where the budget doesn't quite align with the activities, and where the need statement falls flat. You develop the critical eye that separates competent grant writers from exceptional ones.

This is exactly the opportunity that the Unfunded List provides.

What Is the Unfunded List?

The Unfunded List is a 501(c)(3) organization that has been providing constructive feedback to grantseekers since 2015. They've reviewed more than 1,500 proposals from organizations around the world, helping nonprofits strengthen their applications and increase their fundraising success.

Here's a statistic that caught my attention: nonprofits that go through their review program raise over twice as much funding within five years on average. That tells me the feedback they provide is substantive and actionable.

The organization relies on volunteer reviewers to make this work happen. And that's where the opportunity lies for aspiring grant writers.

Why Reviewing Grant Proposals Makes You a Better Grant Writer

When you volunteer as a proposal reviewer with the Unfunded List, you're not just padding your resume. You're developing skills that will serve you throughout your grant writing career.

You learn to identify weak spots

Reading proposals with a critical eye trains you to recognize common mistakes, from vague objectives to unsupported budget line items. Once you can spot these issues in others' work, you become better at avoiding them in your own.

You see a variety of grant writing approaches

Reviewing multiple proposals exposes you to different writing styles, organizational structures, and ways of presenting information. This breadth of exposure accelerates your learning far beyond what you'd gain from writing one or two proposals on your own.

You practice giving constructive feedback

The ability to articulate what's working and what needs improvement is valuable whether you're reviewing a colleague's draft, responding to funder feedback, or mentoring new grant writers down the road.

You build legitimate grant writing experience

When you can tell a potential employer or client that you've reviewed dozens of real grant proposals, you demonstrate both knowledge and commitment to the field.

You contribute to something meaningful

Unlike some volunteer opportunities that feel like busywork, helping organizations improve their proposals has real impact. Better proposals mean more funded programs, which in turn mean more communities served.

How to Get Started

Getting involved with the Unfunded List is straightforward.

To volunteer as a proposal reviewer, sign up here:

If you have questions or want to learn more, you can reach out to Dave Moss directly through their website.

FAQ

What is the best way to learn how to write grants before I start getting experience?

Enroll in the Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing course, rated as the top grant writing education program in the nation for four consecutive years. You'll build a strong foundation in grant writing fundamentals so you can approach any of these experience-building paths with confidence.

Do I need grant writing experience to volunteer as a reviewer?

The Unfunded List welcomes reviewers at various experience levels. The key is a willingness to provide thoughtful, constructive feedback. If you've completed grant writing training and understand the fundamentals of what makes a strong proposal, you have enough foundation to contribute meaningfully.

How much time does reviewing grant proposals require?

Time commitments vary depending on the review round and how many proposals you choose to review. The organization works with volunteers to find a level of involvement that fits their schedules.

Will this count as professional grant writing experience on my resume?

Yes. Volunteer experience is legitimate experience, especially when it involves substantive work like reviewing grant proposals. You can list this on your resume and speak to it in interviews, describing what you learned and how many proposals you reviewed.

Is this only for people who want to become grant writers?

Not at all. Nonprofit staff who submit grant applications can also benefit from understanding what reviewers look for. Development directors, program managers, and executive directors would all gain valuable perspective from this experience.

How is this different from serving on a grant review panel for a funder?

Funder review panels are excellent experience but can be competitive to join and may have specific eligibility requirements. The Unfunded List offers a more accessible entry point, though the learning benefits are similar.

Can I do this while working full-time?

Absolutely. Many volunteers balance reviewing with other professional commitments. Because you're reviewing proposals rather than writing them, you have more flexibility in when and how you complete the work.

Your Next Step

Building grant writing experience doesn't have to mean years of unpaid labor or waiting for the perfect job to materialize. Whether you subcontract with an established writer, propose taking on grants at your current job, or volunteer as a reviewer with the Unfunded List, there are paths forward that fit different schedules and circumstances.

If you're ready to take action, sign up to volunteer as a reviewer today. And if you want to explore the firm route, join us for our next Inside Grant Writing webinar on the first Thursday of the month, where you'll hear directly from firm owners about what they look for when hiring new grant writers.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Your Turn! Reply and Comment

👉 Now I'm curious—what's been your biggest challenge in gaining grant writing experience? Have you tried any of these paths, and if so, what worked or didn't work for you? Share your experience in the comments below.

Want more grant writing tips delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the Spark the Fire Newsletter.

One of the questions I'm asked most frequently is: where do you find grant opportunities?

If you're running out of prospects or your searches keep turning up the same handful of funders, here's a startling fact: ninety percent of foundations do not have websites.

That means if you're only searching Google, you're missing out on the vast majority of funding opportunities. This is where grant prospect research databases come in. These specialized tools give you access to hundreds of thousands of grantmaker profiles that you simply cannot find through a standard internet search.

After testing dozens of databases over the years, I've narrowed it down to three tried-and-true leaders plus one newcomer worth your attention in 2026. Let's dig in.

What's in This Article

• Criteria We Use to Evaluate Databases

• The Best Grant Prospect Research Databases of 2026

• Quick Comparison: Which Database Includes What?

• Pricing Summary

• Pro Tip: Why You Should Rotate Databases

• Frequently Asked Questions

Criteria We Use to Evaluate Databases

Not all grant databases are created equal. To determine the best options for 2026, we evaluated each platform against these criteria:

Number of Funder Profiles: How many grantmaker profiles are in the database? Competition is fierce for the best-known funders. Finding lesser-known grantmakers decreases competition and increases your likelihood of success.

Types of Funders Included: Does the database include private foundations only, or does it also cover government grants, corporate giving, clubs and associations, donor-advised funds, or international funders? The broader the coverage, the more opportunities you'll discover.

No Limitations by Grant Amount: Some databases exclude grantmakers who give under a threshold amount, such as $5,000. Small and rural organizations depend on these smaller grants, so we excluded databases with these limitations.

Mapping Features: The ability to plot where grants were given on a map helps you pinpoint the specific locations where funders make grants. Many grantmakers limit their giving to specific geographies, so seeing exactly where grants have been made helps you determine which funders to prioritize.

Email Reminders and Alerts: The best databases send you deadline reminders and new opportunities to review. Remembering to log into a database is far less effective than having opportunities delivered to your inbox.

Grants Management Capabilities: Can you track the grants you have submitted and plan to submit within the database? Some platforms allow you to create task lists, monitor deadlines, and manage your entire pipeline.

AI-Powered Features: New for 2026, we're evaluating whether databases incorporate artificial intelligence to improve prospect matching, provide explanations for why funders align with your organization, or offer personalized recommendations.

The Best Grant Prospect Research Databases of 2026

1. Instrumentl

Instrumentl continues to lead the pack with the most comprehensive funder database on the market. What sets Instrumentl apart is how it works behind the scenes for you. Once you set up a project—something you want funding for—the platform keeps doing the research automatically and emails you new matches as they're discovered. You're not just searching once; you have an ongoing research assistant working in the background.

The database accuracy is exceptional. Instrumentl has a large staff constantly updating funder profiles to ensure the information you're seeing is current. Like Candid, Instrumentl also provides AI-powered funder recommendations with explanations for why each funder aligns with your organization—so you're not just getting a list, you're getting context.

The platform combines prospecting with pipeline management, allowing you to track prospects through the entire grant lifecycle from identification to submission to award.

One unique feature worth noting: Instrumentl includes donor-advised funds (DAFs) in their database. DAFs are notoriously difficult to research because they don't file their own 990s, so having them searchable here is a significant advantage.

INSTRUMENTL AT A GLANCE

Funder Profiles: 410,000 (the largest)

Funder Types: Private foundations, corporate funders, federal & state government, community foundations, clubs & societies, donor-advised funds

Pricing (monthly, with annual subscription):

• Basic: $179/month

• Core: $299/month

• Pro Consultant: $499/month

Free Trial: Yes — Spark the Fire readers get a three-week free trial (instead of the standard two weeks) plus $50 off with code SPARKTHEFIRE50

Standout Features: Automated ongoing research, AI-powered funder matching with explanations, DAF inclusion, and excellent grants management

Best For: Organizations wanting prospecting and pipeline management unified in one powerful system with ongoing automated research

2. Candid

Big news for 2026: Candid Search officially launched on January 15, 2026, finally merging GuideStar and Foundation Directory data into a single platform. This is the culmination of the 2019 merger, and it's been worth the wait.

The new platform consolidates 1.9 million organizations, 3 million annual grant transactions, and $180 billion in annual grant dollars in one place. No more switching between sites to access nonprofit and funder data.

Candid has long set the industry standard for geographic mapping—you can pinpoint where a foundation makes grants down to the city, county, or even legislative district. This level of granularity saves significant research time. The new platform adds AI-powered funder recommendations with explanations for why each funder aligns with your organization, plus personalized dashboards that learn from your searches.

Here's something remarkable: The pricing dropped from approximately $299/month to around $100/month for Premium. That's a 66% decrease for the industry-standard research tool.

And here's something exciting for small nonprofits: Organizations with under $1 million in revenue or operating expenses can get Candid Premium for FREE when they earn a Gold Seal of Transparency. If you haven't claimed your Candid profile yet, now is the time. (Stay tuned—I'm working on a guide to help you earn your Gold Seal.)

CANDID AT A GLANCE

Funder Profiles: 304,000

Funder Types: Private & independent foundations, corporate foundations, public charities, U.S. federal funders (new with 2026 platform), international foundations

Pricing (monthly, with annual subscription): Approximately $100/month for Premium (down from $299!)

Free Access: Small nonprofits under $1M revenue get Premium FREE with a Gold Seal of Transparency

Free Trial: No

Standout Features: Best-in-class geographic mapping (down to legislative district), merged GuideStar + Foundation Directory data, AI-powered recommendations, data visualization coming soon

Best For: Deep researchers who want industry-standard data and small nonprofits who can access Premium for free through the Gold Seal program

3. GrantStation

GrantStation was acquired by Elios Media Group in September 2024 and launched a refreshed dashboard in May 2025. The platform continues to offer comprehensive filter-based prospect research with an intuitive, easy-to-understand taxonomy.

What I appreciate about GrantStation is its accessibility and breadth of funder types. The interface is clean and straightforward—you don't need extensive training to start finding prospects.

GrantStation has two unique features you won't find elsewhere:

First, it's the only database that includes a specific filter for clubs and associations—think Rotary, Lions Club, Kiwanis, Elks, and similar organizations. If you're a smaller nonprofit looking for community-based funders, this is a significant advantage.

Second, GrantStation includes giving circles—groups of individuals who pool their money and decide together where to give. These funders are nearly impossible to find through other databases.

The platform also separates U.S., Canadian, and international funders into distinct search engines, making it easier to focus your research geographically. You can search U.S. charitable, federal, and state funders, plus Canadian charitable and government funders, plus international charitable funders—all through dedicated search tools.

GRANTSTATION AT A GLANCE

Funder Profiles: 150,000

Funder Types: Private foundations, corporate foundations, community foundations, corporate giving programs, faith-based funders, clubs & associations (Rotary, Lions, etc.), giving circles, U.S. federal & state government, Canadian government, international funders

Pricing (monthly, with annual subscription): $58/month ($699/year) regular price, or $12/month ($140/year) with the Spark the Fire discount code

Free Trial: No, but at this price point, the risk is minimal

Standout Features: Only database with clubs/associations filter, includes giving circles, broadest funder type coverage, separate search engines for U.S./Canadian/international

Best For: Organizations new to prospect research, those on tight budgets, or anyone seeking clubs, associations, and giving circles as funders

Email me at allison@sparkthefiregrantwriting.com to request the discount code.

4. Grant Frog — The Newcomer

Grant Frog started as a grants management platform and has expanded into prospect research—and they've done it well. Their Foundation and Grant Discovery Database now includes 190,000 funders, pulled directly from IRS 990 forms.

What makes Grant Frog interesting is that it was built from the ground up for grants management by a working grant professional. If your primary need is tracking proposals, reports, deadlines, and funder relationships—and you also want solid prospecting built in—Grant Frog offers both in one affordable package.

The platform includes team collaboration features, automated email reminders, and task tracking. It's designed for organizations that want to run a structured grants program without juggling multiple tools.

One limitation to note: Because Grant Frog pulls data from 990 forms, the database includes foundations as well as some clubs, associations, and corporations. If you need government funding, you'll want to pair Grant Frog with Grants.gov.

GRANT FROG AT A GLANCE

Funder Profiles: 190,000

Funder Types: Private foundations (data sourced from IRS 990 forms; does not include government grants)

Pricing (monthly, with annual subscription):

• Essentials: $99/month (2 users, 200 proposals)

• Professional: $149/month (4 users, 1,000 proposals)

• Premium: $349/month (10 users, 3,000 proposals)

Free Trial: Yes, 14 days with no credit card required

Standout Features: Excellent grants management, team collaboration, built by a grant writer for grant writers, 990 data visualization

Best For: Teams wanting solid prospecting with built-in grants management and collaboration features

Quick Comparison: Which Database Includes What?

Looking for federal or state government grants? ✓ Instrumentl ✓ GrantStation ✓ Candid (new with 2026 platform) ✗ Grant Frog

Looking for clubs and associations (Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis)? ✓ GrantStation (dedicated filter — unique!) ✓ Instrumentl ✗ Candid ✗ Grant Frog

Looking for giving circles? ✓ GrantStation (unique!) ✗ Others

Looking for donor-advised funds (DAFs)? ✓ Instrumentl (unique!) ✗ Others

Looking for international funders? ✓ GrantStation (dedicated search engine) ✓ Candid ✓ Instrumentl ✗ Grant Frog

Need excellent grants management built in? ✓ Instrumentl (excellent) ✓ Grant Frog (excellent) ○ Candid (basic) ○ GrantStation (basic)

Need AI-powered features? ✓ Instrumentl ✓ Candid ✗ GrantStation ○ Grant Frog (limited)

Best geographic mapping? Candid leads (down to city, county, legislative district), followed by Instrumentl

Pricing Summary

All prices shown as monthly rate with annual subscription

Instrumentl

• Basic: $179/month

• Core: $299/month

• Pro Consultant: $499/month

• Free 3-week trial + $50 off with code SPARKTHEFIRE50

Candid

• Premium: ~$100/month (down from $299!)

• FREE for small nonprofits (under $1M revenue) with Gold Seal of Transparency

GrantStation

• Regular: $58/month ($699/year)

• With Spark the Fire code: $12/month ($140/year)

• Email allison@sparkthefiregrantwriting.com for discount code

Grant Frog

• Essentials: $99/month

• Professional: $149/month

• Premium: $349/month

• 14-day free trial available

Pro Tip: Why You Should Rotate Databases

Here's something I've discovered after years of prospect research: you can find a grantmaker in one database, cross-reference it in another, and it's not there.

This is true across all of them. Each database has different data sources, different update schedules, and different inclusion criteria. A foundation that appears in Instrumentl might not show up in Candid, and vice versa.

My recommendation? Don't marry yourself to one database forever. Consider rotating your subscription every year or two to discover fresh prospects. The funders you find in your second year with a new database might be completely different from what you found before—and that means less competition and new opportunities for your organization.

A Note on Affiliate Links

Did you know? Spark the Fire offers scholarships for our grant writing courses, funded by affiliate commissions from Instrumentl and GrantStation. This scholarship fund supports Native American grant professionals, in honor of my great-grandfather, who was Native American.

When you use our affiliate links, you're not just getting a great deal—you're helping make grant writing education accessible to those who might not otherwise afford it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a grant prospect research database?

A grant prospect research database (sometimes called a grants database or funder database) is a specialized tool that compiles information on foundations, corporations, and government agencies that provide grant funding. These databases include grantmaker profiles, giving histories, application guidelines, and contact information that you cannot easily find through internet searches. Remember: 90% of foundations don't have websites, so these databases are essential for comprehensive prospect research.

Which database is best for small nonprofits?

For small nonprofits on tight budgets, I recommend starting with GrantStation at $140/year with our discount code. If your organization has under $1 million in revenue, you can also get Candid Premium for free by earning a Gold Seal of Transparency—that's an incredible deal for the industry-standard research tool.

Which database has the most funders?

Instrumentl leads with 410,000 funder profiles, followed by Candid (304,000), Grant Frog (190,000), and GrantStation (150,000). However, more isn't always better—the types of funders matter too. GrantStation has the broadest variety of funder types, while Grant Frog focuses exclusively on foundations.

Can I use more than one database?

Absolutely, and many larger organizations do. Each database has different strengths and different funder coverage. However, for most small to mid-sized organizations, one database at a time is sufficient—just consider rotating which one you use every year or two to find fresh prospects.

Where can I find clubs and associations like Rotary or Lions Club?

GrantStation is the only database with a dedicated filter for clubs and associations. They also include giving circles, which are nearly impossible to find elsewhere. Check your local newspaper or the yellow pages for clubs and association meetings near you.

Where can I research donor-advised funds (DAFs)?

Instrumentl includes donor-advised funds in their database—a unique feature since DAFs don't file their own 990s and are notoriously difficult to research.

Do any databases offer free trials?

Instrumentl offers a three-week free trial for Spark the Fire readers (use our link). Grant Frog offers a 14-day free trial with no credit card required. Candid and GrantStation do not currently offer free trials.

What's new in grant databases for 2026?

The biggest developments are the Candid merger going live and AI-powered features across platforms. Candid Search launched January 15, 2026, finally combining GuideStar and Foundation Directory data—and dropped prices from $299 to $100/month. Instrumentl's AI now explains why funders match your organization, not just that they exist. The field is evolving rapidly.

What about AI writing tools for grant proposals?

Great question—that's a topic for another article! AI writing assistants are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and several of these databases are adding AI writing features. Stay tuned for our upcoming comparison of AI grant writing tools.

Conclusion

There's no single "best" grant prospect research database—it depends on your organization's needs, budget, and workflow. But you can't go wrong with any of these four options in 2026:

Instrumentl for the most comprehensive database, automated ongoing research, and best-in-class pipeline management—plus unique access to donor-advised funds

Candid for industry-standard research depth, unmatched geographic mapping, and free access for qualifying small nonprofits through the Gold Seal program

GrantStation for budget-friendly simplicity and the widest variety of funder types—including the only dedicated filters for clubs, associations, and giving circles

Grant Frog for teams who need prospecting and grants management in one platform, built by a grant writer who understands your workflow

The field is evolving fast. Whichever you choose, remember that these tools are designed to save you time and surface opportunities you'd never find on your own. That 90% of foundations without websites? Now you know how to find them.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Your Turn! Reply and Comment

👉 What databases do you use? I'd love to hear from you in the comments.

Want more grant writing tips delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the Spark the Fire Newsletter.

A few years ago, I was working with a grant writing client who clearly needed help with fundraising beyond grants. His direct mail appeals weren't working, and from time to time I'd give him pointers—pro bono, just because I could see the gap.

Eventually, he asked me directly: "Can your company provide fundraising services too?"

We couldn't. Not then. We didn't have the capacity or the expertise to take that on responsibly.

But the question stayed with me. Here was a client I understood deeply—his mission, his challenges, his community. I was already analyzing his organizational capacity for every grant proposal. I could see what he needed. And I had to send him elsewhere to get it.

I know you've been there.

You're midway through a grant proposal when you realize something: this organization needs more than grant writing help. Maybe their strategic plan is five years old and gathering dust. Maybe they're entirely grant-dependent with no individual donor program to speak of. Maybe their board doesn't understand their fundraising role—or worse, their governance role.

You see the gap. You could refer them to another consultant. But what if you could fill that gap yourself?

This is the quiet career evolution happening across our profession. Grant writers are becoming nonprofit consultants—not by abandoning grant writing, but by expanding around it. The logic is simple: we already understand these organizations deeply. Every needs statement requires us to analyze root causes. Every proposal forces us to assess organizational capacity. Every budget reveals financial health (or lack thereof).

We're already doing organizational analysis. We just don't always name it that way.

The question isn't whether you can expand your services. It's how to do it responsibly and well.

Why Grant Writers Are Uniquely Positioned for Nonprofit Consulting

Grant writing is fundamentally an analytical profession. To write a compelling proposal, you must understand:

• Mission alignment: How programs connect to organizational purpose

• Community insight statement: The root causes behind the problems your client addresses

• Organizational capacity: Whether the nonprofit can actually deliver what it promises

• Financial sustainability: How the budget reflects true costs and long-term viability

• Outcomes and evaluation: What success looks like and how to measure it

These same competencies form the foundation of nonprofit consulting. The grant professional who can assess whether an organization is ready for a federal grant has already evaluated governance, financial systems, and programmatic capacity. The leap to offering those assessments as standalone services is shorter than it appears.

And here's what I've observed through years of hosting expert panelists in webinars: consulting firms that provide an array of services tend to perform better than those offering grant writing alone. But there's an important nuance—they typically accomplish this by hiring or partnering with experts in other areas, not by one person trying to learn everything themselves.

This points to a different model than "become an expert in everything." It might mean partnering with a strategic planning facilitator and cross-training each other. It might mean building a referral network where you can serve clients holistically through trusted colleagues. Organizations like Funding for Good have built successful models around this kind of collaborative approach.

The solopreneur who tries to master strategic planning, fund development, board governance, evaluation, and financial management all at once may be setting themselves up for mediocrity in everything rather than excellence in a few things.

The AI Factor: What Remains Uniquely Human

Let's name something that's shaping this conversation: AI is changing grant writing. Tools can now draft proposals, summarize RFPs, and generate boilerplate language faster than any human.

So what remains uniquely human in our work?

Understanding the complexities of nonprofits and meeting them where they are.

As a consultant, I've come to see my role as becoming part of each client's journey for a while. My goal is to elevate their work as best I can during our time together. I know I'm not going to be with them forever—and I don't think I should be. Part of serving clients well is knowing when to move out of the way so someone else can take them to the next level, whether that's because of my own capacity limitations, my expertise boundaries, or sometimes simply because the nonprofit needs to hear something from a fresh voice.

This relationship-based consulting—the facilitation, the organizational understanding, the ability to read a room and know what a board needs to hear—is precisely what AI cannot automate. The strategic thinking that synthesizes mission, community context, organizational culture, and funder priorities into a coherent path forward requires human judgment and human relationship.

Expanding into consulting services isn't just a business diversification strategy. It's a way to lean into what makes our work meaningful and irreplaceable.

That said, understanding AI is also valuable. Grant professionals who want to leverage AI tools effectively while maintaining the human elements that matter most might consider programs like Kellogg Executive Education's AI Portfolio at Northwestern University.

Common Client Needs That Go Beyond Grant Writing

If you've been writing grants for any length of time, you've encountered these situations:

Strategic Planning Gaps

You see the need when: The client can't articulate priorities. Everything is urgent. Programs don't connect to a cohesive mission. The strategic plan—if one exists—bears no relationship to what the organization actually does.

The service opportunity: Strategic planning facilitation, mission clarification, theory of change development, and program alignment consulting.

Fund Development Deficiencies

You see the need when: The client treats grants as their entire fundraising strategy. No individual donors. No major gift prospects. No annual fund. Just a desperate scramble from grant deadline to grant deadline.

The service opportunity: Fund development planning, fundraising diversification strategy, donor cultivation systems, and case statement development.

Board Development Challenges

You see the need when: The board is disengaged or confused about their role. They don't fundraise. They don't govern. They show up to meetings (sometimes) and approve whatever staff puts in front of them.

The service opportunity: Board governance training, board recruitment strategy, fundraising role clarity, and board self-assessment facilitation.

Evaluation and Outcomes Measurement Weaknesses

You see the need when: The client can't answer "what difference did you make?" They have no outcomes data, no evaluation system, no way to demonstrate impact beyond anecdotes.

The service opportunity: Logic model development, outcomes measurement system design, evaluation planning, and impact reporting frameworks.

Nonprofit Financial Management Issues

You see the need when: Budgets don't make sense. The client doesn't understand indirect costs. Cash flow is a mystery. They're not sure how much programs actually cost to run. The program budgets aren't itemized, but rather just a percentage of the organizational budget.

The service opportunity: Financial sustainability planning, true cost analysis, budget development training, and cash flow management consulting.

How to Build Skills for Expanded Nonprofit Consulting Services

Here's the honest truth: seeing a need and being qualified to address it are two different things. The grant writing profession has a credentialing system for a reason. If you're going to expand your services, you need to invest in building genuine competence.

Training for Strategic Planning Facilitation

The skill here isn't just knowing what goes in a strategic plan—it's facilitation. You need to learn how to guide a group through a process, manage competing voices, and help an organization reach decisions that will actually stick.

Where to get trained:

• Consultants Development Institute: How to Facilitate Nonprofit Strategic Plans

• University of Texas Rio Grande Valley: Strategic Planning Certificate

• Conscious Governance: Strategic Planning Facilitation

• Duke University Nonprofit Certificate Intensive Track — Covers strategic planning, evaluation, finance, board development, and grant writing in an 8-day intensive

• State nonprofit association workshops

How to build experience:

• Shadow an experienced facilitator on two or three engagements

• Co-facilitate with a seasoned consultant who can mentor you

• Volunteer to facilitate planning for a small nonprofit to build your skills before charging for them

Training for Fund Development Planning

This is about understanding how all the fundraising pieces fit together—grants, individual donors, major gifts, events, planned giving—and helping an organization build a realistic, diversified strategy.

Where to get trained:

• University of Washington: Fundraising Management Certificate

• Northwestern University School of Professional Studies: Fundraising Professional Certificate — Covers major gifts, planned gifts, capital campaigns, and donor psychology

• Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) courses and CFRE credential

• The Fund Raising School at Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

• Veritus Group for major gifts training

Training for Board Development

Nothing teaches board dynamics like serving on boards yourself. Beyond personal experience, formal training helps you guide others.

Where to get trained:

• BoardSource: Certificate in Nonprofit Board Consulting

• State nonprofit association governance training

• National Council of Nonprofits resources

How to build experience:

• Serve on nonprofit boards yourself (this is invaluable firsthand experience)

• Observe board meetings as a consultant to understand different governance styles

Training for Program Evaluation

This is increasingly essential as funders demand evidence of impact and grant proposals require stronger evaluation plans.

Where to get trained:

• American Evaluation Association: Education Programs

• Portland State University: Professional Certificate in Program Evaluation — 6-month virtual program where you design and implement an actual evaluation; uses culturally-responsive framework (~$2,600)

• Indiana University O'Neill School: Public & Nonprofit Evaluation Certificate — 15 credits online; strong research methods focus; can complete in one year

• Arizona State University: Program Evaluation Certificate — Online; quantitative tools focus including regression and GIS applications

• University of Colorado Denver: Graduate Certificate in Program Evaluation

How to build experience:

• Partner with an experienced evaluator on a project to learn the craft

• Start by strengthening evaluation sections of your grant proposals, then expand from there

Training for Nonprofit Financial Management

The goal isn't to become a CPA—it's to understand nonprofit finance well enough to help organizations make better decisions and write stronger grant budgets.

Where to get trained:

• Propel Nonprofits: Fundamentals of Nonprofit Finance

• University of Washington: Nonprofit Management Certificate

• Harvard Kennedy School: Nonprofit Financial Stewardship — 5-week online program connecting mission, money, and impact; part of their Executive Certificate series

• Cornell University (eCornell): Financial Success for Nonprofits Certificate — Comprehensive online program covering statements, budgeting, fundraising, and governance

• Rice University: Nonprofit Finance Certificate — Cohort-based with practicum project; up to 50% financial aid for Houston-area 501c3 employees

• Northwestern University Kellogg: Nonprofit Accounting & Finance — For senior executives; up to 50% scholarships available; CFRE credits

• State nonprofit association workshops

When Expanding Isn't Right for You

Here's something most "grow your business" articles won't tell you: not every grant writer should become a nonprofit consultant.

Facilitation is an art in its own right, just like public speaking. An introvert who thrives behind the scenes crafting compelling narratives may not be the best person to stand in front of a board and guide them through a contentious strategic conversation. And that's okay.

Some grant professionals love the craft of writing—the research, the synthesis, the satisfaction of a well-constructed proposal. They don't want to facilitate retreats or coach executive directors or navigate board dynamics. That's a valid choice, not a limitation.

If you recognize yourself in this description, the answer isn't to force yourself into consulting. The answer is to build a strong referral network of trusted colleagues who do that work well. When your client needs strategic planning help, you connect them with your facilitator colleague. When they need board development, you know exactly who to call.

This serves your clients just as well—maybe better—than trying to do everything yourself at a mediocre level. And it keeps you doing work that energizes rather than drains you.

The grant writing profession needs excellent writers who stay excellent writers. Don't let anyone convince you that expansion is the only path to professional growth.

Ethical Considerations When Expanding Your Grant Writing Practice

For those who do want to expand, here's what keeps me up at night about this trend: how do you ethically provide a service you're still learning?

I don't have a perfect answer, but I have guidelines that have served me well.

Be Transparent About Your Experience Level

If you're building competence in a new area, tell your client. "I've facilitated three strategic planning processes, and here's what I learned" is very different from "I'm an expert in strategic planning." Clients deserve to know what they're getting.

Price Your Services Accordingly

If you're still learning, your fees should reflect that. A pilot rate while you build your portfolio is fair to everyone. As your experience grows, your rates can grow with it.

Know When to Partner or Refer

There's no shame in saying "I can help with pieces of this, but I'd like to bring in a colleague who specializes in this area." Subcontracting or partnering with experts while you learn is smart, not weak. And sometimes the most ethical choice is a referral to someone better qualified.

Start with Lower-Stakes Engagements

The complexity of a 50-person organization with a $5 million budget is very different from a startup nonprofit with a volunteer board. Build your skills where the stakes are lower before taking on high-complexity clients.

Stay in Your Lane Until You're Ready

If you've never facilitated a strategic planning process, don't pitch one to your biggest client. That's not fair to them or to you. Build competence intentionally before expanding your service offerings.

Meaningful Grant Writing and Meaningful Consulting

At Spark the Fire, we talk about meaningful grant writing—work that goes beyond mechanics to genuine impact, that serves community needs rather than just organizational budgets, that treats grant seeking as mission fulfillment rather than money chasing.

The same philosophy applies to consulting. Meaningful nonprofit consulting isn't about padding your revenue streams. It's about recognizing that the organizations we serve have interconnected needs, and that addressing root causes creates more lasting change than treating symptoms.

When you help a client develop a real strategic plan—one they actually use—you're not just adding a service line. You're helping them become the kind of organization that funders want to invest in, that staff want to work for, that communities trust to deliver on promises.

When you help a board understand their governance role, you're not just running a training. You're strengthening the foundation that everything else rests on.

This is what it means to serve the whole client. Not because it's profitable (though it can be), but because it's what nonprofits actually need to thrive.

The Business Case for Becoming a Nonprofit Consultant

Beyond the mission-driven reasons, expanding from grant writing to nonprofit consulting offers practical benefits for your career:

Diversified revenue streams: Grant writing is often project-based. Consulting services like strategic planning, board retreats, and fund development planning provide additional revenue opportunities that aren't tied to grant cycles.

Deeper client relationships: When you serve multiple needs, you become a trusted advisor rather than a vendor. This leads to longer engagements, more referrals, and more sustainable income.

Professional growth: Learning new skills keeps your work interesting and positions you as a thought leader in the nonprofit sector.

Greater impact: When you can address the root causes of organizational dysfunction—not just write a grant despite them—you help nonprofits become genuinely stronger.

Comprehensive Nonprofit Management Certificates

If you're considering a broader foundation in nonprofit management—or want a credential that signals competence across multiple areas—these university certificate programs offer comprehensive training:

Prestigious/Executive Programs

• Harvard Kennedy School Executive Certificate in Nonprofit Management — Multiple programs that can be combined; high prestige, higher cost

• Harvard Extension School: Nonprofit Management Graduate Certificate — More accessible than HKS; focuses on accounting and finance fundamentals

Graduate-Level Certificates

• University of Minnesota Humphrey School: Certificate in Nonprofit Management — Strong public affairs reputation; covers HR, evaluation, finance, conflict resolution

• George Washington University Trachtenberg School: Certificate in Nonprofit Management — Flexible curriculum; can ladder into MPA/MPP; Washington DC location

• University of Maryland: Certificate in Nonprofit Management and Leadership — Fellowship funding available; strong for aspiring founders

• University of Oregon: Graduate Certificate in Nonprofit Management — One of the largest nonprofit programs nationally; 24 credits

Accessible/Professional Programs

• Cal State East Bay: Certificate in Nonprofit Management — Affordable online option; practical focus; designed for working professionals

• Duke University Nonprofit Certificate Intensive Track — Complete in 8 days; covers board development, fundraising, evaluation, grant writing, financial management, and strategic planning

• Northwestern University School of Professional Studies: Nonprofit Management Certificate — Customizable; can focus on fundraising or general nonprofit management

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I call myself a nonprofit consultant without a specific credential?

Yes. Unlike "CPA" or "attorney," "nonprofit consultant" isn't a protected title. However, specific credentials like GPC (Grant Professional Certified), CFRE (Certified Fund Raising Executive), or CNP (Certified Nonprofit Professional) signal competence in particular areas and build client trust.

How do I price consulting services versus grant writing?

Consulting services like strategic planning facilitation, board retreats, and fund development planning are typically priced as flat project fees or daily rates rather than hourly. Research market rates in your region and price according to your experience level.

Should I stop offering grant writing services when I expand into consulting?

Not necessarily. Many consultants find that grant writing remains their core service, with consulting offerings complementing it. The grant writing work often surfaces the consulting needs.

How long does it take to build competence in a new service area?

This varies by service and your learning approach. Expect to invest one to two years of intentional skill-building—through training, shadowing, and lower-stakes engagements—before offering a new service confidently.

Is it better to learn new skills myself or partner with other experts?

Both models work. Firms that offer an array of services often succeed by hiring or partnering with specialists rather than having one person master everything. Consider building partnerships where you cross-train each other—you teach grant writing fundamentals, they teach facilitation techniques. This collaborative model may serve clients better than the solo generalist approach.

Moving Forward: Your Path from Grant Writer to Nonprofit Consultant

Grant writers are uniquely positioned to serve nonprofits holistically. We already understand mission, programs, finances, and capacity. We already know how to ask hard questions and synthesize complex information. We already care deeply about these organizations succeeding.

The path from grant writer to nonprofit consultant isn't about abandoning our craft. It's about recognizing that our craft has prepared us to offer more—and then doing the work to offer that "more" responsibly.

Whether you expand your own skills, build partnerships with complementary experts, or strengthen your referral network to serve clients through trusted colleagues, the goal is the same: meeting nonprofits where they are and helping them get where they need to go.

Your clients are already showing you what they need. The question is whether you're ready to meet them there.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Your Turn! Reply and Comment

We'd love to hear from you. What training programs or resources have helped you level up beyond grant writing? Or does the idea of branching into consulting feel scarier than exciting right now? Whether you're already offering expanded services, still building skills, or happily staying in your grant writing lane, your perspective matters. Share your experience in the comments.

The role of grant writer is evolving—and many grant writers haven't caught up. If you think your job is to write proposals, you're only doing part of the job. The best grant writers aren't just good with words. They're strategic partners who help organizations become stronger, not just funded.

This isn't a new idea, but it's becoming urgent. The grant landscape in 2026 is more competitive than ever. Funders expect more. Organizations that treat grant writing as an afterthought—or hire grant writers who only write—will fall behind.

So what does it actually mean to be a strategic partner? And how do you get there?

The Mindset Shift: It's Not "Do It For Them"—It's "Do It With Them"

In my Certificate in Grant Writing Course, I watch students try to skip certain lessons. They breeze through the sections on writing compelling narratives and crafting needs statements, but when we get to developing evaluations and project budgets, suddenly, there's resistance. They ask, "Isn't this something the nonprofit does?" or "Why do I need to learn this if the organization has a finance person?"

My answer is always the same: you need to know enough about both to guide your client or nonprofit. It's not a "do it for them" scenario—it's "do it with them." And here's the part that matters most: if you don't understand evaluation and budgeting yourself, you can't recognize when something is wrong.

A grant writer who can't read a budget is going to submit proposals with inflated line items, misaligned costs, or math that doesn't add up. A grant writer who doesn't understand evaluation is going to write outcomes that are actually outputs—and lose points on the rubric without knowing why.

I've seen this happen countless times in my work as a grant reviewer. A proposal comes through with a solid narrative, but the evaluation section says something like "We will track the number of participants served and collect satisfaction surveys." That's not evaluation—that's counting. And when reviewers see that, they know the organization (and their grant writer) doesn't understand the difference between doing something and knowing whether it worked.

That's not a strategic partner. That's a typist.

The best grant writing training goes beyond writing because the best grant writers do more than write. They guide, they question, they push—and they can only do that if they understand how organizations actually work.

What a Strategic Partner Actually Looks Like

Let's get specific about what strategic partnership means in practice, because I think the term gets thrown around without people really understanding what it looks like day to day. A strategic partner helps the nonprofit move forward in providing better services—not just securing funding. The grant is a tool, not the goal. If you're doing this work right, you're not just helping organizations win money. You're helping them become the kind of organizations that deserve to win money.

Let me share a real example from my own work.

I was working with an arts organization that provides visual and performing arts programming to K-12 students. I sent them a research report on enhancing arts programs through evidence-based practices. Then, when I reviewed their newest grant drafts, I noticed something: their objectives and evaluation were based entirely on outputs—the number of performances held and students served.

Those are fine metrics to track, but they don't tell funders whether the programming is actually making a difference in students' lives.

So I wrote to my clients: "I want to move us towards outcome evaluations demonstrating long-term positive impact beyond how many students were served or partnerships were made. We can do this by making slight changes to the programming, enhancing the work you are already engaged in."

I didn't just point out the problem. I drafted a case statement that incorporated the evidence-based practices from the research—things like intentional design of arts experiences, reflective practices, and student-centered learning approaches. I showed them how to connect their existing work to outcomes like improved self-awareness and social-emotional development in students.

Then I asked them to review it and let me know their thoughts. I noted that we'd need to work through the work plan and timeline together to ensure it was doable and that their key stakeholders would be on board. But I suspected this work was already happening—just informally, without the structure to capture it in grant proposals.

That's what strategic partnership looks like. I didn't wait for them to hand me content. I brought research to them. I identified a gap in their approach. I drafted a framework they could react to rather than asking them to create something from scratch. And I positioned the changes as enhancements to what they were already doing—not criticisms of their work.

This is the difference between "do it for them" and "do it with them." I didn't redesign their program without their input. I gave them something to respond to, invited collaboration, and made clear that the final decisions were theirs to make with their stakeholders.

Strategic partnership also means pointing out areas to improve, even when it's uncomfortable. If their data collection is weak, you tell them. If their logic model doesn't hold together, you say so. If their organization isn't ready for a particular grant, you help them see that before they waste time applying.

I had a client once who wanted to apply for a large federal grant—about $500,000 over three years. On paper, their program seemed like a good fit. But as I dug into their organizational capacity, I realized they had never managed a grant larger than $25,000. They didn't have the financial systems, the reporting infrastructure, or the staffing to handle federal compliance requirements.

I had to have a hard conversation: "I don't think you're ready for this one. Let's find some smaller grants to build your capacity first, and revisit this opportunity in two years." They weren't happy to hear it. But two years later, when they did apply, they won—because they'd spent that time building the infrastructure they needed. A grant writer who just writes would have helped them submit that first application and watched them struggle (or fail) if they'd won.

Beyond sharing research and pointing out gaps, strategic partners guide organizations to resources. You don't have to be the expert in everything, but you should know where to point people. Strategic planning consultants. Quality improvement frameworks. Capacity-building programs. Board development workshops. When I see an organization struggling with something outside my expertise, I don't just shrug and focus on the proposal. I say, "Here's someone who can help with that" or "Here's a resource you should look into."

A strategic partner connects organizations to what they need to grow, even when it's not directly related to the grant at hand.

Strategic partners also ask hard questions—the kind that make people pause and think. What happens after the grant ends? How will you know if this program worked? Do you have the staffing to actually implement this? What's your plan if your key staff person leaves mid-grant? These questions aren't obstacles to getting the proposal done. They're how you help organizations think more clearly about what they're proposing and whether they can actually deliver.

Now let me be clear about what strategic partnership doesn't look like.

It doesn't look like word processing. If you're just taking whatever the organization hands you and dressing it up in nice language, you're not a partner—you're a service provider. I've seen grant writers who operate this way, and their proposals show it. The narrative might be polished, but it doesn't hold together because no one questioned the underlying logic. The budget might be formatted correctly, but the numbers don't align with the activities because no one pushed back.

Strategic partnership also doesn't mean documenting without guiding. A strategic partner doesn't just ask for information and plug it into a template. They provide the organization with a framework—a list of what's needed, templates to fill out, questions to consider before the conversation even starts. They guide the process so that by the time you're writing, the thinking has already been done.

The difference between these approaches is significant. One helps organizations get grants. The other helps organizations get better.

The Hard Truth: If You're Not Pushing the Organization Forward, You're Not Doing Your Job

Here's something I don't think we talk about enough in this field: a grant writer's job isn't just to win grants. It's to help organizations become more strategic, refine their systems, improve quality, and increase capacity.

If you're not doing that, you're not fulfilling the role—at least not the role as it needs to exist in 2026.

I know that sounds harsh, but think about it from the funder's perspective. They're not investing in proposals. They're investing in organizations that can deliver results. If you help an organization win a grant but they don't have the capacity to implement it well, have you really helped them? You might have helped them in the short term, but you've set them up for a difficult reporting period, a strained relationship with the funder, and potentially a reputation problem that will follow them to future applications.

The best grant writers push organizations forward. They challenge assumptions. They raise concerns before they become problems. They help organizations see what they can't see themselves.

I worked with an organization once that had been delivering the same program the same way for fifteen years. They had loyal funders, decent outcomes, and a comfortable routine. But when I started asking questions—why do you do it this way? what does the research say about this approach? have you considered alternatives?—they realized they'd been coasting on tradition rather than evidence.

It wasn't a comfortable conversation. They'd been doing this work longer than I'd been in the field, and here I was questioning their model. But that's the job. A year later, they'd redesigned their program based on current research, and their outcomes improved dramatically. Their next grant proposal practically wrote itself because the program was genuinely stronger.

And sometimes, the best thing a grant writer can do is know when it's time to move on.

I've had clients where I've done everything I can. I've shared resources. I've pointed out gaps. I've guided them through process after process. But they're stuck. Maybe there's a leadership issue I can't solve. Maybe there's a board that won't engage. Maybe they're just not ready to hear what I'm telling them.

In those cases, I've learned to recognize that they need to hear the advice from someone else to get to the next level. A different consultant with a different style, a peer organization they respect, a funder who delivers hard feedback—sometimes change requires a new voice. Knowing when to step back, and helping them find the right next resource, is part of being a true partner. It's not failure. It's wisdom.

Why This Matters More Than Ever in 2026

The grant landscape has changed, and the shifts I'm seeing make strategic partnership more important than ever.

Competition is fiercer than it's been in my two decades in this field. More organizations are applying for grants than ever before, and federal funding uncertainty has pushed many nonprofits toward foundation and corporate funders. That means those funders are flooded with applications, and the margin between funded and rejected is razor-thin. I've sat in review sessions where the difference between winning and losing was a single point—one point on a rubric that might have been earned with a stronger evaluation plan or a more realistic budget.

Funders expect more than they used to. A well-written narrative isn't enough anymore. Funders want to see strong evaluation plans with clear, measurable outcomes. They want realistic budgets where every line item connects to the proposed activities. They want evidence of organizational capacity—not just promises that you can do the work, but proof that you've done similar work before. They want sustainability plans that show you've thought beyond the grant period. They want to see that you understand their priorities and have designed your project accordingly.

In short, they want proposals that demonstrate strategic thinking at every level. Grant writers who only write can't deliver that. Grant writers who understand how organizations work, who push their clients to be stronger, who guide the entire process rather than just documenting it—they can.

The stakes are higher too. When funders are overwhelmed with applications, they're looking for reasons to say no. A budget that doesn't add up is an easy no. An evaluation plan that measures outputs instead of outcomes is an easy no. A timeline that's vague or unrealistic is an easy no. These aren't minor issues you can paper over with good writing—they're the difference between funded and rejected.

Organizations that treat grant writing as an afterthought will struggle. Organizations that have strategic partners in their corner—grant writers who understand the full picture and help them improve—will thrive.

More Voices on This Topic

I'm not the only one observing these shifts in the field.

Megan Hill of Professional Grant Writer recently wrote that "grant writers are no longer simply document creators—they're strategic advisors." She notes that the role now encompasses mission alignment, funding strategy development, portfolio management, and funder relationship cultivation. Increasingly, grant writing consultants are being called on to guide technology adoption, build organizational capacity in data literacy and measurement, and coach leadership teams on long-term funding sustainability. Her observations align with what I'm seeing and teaching—the role is expanding, and grant writers who don't expand with it will be left behind.

Julie Starr of Epic Grants (Issue #416) pointed out another trend worth noting: funders are closing grant cycles early or capping the number of applications they'll review. She found language in multiple grant guidelines like "We will accept the first 100 applications for consideration" and "Once we award our allocated amount, we will suspend the acceptance of applications." Her advice is smart: use the grant open date as your deadline, not the published closing date. Subscribe to her epic grant writing blog here.

This is another reason strategic thinking matters. Reactive grant writers who wait until deadlines approach will miss opportunities. Proactive grant writers who have their clients prepared and ready to submit early will succeed.

Building These Skills: It Starts with Training

The strategic skills grant writers need in 2026 don't come from learning to fill out forms. They come from understanding how organizations work.

That's why I designed the Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing Course the way I did. It goes beyond teaching grant writing to help you understand all aspects of managing an organization—program design, evaluation, budgeting, organizational capacity, funder relationships, and more.

Students sometimes push back on this approach. They signed up to learn grant writing, not nonprofit management. But here's what they discover by the end of the course: you can't be a great grant writer without understanding how nonprofits function. The two are inseparable.

The grant writer who understands organizational development can spot capacity gaps before they derail a project. The grant writer who understands evaluation can build a measurement plan that actually demonstrates impact. The grant writer who understands budgeting can create financials that tell the same story as the narrative. These skills don't just make you better at writing—they make you invaluable to the organizations you serve.

One recent student captured this transformation perfectly:

"I took this course to obtain the skill of writing a grant application that stood out, but I left with a lot more. This course is not for the faint at heart. It is rigorous, organized, and chock full of just the information that you need to know to become a grant writer that stands out. The work products help you write effective grant applications and give you an opportunity to assess and identify organizational areas to develop. I have improved my skillset and become a better nonprofit leader. – Susan Pappalardo

That's the goal—not just better grant writers, but better nonprofit leaders. Better strategic partners. Professionals who can guide organizations forward, not just document what they're already doing.

What This Means for Nonprofit Leaders

If you're a nonprofit leader reading this, here's what I want you to take away.

First, look for a grant writer who will push you—not someone who just polishes your words. Ask potential grant writers how they approach evaluation and budgeting. Ask them to describe a time they told a client they weren't ready for a grant. Ask them what resources they've shared with clients beyond the scope of writing. The answers will tell you whether you're hiring a strategic partner or a typist.

Second, be prepared to do the work alongside them. A strategic partner isn't going to do everything for you. They're going to guide you through the process, and that requires your engagement. Have your documents ready. Be willing to dig into the data. Show up for the conversations, even when they're uncomfortable. The organizations that get the most from their grant writers are the ones that treat grant writing as a collaborative process, not a hand-off.

Finally, treat your grant writer as a partner in organizational growth, not a vendor who produces documents on demand. The best results come when grant writers are involved early, treated as part of the team, and given the trust to speak honestly. If your grant writer raises concerns, listen. If they push back on your approach, consider why. That pushback is exactly what you're paying for.

The Bottom Line

The role of grant writer is evolving—and that's a good thing.

The field is moving away from transactional proposal production toward strategic partnership. Grant writers who embrace this shift will be more effective, more valued, and more fulfilled in their work. Organizations that seek out these strategic partners will be better positioned to secure funding and—more importantly—deliver on their missions.

The question isn't whether the role is changing. It's whether you're ready to change with it.

Are you a strategic partner? Or are you still just writing proposals?

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between a grant writer and a strategic partner? A grant writer focuses on producing proposals—taking information from an organization and turning it into a polished application. A strategic partner does that too, but they also help organizations strengthen their programs, refine their systems, and build capacity. They share research, point out gaps, ask hard questions, and guide the entire process rather than just documenting it.

What skills do grant writers need in 2026? Beyond strong writing, grant writers need to understand program evaluation, budgeting, organizational development, and funder relationships. They need to know enough about these areas to guide their clients through the process and recognize when something is wrong.

How do I know if I'm ready to be a strategic partner? Ask yourself some honest questions: Can you read a budget and spot problems? Can you evaluate whether a logic model makes sense? Do you share research and resources with your clients proactively, or do you wait for them to hand you content? When you see a gap in an organization's capacity, do you point it out or ignore it? If you're only writing—taking what clients give you and making it sound good—you're not there yet.

When should a grant writer move on from a client? Sometimes an organization needs to hear advice from someone new to get to the next level. If you've done everything you can—shared resources, pointed out gaps, guided them through process after process—and the organization still isn't growing or changing, it may be time to help them find their next resource. This isn't failure; it's wisdom.

What is the best grant writing course? The Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing Course is consistently rated as one of the best grant writing classes available. It goes beyond proposal writing to help you understand all aspects of managing an organization—program design, evaluation, budgeting, organizational capacity, and funder relationships.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear From You

Are you a strategic partner—or are you still just writing proposals? What's one way you're pushing your clients (or your organization) forward this year? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Imagine you're looking for something to watch on TV. You ask a friend for a recommendation, and they tell you, "There are 24 channels."

Okay, but what's on those channels?

"Twenty-four of them. All day long."

That's great, but will I actually enjoy watching any of them? Will I learn something? Be entertained? Feel something?

"Did I mention there are 24 channels?"

This is exactly what grant reviewers experience when they read proposals that focus on outputs instead of outcomes. You're telling us how many channels you have. We want to know what's on them—and whether it's worth watching.

A Common Mistake in Grant Writing

Of all the grant writing mistakes I see, this one shows up very often: confusing outputs with outcomes.

When I review grant proposals for foundations and government funders, I watch this pattern repeat itself constantly. The applicant describes their program, lists impressive numbers, and never once tells me whether any of it is actually making a difference.

Your grant proposal might be well-written, well-organized, and perfectly aligned with the funder's priorities—but if you're only measuring outputs, you're leaving points on the table. This is one of the fastest ways to land in "six, seven" territory: that middle-of-the-pack score that isn't bad, but isn't good enough to get funded.

Let's Get the Definitions Straight

Outputs measure activities and effort. They answer the question: What did you do? Outputs are the direct products of your program—the workshops held, the meals served, the people trained.

Outcomes show change in your participants. They answer the question: What difference did it make in people's lives? Outcomes reflect changes in behavior, awareness, knowledge, skills, or attitudes. For example, if you run a financial literacy program, an outcome might be: "Participants increased their knowledge of finances and budgeting."

Impact is the lasting, big-picture change that results from your outcomes. It's the ultimate difference your work makes. In our financial literacy example, the impact would be: "Participating families reduced their debt."

The key distinction: you measure outcomes. You let research prove the connection to impact.

Right-Sized Evaluation: You're Not a Research Institution

Here's something that takes the pressure off: you're not expected to conduct human studies research. That's what researchers are for.

Too many small to mid-sized nonprofit organizations believe they need to track participants for years to prove their programs work. They don't. What you need is a right-sized evaluation—an approach that's realistic for your organization's capacity while still demonstrating that your program makes a difference.

Here's how it works: researchers have already studied whether certain interventions lead to certain outcomes. Your job is to find that research and use it to support your theory of change.

For example, research shows that people who learn to create a budget and monitor their spending are more likely to decrease their debt over time. You may not need to follow up with participants two years later to see if their debt went down. You may just need to measure whether they learned to create a budget and are monitoring their spending. The research has already established the connection between that outcome and the long-term impact.

This is right-sized evaluation:

1. Cite the research that connects your outcomes to long-term impact

2. Measure what's realistic for your organization—usually outcomes

3. Let the research do the heavy lifting of proving the long-term connection

This approach is credible, achievable, and exactly what funders expect from community-based nonprofits.

Illustrative Examples

Let's look at how outputs, outcomes, and impact work together:

Example 1: Financial Literacy Program

·       Output: 150 people attended our financial literacy workshop

·       Outcome: Participants increased their knowledge of finances and budgeting, as evidenced by pre and post knowledge exams

·       Impact: Participating families gain financial stability

With right-sized evaluation, you measure the outcome (did participants increase their financial knowledge, and can you prove it?) and cite research showing that financial literacy leads to financial stability. You don't have to prove the long-term financial change yourself.

Example 2: Youth Employment Program

·       Output: 40 youth completed our job readiness program

·       Outcome: Young adults gained stable employment, as evidenced by self-reported employment status at a living wage job

·       Impact: Financial independence

Example 3: Older Adults (65+) Nutrition Program

·       Output: 30 participants accessed daily nutritious meals

·       Outcome: Participants experience reliable, daily nourishment, as evidenced by meal delivery logs

·       Impact: Improved health and well-being

Example 4: Fire Safety Program

·       Output: 200 smoke detectors were distributed and installed

·       Outcome: Families adopted fire safety practices in their homes, as evidenced by self-reported creation of fire safety plan

·       Impact: Families in the target neighborhood are safer from fire-related injuries

See the pattern? Outputs tell funders what you did. Outcomes describe the change in people's knowledge, behavior, or attitudes—and include evidence that the change happened. Impact captures the lasting difference in their lives.

Why Funders Care So Much About Outcomes

Funders aren't investing in activities. They're investing in change.

When a foundation or government agency awards grant funding, they're making a bet. They're betting that your organization, with this money, will make something better in the world. They need to justify that bet—to their board, to their donors, to the public.

Outputs don't help them do that. "We gave $50,000 to an organization that held 12 workshops" isn't a compelling story. "We gave $50,000 to an organization that helped 45 families build lasting financial security" is.

When you write your grant proposal with clear outcomes, you're making the funder's job easier. You're giving them the story they need to say yes.

How to Fix Your Grant Proposal

If you've been writing outputs instead of outcomes, here's how to turn it around:

Step 1: Start with the end in mind. Before you describe your program, ask yourself: what will be different in people's lives because this program exists? What change are we trying to create for our participants? Start there and work backward.

Step 2: Apply the "So what?" test. For every number in your proposal, ask "So what?" You trained 50 teachers. So what? You held 12 workshops. So what? Keep asking until you get to something that matters—a change in someone's life.

Step 3: Find research to support your theory of change. Look for studies that connect your outcomes to long-term impact. This research allows you to focus your evaluation on what's realistic to measure while still making a credible case for lasting change.

Step 4: Right-size your evaluation. It may be unrealistic to track participants for years. Measure your outcomes, cite research that validates the connection to long-term impact, and be honest about what you can and can't measure.

What If You Don't Have Outcome Data Yet?

Maybe you're a newer organization. Maybe you haven't been tracking outcomes systematically. This is more common than you think, and it doesn't have to sink your grant proposal.

The first step is figuring out what right-sized evaluation looks like for your project. This isn't one-size-fits-all. Maybe it's a pre/post test. Maybe it's a focus group. The key is to start by talking to your participants about what meaningful change looks like to them—and then base your measurement on that.

Ask yourself: what would tell us that what we're doing is making a positive difference in people's lives? The people you serve often have the best answers to that question. And when you do collect that data, report back to your participants too. Evaluation shouldn't be something you do to people—it should be something you do with them.

Here's what else you can do:

• Be honest about where you are. Explain that you're building your evaluation capacity and describe your plan for tracking outcomes going forward.

• Use external research. Find studies showing that programs like yours produce certain outcomes. This demonstrates that your approach is evidence-based and supports your theory of change.

• Share qualitative evidence. Participant testimonials, case studies, and stories of individual transformation can illustrate impact while you build quantitative data.

• Make outcomes central to your proposal. Even if you don't have historical data, your grant proposal should clearly articulate what outcomes you expect and how your program leads to them.

One More Thing: Outcomes Are About People, Not Programs

This trips up a lot of grant writers, so I want to make sure it's clear: outcomes must reflect changes in your participants or community—not changes to your organization or program.

"Our classes are at full capacity" is not an outcome. That's an organizational metric.

"Our program expanded to three new locations" is not an outcome. That's program growth.

"Families in our program reduced their reliance on emergency food assistance" is an outcome. That's change in people's lives.

Funders aren't investing in your organization getting bigger or busier. They're investing in the people you serve experiencing real change.

The Bottom Line

Funders don't want to know how many channels you have. They want to know what's on—and whether it's worth watching.

When you shift your grant proposals from outputs to outcomes, you're not just checking a box on a rubric. You're telling a more compelling story. You're demonstrating that you understand what funders actually care about. And you're proving that your organization is focused on what matters most: making a real difference in people's lives.

That's what moves your grant proposal to the top of the pile.

Frequently Asked Questions About Outputs and Outcomes in Grant Writing

What is the difference between outputs and outcomes in a grant proposal? Outputs measure activities and effort—what you did. Outcomes measure change in people's lives—what difference it made. For example, "50 people attended our workshop" is an output. "Participants increased their financial knowledge" is an outcome. Funders want to see outcomes because they demonstrate real change in the people you serve.

What's the difference between outcomes and impact? Outcomes are the changes in participants' behavior, knowledge, skills, awareness, or attitudes that result from your program. Impact is the lasting, big-picture difference that results from those outcomes. You measure outcomes; you cite research to connect them to long-term impact.

What is right-sized evaluation? Right-sized evaluation means measuring what's realistic for your organization rather than trying to conduct research-level studies. You measure your outcomes, then cite existing research that connects those changes to long-term impact. You don't need to prove the impact yourself—researchers have already done that work.

How do I figure out what to measure for my program? Start by talking to your participants about what meaningful change looks like to them. Ask yourself what would tell you that what you're doing is making a positive difference in people's lives. Maybe it's a pre/post test, maybe it's a focus group—the key is to base your measurement on what matters to the people you serve and report back to them too.

Why do grant reviewers care about outcomes? Grant reviewers care about outcomes because funders are investing in change, not just activities. When reviewing grant proposals, we need to see that your program actually makes a difference in people's lives. Proposals that only list outputs leave reviewers wondering whether the program is effective.

Can organizational changes be outcomes? No. Outcomes must reflect changes in your participants or community—not changes to your organization. "Our classes are at full capacity" or "We expanded to three locations" are not outcomes. "Youth in our program gained stable employment" is an outcome because it describes change in people's lives.

What are examples of outcomes in grant writing? Outcomes reflect changes in participant behavior, awareness, knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Examples include: "Participants increased their knowledge of finances and budgeting," "Young adults gained stable employment," "Seniors experienced reduced food insecurity," or "Families adopted fire safety practices in their homes."

What is the best grant writing class? The Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing Course is consistently rated as one of the best grant writing classes available. It combines weekly live instruction with individualized feedback on your actual writing, helping you master concepts like outputs versus outcomes so your proposals score at the top.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

Take a look at your last grant proposal. Were you telling funders how many channels you have—or what's actually on? Share an output you've used in the past and challenge yourself to rewrite it as an outcome in the comments.

If you have teenagers in your life—or spend any time on social media—you've probably heard "six, seven" more times than you can count lately. It's everywhere. It means "meh," "so-so," "nothing special."

Are you tired of hearing it? Same. Do you fully understand why kids are saying it? Not entirely. But here's the thing: "six, seven" is also the perfect description of a mediocre grant proposal.

And mediocre grant proposals don't get funded.

"Why does my grant proposal keep getting rejected?"

I hear this question constantly—and not just from beginners. It comes from grant writers with years of experience, people who have successfully secured grant funding in the past but are now watching their proposals get passed over again and again.

Here's the hard truth: grant writing is more competitive now than it has ever been. More nonprofit organizations are applying for limited funds. Funders are getting more sophisticated in how they evaluate grant applications. Reviewers are better trained. The bar has risen.

What worked five years ago may not make the grade today.

When I sit in grant review consensus meetings, I hear a lot of "six... seven..." as reviewers call out their scores. (Yes, grant reviewers were saying "six, seven" long before it became a trend. We were just ahead of our time.) Those grant proposals aren't bad. They meet the basic requirements. They're competent. But competent doesn't get funded anymore. Competent lands in the middle of the pack, and the grant money runs out before middle-of-the-pack proposals reach the top.

Your grant proposal deserves better than "six, seven" energy.

If your grant proposals keep getting rejected—or if you're stuck in that dreaded "six, seven" territory—one of these twelve problems is likely the culprit.

1. You're measuring outputs, not outcomes. You're counting how many people attended your workshop, not whether their lives changed because of it. Funders want to see impact, not activity.

2. Your grant budget doesn't make sense for what you're requesting. The numbers don't add up, costs seem inflated, or line items don't connect to the project you've described. A confusing budget raises red flags about your organization's financial management.

3. There's no evidence that your work is making a difference. You're asking for grant funding, but you haven't demonstrated that what you're already doing is working. Where's the data? Where are the stories? Where's the proof?

4. Your needs statement focuses on your organization, not the community. "We need funding to continue our programs" is not a compelling case. Funders don't fund organizations—they fund solutions to community problems.

5. You're not aligned with the funder's actual priorities. You're trying to shoehorn your project into a grant opportunity that isn't quite right. Grant reviewers can tell when you're stretching to fit, and it costs you points.

6. Your project logic doesn't hold together. There's a gap between the problem you've identified and the solution you're proposing. Reviewers are left wondering: why would this intervention solve that problem?

7. Your timeline and work plan are vague. You've described what you want to do, but not how or when you'll do it. Or you've basically stated the program runs year-round and didn't answer anything at all. A fuzzy implementation plan signals that you haven't fully thought this through.

8. You haven't demonstrated organizational capacity. Can your nonprofit organization actually pull this off? Reviewers are looking for evidence that you have the staff, systems, and experience to manage the grant successfully.

9. Your proposal sounds like everyone else's. There's nothing distinctive about your approach. You're describing the same program every other applicant is proposing, with no clear reason why your organization should be the one funded.

10. You're too general when you need to be specific. Vague language like "we will serve the community" and "participants will benefit" doesn't give grant reviewers anything concrete to score. Specificity builds credibility.

11. You haven't done your homework on the funder. Your grant application doesn't reflect an understanding of what this particular grantmaker cares about, what they've funded before, or how your work connects to their mission.

12. You're applying to the wrong funders entirely. No amount of strong grant writing can overcome a fundamental mismatch. If you're not a good fit, you're wasting your time—and theirs.

Here's the Good News

Every one of these grant writing problems is fixable. You don't have to be a "six, seven" forever.

Over the next twelve weeks, I'm going to tackle each of these issues one by one. You'll learn exactly how to diagnose whether it's hurting your grant proposals and, more importantly, how to fix it.

Next week: Outputs vs. Outcomes—How to Show Funders You're Making a Real Difference

Make sure you're subscribed so you don't miss it.

Frequently Asked Questions About Getting Grants Funded

What does "six, seven" mean in grant writing? In the trending slang sense, "six, seven" means "meh" or "so-so"—and that's exactly what it means in grant review, too. When reviewers score your proposal a six or seven out of ten, it's not bad, but it's not good enough to get funded. It's mediocre. And mediocre proposals get left behind when the funding runs out.

Why do grant proposals get rejected? Grant proposals get rejected for many reasons, including misalignment with funder priorities, weak needs statements, unclear project logic, vague timelines, and budgets that don't make sense. Often, proposals aren't bad—they're just not competitive enough to rise to the top of the pile.

How competitive is grant writing today? Grant writing is more competitive than ever. More organizations are applying for limited funding, funders have become more sophisticated in their evaluation processes, and reviewers are better trained. What worked five or ten years ago may not be enough to secure funding today.

What's the difference between outputs and outcomes in grant writing? Outputs measure activities—how many workshops you held or how many people attended. Outcomes measure change—what difference those workshops made in participants' lives. Funders want to see outcomes because they demonstrate real impact, not just effort.

How do I know if my grant proposal is strong enough? A strong grant proposal clearly aligns with the funder's priorities, presents a logical connection between the problem and proposed solution, includes a realistic budget and timeline, demonstrates organizational capacity, and provides evidence of impact. If reviewers can't clearly see all of these elements, your proposal may land in "six, seven" territory.

What is the best grant writing class? The Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing Course is consistently rated as one of the best grant writing classes available. It combines weekly live instruction with individualized feedback on your actual writing, teaching you to think like a grant reviewer so you can write proposals that score at the top—not stuck at "six, seven."

Can I improve my grant writing skills on my own? While self-study can help, most grant writers improve faster with structured learning and personalized feedback. Understanding the grant review process from the inside—how reviewers score, what they look for, and why proposals get rejected—gives you a significant advantage.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

Which of these twelve problems hit a little too close to home? Be honest—we've all been there. Drop your answer in the comments and let me know which issue you'd most like me to tackle first.

I've sat on both sides of the grant application process. As a grant writer, I've submitted countless proposals and waited anxiously for funding decisions. But I've also served as a grant reviewer for community foundations, private foundations, and government entities. That experience fundamentally changed how I write grant proposals—and how I teach others to write them.

Let me pull back the curtain on what really happens after you hit "submit."

Inside the Grant Review Process

Before reviewers ever see your grant proposal, we receive training. We go over the grantmaker's scoring rubric in detail and talk through the assessment process as a group. Sometimes this training includes anti-bias components. I've even been in trainings where we were explicitly told not to penalize applicants for grammar and spelling errors—the focus should be on the substance of the proposal, not the polish.

After training, we're divided into pods of three or four reviewers. Each pod receives the same stack of grant applications. We're given a set window of time to read and score them independently, and I'll be honest—it's often just a few days to get through the entire stack. Sometimes we're asked to document comments for each proposal in case the applicant requests feedback later.

Then comes the part most grant applicants don't know about: the consensus meeting.

The reviewers in each pod spend a day together (usually on Zoom these days) discussing every proposal we read. We don't simply average our scores. Instead, we talk through why we scored each grant application the way we did and work toward consensus on a final score. This means I have to justify my reasoning and, sometimes, convince my fellow reviewers to see things my way—or be convinced by them.

This process works remarkably well. One reviewer might catch something the others missed. The dialogue gets lively. By the end, we've arrived at scores that reflect our collective judgment, not just individual opinions.

From there, proposals receive their final scores, and the grantmaker begins awarding grant funding to the top-scoring applications until the money runs out.

Here's the part that should keep you up at night: the difference between a funded proposal and an unfunded one is often a single point. One point.

What Grant Reviewers Are Actually Scoring

So what are reviewers looking for as we read through that stack of nonprofit grant proposals? Here's what earns points:

Alignment with the funder's purpose. Does this proposal fulfill what the grantmaker is actually trying to fund? Does it meet all stated requirements? You'd be surprised how many proposals miss this fundamental step. If a funder says they want to address food insecurity in rural communities and your project serves an urban population, it doesn't matter how beautifully written your grant proposal is.

Logical coherence. Does the project make sense? Is there a clear through-line from the problem you've identified to the solution you're proposing? Reviewers need to see the logic—that this particular intervention will actually address this particular need.

A sensible grant budget. The numbers need to add up and fit the project you've described. No inflated costs. No line items that make us scratch our heads. The budget should tell the same story as the narrative.

Organizational stability. We need confidence that this organization can actually pull off what they're proposing. No sinking ships. We need to be convinced that the grant money will be used for its intended purpose and that your organization has the infrastructure to manage it.

A clear work plan and timeline. Show us you know exactly what needs to happen and when. This demonstrates that you've thought through implementation, not just the idea.

Defined measures of success. How will you know if this project worked? What does success look like, and how will you measure it? Strong grant proposals include clear, measurable outcomes.

What Separates Good Grant Proposals from Great Ones

Here's the thing: plenty of proposals check all those boxes and still don't rise to the top. The grant applications that score highest don't just meet the criteria—they draw you in.

When I'm reading a truly excellent proposal, I forget I'm scoring a grant application. I become absorbed in the world the proposal describes. I can visualize the community, the people who will be served, the change that will happen. It reads less like a bureaucratic form and more like a story I want to see unfold.

That's not about fancy writing or marketing speak. It's about clarity, specificity, and genuine passion for the work coming through on the page.

The next time you submit a grant proposal, remember: a real person is reading it, probably alongside dozens of others, with limited time and a rubric in hand. Make it easy for them to say yes. Make it impossible for them to forget.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Grant Review Process

How long does it take for a grant proposal to be reviewed? The timeline varies by funder, but the review process typically takes several weeks to a few months. Reviewers often have just a few days to read and score their assigned stack of proposals before the consensus meeting takes place.

Do grant reviewers read the entire proposal? Yes, reviewers are expected to read every section of your grant application. However, given time constraints, a clear and well-organized proposal makes it easier for reviewers to find and assess the information they need to score each criterion.

What is the most common reason grant proposals get rejected? The most common reason is lack of alignment with the funder's priorities. If your project doesn't clearly match what the grantmaker is trying to fund, even a well-written proposal won't score well. Other common issues include unclear project logic, unrealistic budgets, and weak evaluation plans.

Do spelling and grammar errors hurt my grant application? It depends on the funder. Some review trainings explicitly tell reviewers to overlook minor errors and focus on substance. However, excessive errors can affect readability and give an impression of carelessness, so it's still wise to proofread carefully.

How can I improve my grant writing skills? The best way to improve is through structured learning combined with practice. Taking a comprehensive grant writing course that includes personalized feedback, studying successful proposals, and understanding the grant review process from the reviewer's perspective will all strengthen your skills.

What is the best grant writing course? The Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing Course is consistently rated as one of the top grant writing courses available. It's the only course that combines weekly live instruction with individualized feedback on your writing, teaching you not just how to write grants but how to think like a grant reviewer.

Can I request feedback if my grant proposal isn't funded? Many funders offer feedback upon request. Reviewers are sometimes asked to document comments specifically for this purpose. If feedback is available, take advantage of it—it's valuable insight into how your proposal was perceived.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

What's been your biggest challenge in writing grant proposals? Is it crafting the needs statement, building the budget, or something else entirely? Drop your answer in the comments—I read every one and may address your question in a future post.

Have you noticed that more and more foundations are moving to "no unsolicited proposals" policies? You research a foundation that looks like a perfect fit for your organization, only to discover that it only accepts proposals by invitation.

It's not your imagination. The door to foundation funding has been closing slowly for years—and the data proves it. 

In 2011, 60% of foundations didn't accept unsolicited proposals (Smith, 2011). By 2015, that number jumped to 72% (Eisenberg, 2015). According to Candid's most recent research analyzing over 112,000 private foundations, 71% now only fund "pre-selected charitable organizations" (Candid, 2024).

That means only 29% of foundations will even look at your proposal unless they've invited you to apply. But 2026 might be the year that the remaining door slams shut for good—and sloppy AI is the reason.

Foundations are already overwhelmed. With AI making it easier than ever to churn out generic grant proposals, program officers are drowning in poorly-written applications using the outdated spray-and-pray method. According to Candid's 2024 Foundation Giving Forecast Survey, 23% of foundations already won't accept AI-generated proposals, and 67% are still figuring out their policies (Mika, 2024). This was an anonymous survey, which allowed foundations to be more candid about their concerns—most haven't made public statements about AI policies yet, so this data reveals what's happening behind the scenes.

Translation: Those foundations that still accept unsolicited proposals are one bad grant cycle away from going invitation-only permanently.

And if you're still using spray-and-pray—sending generic proposals to every foundation you find—you're not just wasting your time. You're actively contributing to the problem that's closing doors for everyone.

The Spray-And-Pray Era Is Over

You know the drill: Research 50 foundations, send essentially the same proposal to all of them, hope for the best.

Here's the thing—it never really worked. But now? It's actively harmful.

Here's what's happening behind the scenes:

Foundation program officers are receiving more proposals than ever. Many are clearly mass-produced. Some are obviously AI-generated by people who don't understand grant writing fundamentals. The quality is declining while the volume is increasing.

The foundation's response? Close the door. No more unsolicited proposals. Invitation only. By the time you realize that perfect-fit foundation has gone invitation-only, you've already lost your chance.

The Real Problem Isn't AI—It's Inexperience

Let me be clear: The problem isn't AI itself. The problem is using AI to write grant applications when you don't have the experience to know whether AI is doing it right.

 Think about it: If you don't understand what makes a compelling needs statement, how will you know if the AI-generated needs statement is compelling? If you can't identify a good organizational fit for grant funding, how will you evaluate whether AI matched you with the right funders?

Learn grant writing first. Master strategic thinking, understand what makes proposals fundable, and develop your judgment about fit and quality. Then use AI to make your work more efficient. AI can help you write faster, generate first drafts, and organize information—but only if you have the grant writing expertise to direct it and evaluate its output.

How Foundations Spot Sloppy Ai Proposals (Hint: Not Through Detectors)

 You might be wondering: Are foundations using AI detection software to screen out AI-generated proposals? The short answer is no, and they don't need to. AI detectors don't work reliably, producing high rates of false positives and false negatives. They flag human-written content as AI-generated and miss obvious AI content. Even the companies that make these tools acknowledge their limitations. But here's the thing: foundations don't need detection software to spot poorly-written AI proposals. The problems with sloppy AI grant writing are obvious to any experienced grant reviewer, not because they "sound like AI" but because they lack the substance, specificity, and strategic thinking that characterize strong proposals.

Bad AI proposals reveal themselves through lack of substance:

• Flowery statements without evidence: "Our innovative, transformative program creates lasting change in the community," → but no data on how many people served, what outcomes were achieved, or what "transformative" actually means

• Generic descriptions that could apply to anyone: Any youth development organization could claim the same things, any food bank could use the same language 

• Buzzword soup without specifics: Talking about "strategic partnerships" and "collaborative impact" without naming a single partner or describing what the collaboration actually looks like 

• Perfect grammar, disconnected logic: Beautiful sentences that don't actually connect to each other or build a coherent argument

• Misunderstanding the funder's actual priorities: The AI matched keywords, but the proposal shows the applicant doesn't really understand what the foundation cares about

• Overpromising without realistic plans: Grand claims about impact that don't match the organization's budget, staffing, or track record

The tell isn't that it "sounds like AI"—it's that it lacks the authentic details, specific evidence, and strategic understanding that only comes from someone who truly knows both the organization and grant writing.

A proposal written by an experienced grant writer using AI thoughtfully? It still has those specifics, that evidence, that strategic fit assessment. Because the human knows what details matter and how to direct the AI to strengthen (not replace) their expertise.

The Strategic Alternative: Quality Over Quantity

 So if spray-and-pray is dead, what's the alternative? 

Strategic grant writing. And it starts with one critical skill: knowing when NOT to apply.

This might sound counterintuitive. You need funding, so shouldn't you cast the widest net possible? Actually, no. That approach wastes your limited time and contributes to the problem that's shutting down access for everyone. Instead, you need to become ruthlessly strategic about where you invest your grant prospecting effort.

Focus on Low-Hanging Fruit First

Low-hanging fruit doesn't mean "easy grants that everyone wins." It means perfect fit funders—foundations where the alignment between your work and their priorities is so clear that your proposal practically writes itself.

What does a perfect fit look like? Start with mission alignment. The foundation funds exactly the kind of work you do—not tangentially related, not sort of similar, but directly aligned. If you run an environmental education program for youth, you're looking for foundations that specifically fund environmental education for youth, not just "youth programs" or "environmental causes" broadly.

Geographic alignment matters too. You need to be squarely in their funding area. If a foundation focuses on three specific counties and you're in one of them, that's a good fit. If they fund the entire Pacific Northwest and you're in Seattle, you're competing with hundreds of other organizations. Be honest about whether you're in the sweet spot or on the periphery.

Grant size alignment is equally important. If you need $50,000 and a foundation typically gives $5,000 grants, you're not a fit—no matter how perfect the mission match. Look at their grantmaking history using tools like Candid's Foundation Directory. What's their typical range? Do they ever make grants at your level? Don't waste time trying to convince a small family foundation to make their largest grant ever to your organization. 

Finally, look at their history of funding organizations like yours. When you review their past grantees, can you genuinely say "of course—we should be on that list too"? That's what I call the "of course" factor.

Getting to "Of Course"

The "of course" factor is that moment when a grant reviewer reads your proposal and thinks "of course that makes sense" and "of course we want to fund that." You've achieved a strategic fit so clear that funding feels obvious. 

Getting to "of course" requires deep research. You need to understand what the foundation values, not just what they say they fund. Read their annual reports. Study the organizations they support. Look for patterns in who gets funding and why. What do their grantees have in common? What kinds of projects do they prioritize—pilot programs or proven models? Direct service or capacity building? Local grassroots organizations or regional powerhouses?

When you can see yourself clearly in that pattern of funding, you've found low-hanging fruit. These are the opportunities where you should spend 80% of your grant writing time. Perfect the proposal. Build the relationship. Demonstrate the fit. These are your highest probability opportunities, and they deserve your best effort.

Long-Shots Can Work—But Only With Strategy

I'm not saying you should never pursue a foundation that's a less obvious fit. Long shots aren't impossible. But they require a fundamentally different approach than spray-and-pray.

A legitimate long-shot means you've identified a genuine strategic connection that might not be obvious at first glance, and you're willing to invest significant time proving it. Maybe the foundation primarily funds healthcare, but they've shown interest in addressing social determinants of health, and your housing stability program directly impacts health outcomes. That's a strategic long-shot—there's a real connection, but you need to make the case.

What makes a long shot worth pursuing? You need a clear, compelling angle for how your work fits their mission, even if your project doesn't look exactly like what they typically fund. You need to be willing to build the relationship first—attending their events, engaging with their published research, and making personal connections with staff or board members. And you need to go all-in on the application itself. Don't submit a recycled proposal with minor tweaks and hope for the best. If you're going after a long shot, treat it like the long shot it is: invest the time to craft a proposal that explicitly makes the strategic connection clear.

Don't apply to long-shots as a numbers game, hoping that if you submit to enough "maybes," a few will pay off. That's just spray-and-pray with better targeting. Apply to long-shots only when you've done the strategic thinking, and you're prepared to do the work.

The Middle Ground: Be Selective

Then there are mid-range opportunities—foundations where you have good but not perfect alignment. Maybe your geographic area overlaps with theirs, but it isn't their primary focus. Maybe your mission connects to theirs tangentially. Maybe they fund your issue area, but usually support larger organizations.

 These require judgment. Some are worth pursuing. Many aren't. The question to ask yourself: Can you genuinely demonstrate fit, or are you just checking boxes? If you're writing a proposal, thinking "well, we kind of fit because..." stop. That's not strategic. That's spray-and-pray disguised as research.

Be selective. Choose the opportunities where you can make a clear, honest case for why you belong in their funding portfolio. Skip the rest.

The Hidden Costs Of Spray-And-Pray

Beyond wasting your time, the spray-and-pray approach to grant writing has real consequences:

Reputational damage: Foundations talk to each other. Submit poorly-matched proposals consistently, and you develop a reputation as someone who doesn't do their homework. In the tight-knit world of philanthropy, that reputation follows you.

Opportunity cost: Every hour spent on a bad-fit proposal is an hour not spent on a good-fit opportunity. If you can write 5 excellent, strategic proposals or 20 mediocre, generic ones, which will raise more money? The data from the Grant Professionals Association shows that grant professionals are already being more selective—writing a median of 19-20 proposals per year, not 50 or 100 (Grant Professionals Association, 2023). Quality matters more than quantity.

Contributing to the problem: Every generic, poorly-matched proposal that lands in a program officer's inbox makes them more likely to close the door to unsolicited applications entirely. You're not just hurting your own chances—you're making it harder for every nonprofit organization.

Diminishing access for everyone: When foundations go invitation-only because they're overwhelmed with poor applications, you've just made it harder for every nonprofit—including yours—to access foundation funding in the future. This particularly impacts smaller organizations and those serving marginalized communities who have fewer insider connections.

What This Means For 2026

The data is clear: Foundations have been moving toward invitation-only policies for over a decade. AI hasn't created this trend—but sloppy use of AI is accelerating it.

In 2026, the strategic grant writers will thrive.

They'll focus on fit, build relationships, and demonstrate an authentic understanding of both their organizations and their funders. They'll use AI as a tool to enhance their expertise, not replace it. They'll invest in professional grant writing training to develop the judgment needed to evaluate quality.

The spray-and-pray crowd will find fewer and fewer doors open.

Which side of that divide do you want to be on?

What You Can Do Right Now

1. Audit your current prospect list. Remove any foundation where you can't clearly articulate why you're a strong fit. If you're using a prospect tracking spreadsheet, add a "fit score" column and be honest about each opportunity.

2. Research thoroughly before applying. Look at 3-5 years of past grantees using resources like Instrumentl, Candid, or foundation 990-PF forms. Can you genuinely say, "Of course, we belong on this list"? If not, move on.

3. Invest in learning. If you're using AI to write proposals, make sure you have the grant writing expertise to evaluate and improve what AI produces. Consider professional certification in grant writing to build that foundation.

4. Build relationships. Don't let your first contact with a foundation be a proposal. Attend their events, engage with their content, and make connections. Relationship-based fundraising still works—even in an AI era.

5. Track your success rates by fit level. Are your "perfect fit" applications succeeding? If not, the problem isn't fit—it's proposal quality. Get help with grant writing training or hire an experienced consultant.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How can I tell if a foundation is a good fit for my organization?

A: Look at four key alignment factors: mission (do they fund exactly what you do?), geography (are you squarely in their funding area?), grant size (do they give grants at your level?), and grantee history (when you look at who they fund, do you belong on that list?). If you can't clearly articulate why you fit in all four areas, it's probably not worth applying.

Q: Should I never use AI for grant writing?

A: AI can be a powerful tool for experienced grant writers—it can help generate first drafts, organize information, and improve efficiency. The problem is using AI when you don't have the expertise to evaluate whether its output is good. Learn grant writing fundamentals first, then use AI to enhance your work.

Q: What if all the foundations in my area don't accept unsolicited proposals?

A: This is increasingly common. Your strategy shifts from "submit proposals" to "build relationships." Research foundations that align with your work, identify connections (board members, staff, funded organizations you know), and start relationship-building. Attend their events, engage with their content, and ask for informational conversations. The goal is to get invited to apply.

Q: How many grant proposals should I be submitting per year?

A: According to Grant Professionals Association data, grant professionals write a median of 19-20 proposals per year. Quality matters far more than quantity. It's better to submit 10 highly strategic, well-researched proposals than 50 generic ones.

Q: How do I know if my proposal is too generic?

A: Ask yourself: Could another organization in your field submit this exact same proposal by just changing the name? If yes, it's too generic. Strong proposals include specific data about your organization, concrete examples of your work, and clear evidence of why you're the right organization for this funder at this time.

Q: What's the difference between a strategic long-shot and spray-and-pray?

A: A strategic long-shot means you've identified a genuine connection between your work and the funder's priorities (even if it's not obvious), and you're willing to invest significant time building the relationship and crafting a targeted proposal. Spray-and-pray means sending essentially the same proposal to many funders, hoping something sticks, without strategic thinking about fit.

The Bottom Line

The landscape of foundation fundraising is changing. The doors are closing—not because foundations don't want to fund good work, but because they're overwhelmed with poor applications from organizations that haven't done the strategic thinking.

Strategic grant writing isn't just about writing better proposals. It's about making better decisions about where to invest your limited time. It's about knowing when to walk away from a poor-fit opportunity. It's about building relationships and demonstrating a genuine understanding of what funders care about.

If you're serious about foundation funding in 2026 and beyond, it's time to stop throwing applications at every foundation you find and start being strategic about fit.

The foundations that remain open to unsolicited proposals are looking for thoughtful, strategic applications from people who've done their homework.

Give them what they're looking for—and stop contributing to the problem that's closing doors for everyone.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

Have you noticed foundations in your area closing to unsolicited proposals? Are you seeing AI-generated proposals flood your field? And honestly, where do you fall on the spray-and-pray to strategic spectrum? Share your experience in the comments.

References

Candid. (2024). How often do foundations accept unsolicited requests for funds? https://candid.org/blogs/do-foundations-accept-unsolicited-requests-for-funds-from-nonprofits/

Eisenberg, P. (2015, October 20). Let's require all big foundations to let more nonprofits apply for grants. Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Grant Professionals Association. (2023). 2023 GPA compensation and benefits survey. https://grantprofessionals.org/page/salarysurvey

Mika, G. (2024, December 5). Where do foundations stand on AI-generated grant proposals? Candid Insights. https://blog.candid.org/post/funders-insights-on-ai-generated-grant-application-proposals/

Smith, B. K. (2011). [Foundation Center research on unsolicited proposals]. Referenced in Nonprofit Quarterly. (2017, February 24). Scaling the wall: Getting your grant proposal heard. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/scaling-the-wall-getting-your-grant-proposal-heard/

At Spark the Fire, I believe that great grant writers are lifelong learners. Whether you’re building your consulting business, applying for federal funding, or just getting started, staying inspired and informed is part of the journey.

This year’s list looks a little different from past versions. I reviewed every blog from the 2025 list and removed any that had not published at least four new articles in 2025. A surprising number had gone silent this year or even disappeared completely when I clicked their links. Since consistency matters — both for learning and for thought leadership — I only included blogs that remained active, relevant, and updated.

The result is a fresh, high-quality list of grant writing and nonprofit blogs that continue to publish meaningful content. These writers are trusted educators, thought leaders, and practitioners who share the same mission I do: helping you secure funding for causes that matter.

Below are my favorite blogs to follow in 2026, along with why I think they’re worth your time.

• Spark the Fire – Our very own hub for weekly tips, grant writing templates, examples, and encouragement for purpose-driven grant writers. I write pieces that challenge assumptions in our field — thought-provoking, sometimes a little contrarian, and always rooted in the idea that meaningful work matters more than hustle. If you like smart think pieces about how to do this work with integrity and clarity, you’ll feel right at home here. If reading our think pieces sparks a desire to grow your skills even further, explore our Certificate in Grant Writing course — it’s where everything comes together in a guided, supported way.

• 1832 Communications – Authored by Ephriam Gopin, this blog focuses on clear messaging and nonprofit donor communication. Some posts speak directly to grant writing. I appreciate how practical and accessible Ephriam’s writing always is.

• Candid Blog – This is where I go for nonprofit funding trends and data. I especially enjoyed this recent article on whether U.S. Foundations will soon be using AI to review grant applications. If you want help finding the right funders for your organization, my guide on how to conduct smart, efficient prospect research is a great place to start.

• Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) Blog – If you want to know what foundations are reading, read this blog. It covers funder-grantee relationships, strategy, evaluation, and impact. I find it incredibly grounding for understanding the funder perspective.

• CharityHowTo – A blend of articles for every stage of your grant career. I liked this article written by fellow GPC, Diane Leonard. Clear, actionable, and always technically strong.

• DH Leonard Consulting Blog – This team publishes consistently helpful posts on writing stronger proposals, federal readiness, and proposal reviews. Their motto is “don’t let grants stress you out,” and I think most of us can get behind that.

• EUNA Solutions – This blog takes a tech-forward look at public sector grants. I appreciated a recent article about preparing for increased government oversight in 2026. I appreciated a recent artible about preparing for increased government oversight in 2026.

• Foundant: GrantHub Blog – Foundant’s articles often focus on grant management, systems, and the foundation side of philanthropy. I always find it valuable to read what funders are being taught — it sharpens your own strategy when you understand how they think. I’m still missing Tammy Tilzey heading up their webinars, but the written content continues to be strong. A recent article recommending that foundations use AI to find similar grantees was especially interesting from a grant writer’s perspective. If you’re exploring how AI is shaping our field, you might also enjoy my AI & Grant Writing mini-series, where I break down practical, ethical ways to use AI tools.

• Funding for Good – My friend Mandy Pearce and her team publish excellent articles on nonprofit strategy, capacity building, and consulting today. I particularly liked a recent piece about improving your consulting website. If you want even more behind-the-scenes insight into the world of grant writing firms, check out the Inside Grant Writing Businesses series — the conversations are smart, practical, and sometimes delightfully surprising.

• Fundraising HayDay – I met this dynamic duo at the GPA Conference this year and became an even bigger fan. Their podcast-inspired writing offers smart, timely insights on teams, writing, deadlines, and the realities of grant work.

• Grant Professionals Association – Industry updates, tools, and ethical guidance from the leading professional association. You can also find my guest blog here about grant prospect database taxonomy. You can also find my guest blog on grant prospect database taxonomy.

• Instrumentl Blog – From the best grant prospect research database on the market comes one of the most trusted grant writing blogs online. I enjoyed Karen Lee’s article on general operating grant, and you’ll find several of my articles featured here too.

• Just Write Grants – Melanie Lambert writes directly to executive directors and nonprofit leaders. Her recent article on maximizing year-end momentum in your proposals was especially energizing. This article on maximizing the year-end in your grant proposals fired me up.

• GrantsPlus – A meaty blog with smart takes on capacity building and organizational readiness. This article entitled “Why You’re Losing Your Grant Writer and What to Do About It.” made me laugh and nod along.

• Grant Seeker’s Edge – A newer LinkedIn-based blog focused on general fundraising. It currently has 18 issues and is steadily growing. There’s good practical insight here if you want short, digestible content.

• GS Insights – GrantStation’s weekly, practical tips for finding and evaluating funders.

• Millionaire Grant Lady – his monthly blog covers topics that most others don’t touch. I liked a recent article demystifying myths about faith-based organizations getting grants. Hint: they do.

• MyFedTrainer – Consistent guidance on compliance, federal requirements, and managing complex federal awards.

• Nonprofit AF – Vu Le serves up bold, honest, funny reflections on nonprofit life, leadership, and equity. It’s not a grant writing blog specifically, but it’s essential reading for nonprofit thinkers.

• PEAK Grantmaking Blog - This is another “what funders are reading” resource. Articles focus on equity, transparency, and philanthropic best practice. If you’re exploring how AI is shaping our field, you might also enjoy my AI & Grant Writing mini-series, where I break down practical, ethical ways to use AI tools.

• Philanthropy Today – Produced by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, this is like the New York Times of nonprofit news and analysis.

• Seliger + Associates – A bit of a contrarian, tell-all style focused on federal grants. Their recent article questioning whether the “84 banned words” list is an urban legend made me think.

• Think and Ink Grants – Equity focused strategies, business growth advice, and practical writing guidance for consultants and nonprofit leaders.

• Write Epic Grants – I saved the best for last. This is a daily blog, which is impressive enough, but the real value is how fresh and creative each entry is. I love receiving these short, energizing tips every day.

Frequently Asked Questions

What makes a grant writing blog worth following in 2026?

Look for blogs that offer practical advice, current examples, and strategic thinking. The best ones help you understand funder expectations, improve your writing, and stay ahead of sector trends like AI, federal oversight, and trust-based philanthropy.

 How can these blogs help me become a stronger grant writer?

They give you access to expert thinking, proposal strategies, prospect research tips, and real-world case studies. Reading widely helps you refine your voice, think more strategically, and write proposals that resonate with funders.

 Are these blogs helpful for both nonprofit staff and freelancers?

Absolutely. Whether you’re an in-house grant writer, a consultant building your business, or an executive director writing proposals yourself, these resources offer insights that apply across roles.

 How do I keep up with new grant writing trends?

 Subscribe to a mix of blogs on this list, follow sector leaders on LinkedIn, attend webinars, and stay engaged with professional associations. The field evolves quickly, especially with emerging AI tools and shifting funder priorities.

Which blog should I start with if I'm brand new to grant writing?

Start with Spark the Fire, Instrumentl, Funding for Good, and DH Leonard Consulting. They offer clear, accessible guidance you can use right away.

Final Thoughts

There is no one right way to learn grant writing, and no single source has all the answers. The magic comes from surrounding yourself with teachers, peers, and thinkers who challenge you, inspire you, and remind you why this work matters.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

If you have a favorite blog that isn’t listed here, share it in the comments. We love discovering new voices in the field. Also, if you want curated grant writing insights delivered each week, join my newsletter — it’s where I share trends, tips, and tools I don’t post anywhere else. Ready to take your skills further? Explore Spark the Fire’s Certificate in Grant Writing Course for 2026. 

The grant writing profession has spent years proving that "success rates" are unfair metrics for evaluating grant professionals. Too many variables sit outside the writer's control: organizational readiness, funder priorities, relationship history, geographic distribution requirements, and timing factors that have nothing to do with proposal quality.

Still, prospective students and employers ask a fair question:
How do you measure if a grant writing course actually works?

When someone searches for the best grant writing course or wonders whether a grant writing certificate is worth it, what they really want is evidence. Real data. Real results. Real skills demonstrated in real organizations.

That’s the question I’m wrestling with. And I want your help.

In This Article, You Will Learn

·       Why traditional grant success rates cannot measure training effectiveness

·       What academic, professional, and coaching programs track

·       What Spark the Fire currently measures within our 8–10 week Certificate in Grant Writing

·       Four new ideas for measuring real-world success, including a sophisticated revenue forecasting metric

·       How alumni and organizations can help define what “excellent grant writing education” truly means

Why Measuring Grant Writing Training Is So Complicated

The grant writing world has rightfully moved away from simplistic success rates. The field now values strategic thinking, relationship building, professional ethics, readiness assessment, and project design.

But we still haven’t answered one big question:
How do you prove a grant writing training program prepares someone for real jobs and real impact?

After being named the “best grant writing course” in the world by Instrumentl for four years, I’m confident in what we teach. But I’m not satisfied with surface-level metrics. I want evidence that graduates can perform in actual roles across nonprofits, government agencies, educational institutions, tribal entities, and community organizations.

What Other Grant Writing Programs Track

Every program handles this differently:

Academic programs track:

·       completion rates

·       CEUs earned

·       test scores

·       job placement

Training programs track:

·       student confidence surveys

·       testimonials

·       anecdotal success stories

Business coaching models track:

Holly Rustick’s Freelance Grant Writer Academy stood out to me. She tracks collective impact metrics from her 12-month business coaching program:

·       grants raised by students (88 million dollars so far)

·       business revenue earned by students (2.2 million dollars)

What's smart about this is she built it into the program from the start. Students know when they enroll that they're joining a movement toward collective goals: $1 billion in grants for nonprofits and $30 million in student business revenue by 2030. The tracking isn't an afterthought - it's part of the identity.

That works beautifully for a freelance-focused, year-long program with clear entrepreneurial goals.

But what about a comprehensive grant writing education that serves career changers, nonprofit professionals, freelancers, volunteers, and lifelong learners?

No model fully fits Spark the Fire. Each approach tells part of the story. But none feel complete for what we're trying to accomplish at Spark the Fire. So I’m exploring new ones.

How Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes Already Measures Learning

Let me be clear about what Spark the Fire already includes:

Throughout the 8-10 week course, we assess learning with:

• Graded knowledge checks on ethics, technical requirements, and strategic thinking

• Rubric-scored assignments on every component of a grant proposal

• Individual instructor feedback on multiple drafts

• Pre- and post-course knowledge and confidence assessments

• Final project: a complete, professional-quality grant proposal

• 24 continuing education units toward GPC or CFRE certification

We teach technical writing skills, strategic thinking, prospect research, organizational readiness assessment, professional ethics, and relationship building. Students leave with templates, frameworks, and real work samples.

Our curriculum is rigorous. Students leave prepared.

But is in-course performance enough proof for employers and prospective students? Maybe. Maybe not.

The Four Approaches I'm Considering Next

I'm genuinely exploring several approaches. None are decided. I need your input.

Option A: Strengthen In-Course Assessment

We already assess skills throughout the course. Should we formalize this even more? For example, we could add letter grades to the certification rather than keeping it pass/fail. This would give prospective employers or clients a clearer signal about performance levels.

Question for you: Is in-course assessment the most important proof? Does knowing that graduates demonstrated competency during training give you confidence they can perform after?

Option B: Track Graduate Career Progression

Follow graduates' professional advancement over time:

• Secured grant writing roles (for career changers)

• Promoted within their organizations

• Moved to better-fit organizations (upward or lateral moves that align with their goals)

• Launched freelance businesses

• Added grant writing to their responsibilities

• Transitioned from volunteer to paid positions

Question for you: Does career trajectory prove training effectiveness? Would seeing that graduates advance professionally matter to you?

Option C: Measure Collective Impact (With Full Transparency)

Track the total dollars our graduates help raise for nonprofits, government agencies, educational institutions, tribal entities, and other organizations. I'd be completely transparent about the limitations: this number reflects organizational readiness, existing relationships, program quality, funder priorities, and many factors beyond the grant writer's control.

Question for you: Even with those attribution challenges, does collective impact matter? Would knowing "Spark the Fire graduates collectively raised $X million" influence your trust in the program?

Option D: Forecasting Accuracy (A Sophisticated Professional Metric)

Here's where I get genuinely curious - and I'm not sure if this is too abstract or exactly right.

I have used probability forecasting to predict annual revenue from grant writing for an organization. You assign each opportunity a probability based on fit, readiness, and relationship strength, multiply by the request amount, and sum the weighted values.

Here’s a simple numeric example:

A graduate builds a one-year grant calendar with four proposals totaling 400,000 dollars:

·       Proposal A: 150,000 dollars at 70 percent probability

·       Proposal B: 100,000 dollars at 40 percent probability

·       Proposal C: 100,000 dollars at 25 percent probability

·       Proposal D: 50,000 dollars at 80 percent probability

Expected revenue forecast =
(0.70)(150,000) + (0.40)(100,000) + (0.25)(100,000) + (0.80)(50,000)
= 217,500 dollars

If actual results land within roughly 15 percent over 12 months, the forecast was accurate.

What if we measured whether graduates can accurately forecast grant revenue?

Not "did you raise $X million" but "can you strategically assess your portfolio and make calibrated predictions?"

This metric measures:

• Strategic thinking about organizational fit and funder priorities

• Understanding of readiness factors that affect success

• Professional-level judgment and pattern recognition

• The ability to think beyond single proposals to portfolio management

An example metric: "Spark the Fire graduates' revenue forecasts averaged within 15% of actual results over a 12-month period."

Here's my question: Is this too complex—or is it exactly the kind of real-world proof the field needs?

 I find it intellectually compelling. But does anyone besides me care?

What Would You Be Willing to Track?

For this to work, alumni must participate. If you're an alumnus, what would you be willing to report back?

Holly Rustick's model works partly because students know upfront they're joining a movement toward collective goals ($1 billion in grants, $30 million in businesses by 2030). Tracking isn't an afterthought - it's part of the identity.

Would that resonate with Spark the Fire graduates?

Would you want to be part of proving that excellent grant writing education produces measurable results? Would you respond to a 6-month survey? Share your career wins? Report your challenges?

And critically: What would motivate you to do this?

Contributing to collective achievement? Demonstrating the value of the profession? Building credibility for future graduates? Access to an alumni community? Something else?

FAQ

How do you measure success in a grant writing course?

We evaluate skills through graded assignments, instructor feedback, and a final professional-quality proposal. We are exploring additional long-term metrics such as career outcomes, collective impact, and grant revenue forecasting.

Do grant writing “success rates” matter?

Not really. Grant decisions depend on funder priorities, relationships, geographic requirements, and organizational readiness. Skill development, strategic thinking, and ethical practice are better indicators of a writer’s ability.

What should employers look for in a grant writing certificate?

Evidence-based curriculum, practical assignments, instructor-reviewed proposals, and skills tied to real-world grant writing (research, readiness assessment, budgeting, outcomes, and forecasting).

What is grant revenue forecasting?

It’s a method professionals use to predict annual grant revenue by assigning probabilities to each opportunity. It measures judgment and strategic thinking, not luck.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

·       Prospective students: What evidence gives you confidence that a training program prepares you for real grant writing roles?

·       Alumni: What would you be willing to track and share?

·       Organizations: What information helps you trust a certificate or credential?

·       Educators: What metrics have you found valuable in your own programs?

Email me or share your thoughts in the comments. I’m genuinely listening.

And if the forecasting model either sparks your curiosity or confuses you completely… I especially want to hear from you. 

Years ago, I left a meeting with a Program Officer who managed about ten different family foundations. As I rode down the elevator, something struck me: those foundation board members—the actual decision-makers—came to this building regularly to meet with him about grant allocations. They rode this same elevator.

I thought: What if there was a sign right here? Just a simple poster showcasing my client's incredible work with at-risk youth. Those board members would see it, realize this organization exists, and understand it aligns perfectly with their philanthropic goals.

It wasn't a crazy thought. It was actually smart. Because here's the truth about funder relationships that nobody talks about: It's not pushiness to make sure the right people know your organization exists. It's strategic visibility.

"Just build relationships with funders" is common advice in grant writing. But what does that actually mean? And more importantly, how do you do it when you can't exactly put up an elevator sign—even though, honestly, that would work?

Reframing Relationship Building

Let's be honest about what makes funder relationship building feel awkward: we're trying to get noticed by people who control resources we need, and there's an inherent power dynamic there. It can feel like we're being pushy or manipulative.

But here's what changed my thinking about that elevator sign fantasy: those foundation board members actually wanted to find organizations doing great work. That's why they had a foundation. That's why they hired a consultant. They were actively looking for worthy causes to support.

My client's youth program was exactly what several of those foundations funded. The board members just didn't know the organization existed.

Funder relationship building isn't about pushiness. It's not about schmoozing or becoming best friends with program officers. It's about being visible in the right places so that when funders are looking for organizations like yours, they can find you.

Think of it this way: If that elevator sign had been smart marketing (and it would have been), then strategic visibility online and in professional spaces is equally smart. You're not being pushy—you're making it possible for the right funders to discover the work you're doing.

Where ARE the "Elevators"?

So if I couldn't put a sign in that actual elevator, where CAN I be visible to funders today?

The good news: there are far more "elevators" now than there were back then. The challenge: you need to be strategic about which ones matter.

LinkedIn Is Your Primary Elevator

I'm connected with quite a few funders on LinkedIn, and if you're not actively building your professional network there, you should be. Hint: connect with me on LinkedIn! This is where program officers, foundation consultants, and even family foundation board members show up regularly.

But here's the key: LinkedIn isn't about constantly posting or promoting your organization. It's about being professionally present. Engage thoughtfully when program officers share updates about funding priorities, new initiatives, or highlighted grantees. Comment when you have genuine insight to add. Share relevant content from your field.

Foundation Websites and Newsletters

Many foundations now publish regular newsletters, blogs, and updates. Subscribe. Read them. When they announce new funding priorities or highlight successful projects, you're learning what matters to them—and sometimes, there are opportunities to engage (application webinars, information sessions, feedback surveys).

Your Grant Proposals Are Your Best Billboard

Here's something people forget: every grant proposal you submit is an opportunity for visibility. Even if you don't get funded, you've introduced your organization to a program officer. A well-crafted proposal demonstrates your professionalism, your mission alignment, and your capacity. That's relationship building.

Building Professional Relationships on LinkedIn

LinkedIn is where you build professional relationships with program officers and foundation staff. This is about you, as a grant professional, connecting with program officers as fellow professionals in the grants ecosystem.

Connecting with program officers:

When you send a connection request to a program officer, keep it simple and professional:

"Hi [Name], I'm a grant writer working in [sector/issue area]. I've been following [Foundation's] work in this space and would value connecting with you as a colleague in the field."

That's it. You're two professionals working in related roles. No pitch. No organizational promotion.

After you're connected:

Engage occasionally and authentically. When they share updates about funding priorities, sector trends, or successful projects, that's valuable intelligence for your work. A thoughtful comment demonstrates you're paying attention to the field.

Think of it like any professional network: you're building name recognition and demonstrating you're a serious, engaged professional in the grants community.

But when you're ready to pursue funding, follow the foundation's directions. If they welcome inquiries or pre-application contact, use it—send your LOI or make that call with your full pitch through their approved channels. Don't just say "hi, see me!" Give them what they need to decide if there's a fit.

Making First Contact: Phone, Email, or Contact Form?

Now we get to the actual outreach—when you've identified a foundation that's a strong fit and you're ready to explore a funding opportunity.

First step: Follow their directions.

Check the foundation's guidelines carefully. Do they say "inquiries welcome" or "contact us before applying"? Do they list a phone number, email address, or only have a contact form? Some foundations explicitly say "no contact before submitting application." Respect that.

If they DO welcome pre-application contact, here's how to approach it:

The Phone Call Approach

If a phone number is listed and they welcome calls, this can be the most efficient way to determine fit quickly.

Before you call: Read through their guidelines and application form thoroughly. Nothing wastes a program officer's time—and damages your credibility—more than asking questions that are clearly answered in their materials.

During the call: Have your Letter of Inquiry and budget information in front of you. Program officers will ask questions to understand your project and assess fit. Listen carefully, answer confidently, and be prepared to ask your own clarifying questions.

This is a conversation, not a pitch. They're trying to be helpful.

(For detailed guidance on phone calls with program officers, see my article: The Art of the Phone Call: How to Stand Out With Funders)

The Email Approach

If they provide an email address or contact form, here's where my approach might surprise you: Don't just introduce yourself and ask if they want more information. Give them the information.

Write a brief, friendly email in the body:

"Dear [Name],

I'm reaching out from [Organization] because I see strong alignment between your foundation's focus on [specific priority] and our work with [population/issue].

We're seeking funding for [brief project description], and I've attached a Letter of Inquiry with full details about our organization, the project, and why we believe this is a good fit.

I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this further. I can be reached at [phone] or [email]. Thank you for considering this inquiry."

Then attach a proper LOI (1-2 pages) with the full picture: who you are, what you do, what you're seeking funding for, budget range, and why you're approaching them.

Why this approach? Grantmakers invented Letters of Inquiry. They want a quick snapshot so they can make decisions efficiently. Don't make them ask for basic information—give them what they need to say yes, no, or "tell me more."

(If you need guidance on writing a strong LOI, I've written a comprehensive guide here: How to Write a Letter of Interest for Grant Funding: Complete 2025 Guide)

If They Don't Respond

Here's the reality: many foundations don't respond to inquiries, especially if it's not a fit. That's not personal—they're managing dozens or hundreds of requests.

Wait two weeks. Send one polite follow-up. Then move on.

If guidelines say you can apply without pre-approval, you can submit your proposal directly. Your proposal itself becomes your introduction.

What Strategic Visibility Is NOT

Let's talk about the line between strategic visibility and being annoying, because it matters.

Strategic visibility IS:

·       Having a professional LinkedIn presence

·       Engaging thoughtfully with foundation content when relevant

·       Sending a well-researched inquiry email

·       Submitting strong grant proposals

·       Being known for quality work in your issue area

·       Making information about your organization easy to find

Strategic visibility is NOT:

·       Repeatedly emailing program officers with "just checking in"

·       Connecting on LinkedIn and immediately pitching your project

·       Commenting on every single foundation social media post

·       Asking for meetings without a clear reason

·       Ignoring stated communication preferences

·       Taking up program officer time when you haven't done basic research

The difference? Strategic visibility is about being in places where funders naturally look. Being annoying is inserting yourself where you're not wanted.

Think of it this way: that elevator sign would have worked because foundation board members were already in that elevator. I wasn't chasing them down. I was simply being visible in a space they occupied.

Online relationship building works the same way. Be present where funders already are. Make your work visible. Let them discover you.

Your Reputation Is Your Elevator Sign

Here's what I've learned after 25+ years in this field: Your reputation is the most powerful form of strategic visibility.

That elevator sign I fantasized about? It would have worked for one building, one set of foundation board members, for as long as it stayed up. But your reputation as a grant professional—and your organization's reputation for quality work—follows you everywhere.

How reputation builds visibility:

When you submit strong grant proposals, program officers remember your organization. When you're professional in your communications, they remember that too. When your organization delivers on what you promised in a grant, that matters.

Program officers talk to each other. Foundation staff move from one foundation to another. Consultants who advise multiple foundations take note of which organizations do excellent work.

You don't control all of this, but you influence it every single time you interact with a funder.

What this means practically:

·       Every grant proposal is an opportunity to demonstrate your professionalism

·       Every email to a program officer reflects on your credibility

·       Every report you submit to a current funder builds (or damages) your reputation

·       Every conversation at a conference or webinar is relationship-building

You can't put up a physical sign, but you can be consistently excellent. That's strategic visibility that compounds over time.

The long game:

Funder relationships aren't built in one phone call or one email. They're built over time, across multiple touchpoints, through consistent professionalism and quality work.

Some foundations will fund you on your first application. Others will take years of building familiarity before they're ready to invest. Some will never be the right fit, no matter how good your work is.

That's okay. Keep doing excellent work. Keep being visible in the right places. Keep building your reputation.

Your elevator sign is being built every single day through the quality of your work and your professional presence. That's the kind of visibility that actually moves organizations forward.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I start building relationships with funders?

Start by being professionally visible where funders already are: LinkedIn, foundation webinars, and sector conferences. Connect with program officers as fellow professionals in the grants field. When you're ready to pursue funding, follow the foundation's guidelines for pre-application contact—whether that's a phone call, email, or contact form.

Should I connect with program officers on LinkedIn?

Yes, but approach it as professional networking between colleagues, not as a way to pitch your organization. Send a brief, professional connection request mentioning your shared interest in the field. Engage occasionally with their content when you have genuine insight to add.

What should I say in my first official contact with a foundation?

Give them the information they need to assess fit: who you are, what you're seeking funding for, and why you think there's alignment with their priorities. If calling, be prepared with your project details and budget information. If emailing, include a Letter of Inquiry so they can make a quick decision about whether to invite a full proposal.

How often should I contact foundation staff?

Only when you have a legitimate reason: an inquiry about a funding opportunity, a question that's not answered in their guidelines, or required grant reporting. Don't send "just checking in" emails. Respect their time and communication preferences.

What if a program officer doesn't respond to my inquiry?

Wait two weeks, send one polite follow-up, then move on. Many foundations don't respond to inquiries that aren't a good fit. If their guidelines allow direct application without pre-approval, you can still submit a proposal.

Is it okay to call a foundation directly?

Times have changed—more often than not, foundations actually want to hear from you before you submit a grant application. If they list a phone number, use it! But first: read their guidelines thoroughly, read the application form, and do your research on their funding priorities and recent grants. Of course, never call if they explicitly state "no contact before application" in their guidelines.

Closing

Building funder relationships isn't about tricks or shortcuts. It's not about becoming best friends with program officers or having some secret insider network.

It's about strategic visibility: being present where funders naturally look, making it easy for them to discover your work, and building a reputation for excellence over time.

You can't put up an elevator sign. But you can be the kind of grant professional and organization that funders notice, remember, and want to fund.

Want to strengthen your grant writing skills and professional presence? Check out our Certificate in Grant Writing Course to build the expertise that makes you stand out in the field.

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

What's been your most effective way to get on a funder's radar? Have you had success with phone calls, emails, or something else entirely? Share your experience in the comments below.

Introduction

The field of grant writing is changing quickly. Nearly every week, I receive announcements about new platforms, plugins, and AI tools promising to streamline prospect research, write proposals automatically, or manage post-award reporting with little human oversight. Some of this technology is genuinely exciting. Some of it is concerning. And for many grant writers and nonprofit leaders, it can feel overwhelming to sort out which tools will help move our mission forward and are worth the investment.

This is why attending the Grant Professionals Association Conference in Baltimore this October felt especially timely. It gave me the chance to step into the noise and have real conversations face-to-face with some of the leading technology platforms in our field. I spoke with representatives from Instrumentl, Candid, and GrantStation about how they are approaching innovation, data ethics, and responsible use of artificial intelligence.

These conversations revealed something important: Technology in grant writing is not just about efficiency or automation. It is about supporting the depth of thinking, strategy, creativity, and human connection that define meaningful grant work. The question is not whether the tools exist. The question is how we choose to use them as grant professionals.

New Grant Research Tools and Features from the 2026 Conference

Instrumentl: Three AI-Powered Tools Launching Soon

Instrumentl continues to move quickly in releasing new features to support the full grant lifecycle, and they are currently the fastest among the major grant prospecting software platforms to roll out advancements. It is no surprise that development is accelerating, as the company recently received a $55 million growth investment from Summit Partners to expand AI capabilities and scale its platform. At the conference, the team shared three tools that are part of their upcoming release.

Prospecting Assistant: Solving the Taxonomy Tangle

If you read my recent article, The Taxonomy Tangle: Why Grant Database Categories Need Better Alignment, you'll immediately recognize that Instrumentl's new Prospecting Assistant was built to solve exactly the problem I outlined. Instead of forcing you to navigate inconsistent funder categories across databases, this feature allows you to describe your project in plain language. It then asks clarifying questions to understand what you are actually seeking to accomplish.

Where this tool stood out to me was in the results stage. Once recommended matches are generated, the Prospecting Assistant provides brief but meaningful explanations of why each funder aligns. This includes looking beyond stated guidelines to actual funding behavior. For example, a foundation may list that it funds statewide, but in practice only funds organizations in one city. The Prospecting Assistant flags this nuance directly in the match summary, which can save significant time and prevent pursuing opportunities that are unlikely to be successful. This aspect of the tool was particularly fascinating and exciting to see in action.

Apply Advisor: AI Writing Support That Stays in Your Voice

Apply Advisor supports writers during the proposal development process. It can take a general outcomes-focused sentence and strengthen it by suggesting metrics, benchmarks, and examples that help "not just tell but prove" the anticipated impact. Because the tool draws from documents that the organization uploads into Instrumentl, the writing remains in your voice. The company emphasized that these uploaded materials stay within a closed environment, meaning they are not shared with other organizations and the system is not training itself on your proprietary language. It can also help locate previously used phrasing across stored materials, which is particularly valuable for ensuring consistency across multiple proposals.

This tool sounds very similar to Grantable, a software program specifically designed to do this. The overlap in functionality is worth noting as the grant research tool landscape continues to evolve.

Award Assistant: The Fine Print Reader You Need

Award Assistant supports the post-award phase. It scans grant documents such as agreements, proposals, guidelines, and correspondence, and extracts key requirements into a summary document that is designed to be used in an internal grant kickoff meeting or grant launch. An internal kickoff meeting is when the organization brings together the relevant team members to review the obligations, deadlines, and expectations attached to a grant award so everyone is aligned from the start.

One aspect of Award Assistant that stood out to me is how well it reads the fine print. During the conference, an audience member shared that when their organization tested this tool, Award Assistant identified a contractual requirement they had previously overlooked. This ability to surface details that could easily be missed helps teams stay aware of what the organization is on the hook for and reduces the risk of non-compliance.

Behind-the-Scenes Preview: Real-Time Grant Spending Tracking

I also received a behind-the-scenes preview of this upcoming expansion during a one-on-one meeting with co-founder Angela Braren, where I was invited to test pilot the feature myself. Soon, users will be able to track grant spending in real time, broken down by line item. For example, you will be able to quickly see how much funding remains for office supplies or staffing allocations at any point during the grant period. I'm super excited about this development, as it has the potential to significantly improve internal grants management workflows and tracking.

Candid: Finally Uniting Foundation Directory and GuideStar Data

Remember when GuideStar and the Foundation Directory Online merged to form Candid? Many of us have been wondering what the long-term outcome of that merger would be. When I spoke with two representatives at Candid's exhibition booth, they shared that the organization is now preparing to launch its next generation platform, bringing together GuideStar's nonprofit profile data with the depth and history of Foundation Directory's funder and grantmaking records. Remember, the Foundation Directory Online literally wrote one of the earliest books on prospect research, The Foundation Directory (first published in 1956).

Imagine the possibilities of a true single destination where nonprofit data and funder data live together. The platform could show not only who funds what, but why and under what conditions. It could reveal patterns in which organizations are most likely to receive certain kinds of support, where funding tends to concentrate, and where gaps or unmet needs exist in specific communities. This kind of clarity has the potential to help organizations better understand alignment, strengthen their strategy, and make more informed decisions about where to focus their grantseeking efforts.

Candid's launch announcement notes that the upcoming platform will integrate machine learning and personalized recommendations to help users understand funding landscapes more strategically, rather than simply searching for data.

What I'm Watching: Geographic Data Visualization

One of the areas I am watching most closely is data visualization. Foundation Directory Online has long stood out for its ability to let users drill down not only by state, but also by county, city, municipality, and even legislative district. This level of geographic granularity has always been powerful for understanding where funding is actually happening. If Candid expands this capability even further in the new platform, it could offer an unprecedented level of clarity about where funding flows and where community needs may not be met. Candid has a long history of demonstrating its capacity to delve deeply into funding research, and I have high expectations for what this merging of data will uncover.

GrantStation: Simplicity and Accessibility

GrantStation launched its newly designed dashboard in May 2025, creating a visually clean and easy-to-navigate interface. The platform continues to offer comprehensive filter-based prospect research, and its taxonomy is intuitive and easy to understand. This makes it particularly helpful for organizations that may be newer to prospecting or that do not have the time or staff capacity to learn more complex database structures.

GrantStation remains a strong fit for organizations seeking a reliable, affordable grant research tool without a steep learning curve.

Grant Database Pricing Comparison

Instrumentl: Standard plan around $299/month; advanced AI plan around $499/month. I am one of the few grant professionals who can offer you a three-week free trial instead of the regular two weeks and a $50 off coupon: SPARKTHEFIRE50.

Candid: Pricing begins around $219/month or $1599/year, depending on features.

GrantStation: Typically $699/year, with occasional specials as low as $199. I have a discount code available upon request for Spark the Fire members to get an annual subscription for $139. Email me.

Frequently Asked Questions About Grant Prospecting Software

What is grant prospecting software?

Grant prospecting software (also called grant research databases or grant research tools) helps nonprofits identify potential funding opportunities by searching databases of federal grants, foundation giving, and corporate philanthropy. These platforms compile grant listings, eligibility requirements, and deadline alerts in searchable formats.

Which grant database is best for small nonprofits?

GrantStation's intuitive interface and affordable pricing when it’s on sale for $199 make it particularly accessible for smaller organizations or those new to prospect research. For federal grants specifically, Grants.gov remains a free comprehensive option.

What's new in grant databases for 2026?

The biggest shift is AI-powered features that explain why funders match your organization, not just that they exist. Instrumentl's Prospecting Assistant flags gaps between stated guidelines and actual giving patterns. Candid is merging GuideStar and Foundation Directory data with machine learning for strategic recommendations. The focus is moving from search engines to strategic intelligence.

Can AI write grant proposals?

Tools like Grantable and Instrumentl's Apply Advisor can be real time savers, helping you to think more deeply about what you are writing. The key is to use these tools as thought partners, not think of them as doing the work for you. Your voice and ideas are required for success. Grant writing still requires human strategy, relationship understanding, and authentic storytelling—AI simply helps you articulate those elements more effectively.

How do I choose between Instrumentl, Candid, and GrantStation?

My recommendation? Try all three—though only Instrumentl offers a free trial. Guess what? The Spark the Fire audience can get a free three-week trial to Instrumentl with my link instead of the usual two weeks. The fact that they offer a trial at all means they're pretty sure that once you try it, you'll be hooked. And you probably will be.

For Candid and GrantStation, consider trying them out for a month with a one-month subscription to see what you think. Each platform has different strengths, and what works best depends on your organization's specific funding focus, workflow, and budget. Test to see which interface feels most intuitive, which database coverage matches your needs, and which features you'll actually use. Many grant professionals end up using multiple platforms for different purposes.

Conclusion: The Best Grant Prospect Databases of 2026

As I reflect on these conversations, it is no surprise that the best grant prospect databases of 2026 are the same three that have been leading the field in recent years. Instrumentl, Candid, and GrantStation continue to anchor the work of grant professionals across the country. What is surprising is how quickly these tools are evolving, like all technology right now, with AI.

The work of grant writing has always been about more than searching for opportunities. It is about aligning mission, voice, community need, and funding strategy in ways that are thoughtful and clear. These new tools have the potential to reduce friction—so that our time and attention can stay on the meaningful work of telling our story, serving our communities, and building relationships that last.

Coming Soon: The Complete 2026 Grant Database Comparison

This article highlights innovations I discovered at the GPA Conference from the three leading platforms, but the grant research tool landscape continues to expand. I'm currently testing additional platforms and emerging AI-powered prospecting tools for a comprehensive comparison.

Are you a grant database provider? If your platform has new features or innovations you'd like included in my full 2026 grant prospecting software comparison, I'd like to hear from you. I'm particularly interested in:

• AI-powered prospect matching and explanation features

• Post-award grant management integration

• Collaborative tools for grant teams

• Geographic data visualization capabilities

• Unique database coverage or data sources

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

What have you seen in software innovations for nonprofits recently?

Quick Answer: A grant letter of interest (LOI) is a 1-3 page document that introduces your nonprofit and requests permission to submit a full grant proposal. It should include your mission, the funding amount requested, program description, measurable objectives, budget overview, and demonstrate clear alignment with the foundation's priorities.

What Is a Letter of Interest for Grants?

A letter of interest for grants, also called a letter of inquiry, is a brief introductory document that organizations send to foundations before submitting a full grant proposal. Think of it as a compelling preview that helps funders quickly determine whether your project aligns with their funding priorities.

Key characteristics of grant letters of interest:

Length: One to three pages, typically 1.5-2 pages is ideal. Foundations and other types of funders review dozens of LOIs, so conciseness matters.

Purpose: To secure an invitation to submit a full grant proposal by demonstrating mission alignment and project viability.

Format: Professional business letter with standard components including letterhead, date, salutation, body paragraphs, and signature. This is often attached to an email, snail-mailed, or pasted into a ‘contact us’ form on the foundation’s website.

Timeline: Most foundations and other types of funders respond within 6-12 weeks, though some may take longer depending on their board meeting schedule.

Success rate: Approximately 20-40% of LOIs result in invitations to submit full proposals, though this varies significantly by foundation and program type. For example, the M.J. Murdoch Charitable Trust only invites about 10% of applicants to move forward to the grant application process.

Why Do Foundations Require Letters of Interest?

Understanding why foundations use the LOI process helps you craft more effective letters. The two-stage application process serves important purposes for both foundations and grant seekers.

For Foundations: Program officers may receive hundreds of funding requests annually. Letters of interest allow them to efficiently screen projects, focusing staff time on proposals that genuinely match their mission, geographic focus, and funding capacity. This process also helps foundations manage applicant expectations and reduce the number of declined full proposals.

For nonprofit organizations: The LOI process is designed to save you significant time and resources. Writing a full grant proposal requires hours of staff time. By submitting a brief letter first, you learn whether a foundation is interested before investing in a comprehensive application, which allows you to focus your grant writing efforts on the most promising opportunities. However, in reality, it actually creates more work in most cases, and the turnaround time between the letter of interest results and the full proposal deadline can be astonishingly short.

Industry trend: While there is no authoritative source on the percentage of foundations that require a letter of interest, it’s definitely an essential skill for development professionals and grant writers. In my 25+ years of experience in grant writing, I would estimate that at least 30% of foundations and corporations require one. Government sources also often require a letter of intent, but it is typically a very short survey to help plan for having a sufficient review team in place.

Letter of Interest vs Letter of Intent: What's the Difference?

While the terms sound similar, letters of interest and letters of intent serve different purposes in the funding world.

Letter of Interest (LOI): An exploratory document sent to gauge a foundation's interest in your project. You're asking permission to apply. The foundation has made no commitment, and you haven't been invited yet. This is typically the first contact in the grant relationship.

Letter of Intent: A more formal document indicating a serious commitment to move forward. Often used when a foundation has already expressed interest or when applying to government grants with pre-application requirements. This signals you definitely plan to submit a full proposal.

In grant seeking: Most foundations that use a two-stage process specifically request a "letter of interest" or "letter of inquiry." Always use the exact terminology the foundation uses in its guidelines.

How Long Should a Grant Letter of Interest Be?

Standard length: One to three pages, with 1.5 to 2 pages being the sweet spot for most foundations.

Why this length matters: Foundation staff often review 50-100 LOIs per funding cycle. A concise, well-organized letter respects their time while providing enough detail to make an informed decision.

When to write more: Only exceed two pages if the foundation's guidelines specifically request additional information or if you're describing a complex, multi-year program with significant budget components.

When to write less: Some foundations explicitly state "one-page maximum" in their guidelines. Always follow stated requirements precisely.

Word count guidance: Aim for 800-1,200 words. This allows you to cover all essential components without overwhelming the reader.

The density principle: Every sentence should serve a purpose. If you're struggling to fit everything in two pages, you're likely including unnecessary details. Focus on the most compelling data, the clearest program description, and the strongest alignment statements.

Essential Components: What to Include in a Grant Letter of Interest

Every effective grant LOI follows a proven structure that makes it easy for foundation staff to find key information. Here are the seven essential components in order.

1. Professional Header with Contact Information

Begin your letter with complete organizational details and recipient information formatted as a professional business letter. Remember, forgetting to include your contact information can be detrimental.

Your organization's information should include:

• Full legal organization name

• Complete mailing address

• Website address

• Contact name with email and phone number

The date: Use the full date format (January 15, 2025) rather than a numerical format.

Recipient's information should include:

• Program officer or foundation director's full name with appropriate title (Mr., Ms., Dr.). You can find this in the 990 tax return for the foundation.

• Foundation's complete legal name. Refrain from shortening it or using the ‘street name’; foundations tend to be sticklers for the correct use of their name.

• Complete street address

• City, state, and ZIP code

The salutation: Always address a specific person by name. "Dear Program Officer:" or "To Whom It May Concern:" signals insufficient research. If no contact person is listed, call the foundation office to ask who should receive LOIs. You can also use the 990 Tax Return of the foundation and direct it to the board or trustee president. The salutation is always followed by a colon, not a comma.

Example format:

Westside Link

555 Westside Highway

Anytown, ST 77777

January 15, 2025

Ms. Sarah Chen

Program Director, Community Grants

Heddington Foundation

767 Heddington Street

Heddington, MD 65656

Dear Ms. Chen:

2. Opening Paragraph: Mission, Request, and Alignment

Your opening paragraph is the most critical section of your entire letter. Foundation staff often decide whether to continue reading based solely on these first 3-4 sentences. This paragraph must accomplish three specific goals.

State your mission clearly: Begin with a concise, compelling one-sentence mission statement that immediately conveys your organization's purpose and the community you serve.

Make your specific request: Clearly state that you are requesting permission to submit a full grant proposal. Include the exact dollar amount and the specific program name. Precision matters here. Avoid writing "approximately $20,000" when you mean exactly $20,000.

Demonstrate mission alignment: Show how your program directly connects to the foundation's stated funding priorities. Use language from their website or recent grants when appropriate, but avoid simply parroting their mission statement.

Example opening paragraph: "Westside Link's mission is to foster stability and self-sufficiency for the city's children and their families through programs that feed, clothe, and educate. We are writing to respectfully request permission to submit a grant proposal for $20,000 for our Breaktime-Mealtime program, which enables students to access nutritious meals during school breaks when they would otherwise go without the free and reduced meals they receive during the school year. This program directly aligns with the Heddington Foundation's priority of strengthening lives by supporting human service organizations that provide essential resources to community residents."

What this opening accomplishes: In four sentences, the reader knows who you are, what you want, what you'll do with the funds, and why it matters to their foundation. They can make an initial assessment immediately.

3. Organizational Background and Credibility

This brief section establishes your legitimacy and track record. Foundation staff need confidence that you have the capacity to deliver on your promises.

What to include:

• Founding date and brief history: Demonstrates organizational stability and community roots

• Core programs and service areas: Shows breadth of expertise and infrastructure

• Geographic service area: Confirms you serve the foundation's target region

• Notable achievements or recognition: Builds credibility without bragging

• Key partnerships: Indicates collaborative capacity and community trust

What to exclude:

• Lengthy historical narratives

• Lists of every program you've ever offered

• Board member names (unless specifically requested)

• Detailed organizational structure

• Your 501(c)(3) determination date (include this in attachments if requested)

Empowering language approach: Remember to frame your organization as the supporting actor. Your program participants are the heroes of their own stories.

Example paragraph: "Westside Link was founded in 1911 by community members committed to strengthening neighborhood support systems and building resilience among families. By providing access to children's basic resources, students can focus on their education and build pathways to economic stability. Our program areas include nutrition access, educational support, basic needs assistance, and emergency services. We serve 15 neighborhoods across the city's west side, partnering with 12 elementary schools and reaching more than 3,000 families annually."

Length guideline: Keep this section to 3-5 sentences or one short paragraph. Your organizational background is important, but it's not the star of your letter—your program is.

4. The Community Insight Statement: Demonstrating Need

This section makes your case by clearly articulating why your program is necessary. Strong problem statements balance concrete data with humanizing context, showing both the scope of need and the real impact on people's lives.

Components of an effective problem statement:

Lead with your strongest statistic: Open with the most compelling number that demonstrates urgency or scale. This could be a trend showing rapid growth, a percentage revealing widespread impact, or a comparison highlighting disparities.

Use local, specific data: National statistics provide context, but local data proves immediate community need. Partner with school districts, health departments, city agencies, or university researchers to access community-specific information.

Show trends over time: Static numbers are less compelling than trends. Demonstrate that the problem is growing, persistent, or newly emerging. Percentage increases signal urgency better than raw numbers alone.

Break down data by location or demographic: Showing variation helps foundations understand where impact will be greatest. School-by-school, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, or demographic breakdowns make need tangible.

Include humanizing elements: Brief quotes from program participants or community members put faces to statistics without being manipulative. One or two powerful quotes are more effective than many.

Connect to broader context: Briefly mention how local need relates to regional or national trends when relevant. This shows you understand the bigger picture while staying focused on local impact.

Example from the Westside Link letter:

The problem statement effectively uses enrollment data showing a 39% increase in students qualifying for free and reduced meals over four years (from 2,958 to 4,114 students). It then provides school-specific percentages demonstrating that three elementary schools have more than 50% of students needing meal support, with Lake Hills Elementary at 69%. The inclusion of authentic parent quotes—"I'm leaving empty food cartons and packages in the refrigerator and our cupboards, so our children won't realize how bad things are"—humanizes the statistics without sensationalizing.

Common mistakes to avoid:

• Using only emotional appeals without data

• Citing only national statistics without local context

• Overwhelming readers with too many numbers

• Making claims without citations

• Using outdated data (older than 2-3 years)

• Focusing solely on what's wrong rather than what's possible

Empowering language in problem statements: Describe the situation accurately while maintaining dignity. Write about "students who would benefit from nutrition support" rather than "needy children," and "families working to increase food security" rather than "families in crisis."

5. Program Description: Your Solution

After establishing need, describe exactly what you will do to address it. Specificity builds confidence—vague descriptions suggest unclear planning.

Essential details to include:

Specific activities: What services will participants access? What exactly happens in your program? Describe the tangible activities, not just conceptual approaches.

Timeline and frequency: When do activities occur? How often? For how long? Is this a one-time event, ongoing service, or time-limited intervention?

Target population: Who will benefit? How many people? What are their characteristics? Be specific about both who is included and who is served.

Delivery method: How do services reach participants? Do they come to you, do you go to them, or is it a hybrid model?

Quality assurance: Who ensures quality and effectiveness? Mention professional credentials, training, or review processes that demonstrate competence.

Participant agency: Use language that centers participants as active agents. Rather than "we will provide meals to children," write "students will access nutritious meals through our program."

Example from Westside Link:

The program description clearly explains that students access meal boxes during three school breaks: spring break and mid-winter break (each one week) and winter break (two weeks). Each box contains breakfast, lunch, and a snack for five days, totaling ten meals plus snacks and a grocery voucher for perishable items. Boxes are available for all children in participating families. Volunteers pack boxes under the guidance of a nutritionist who reviews the contents for nutritional adequacy.

What makes this effective: A reader unfamiliar with the program could now explain how it works. The description includes specific details (what's in a box, which breaks are covered, who reviews quality) without getting bogged down in operational minutiae.

Length guideline: 1-2 paragraphs or 4-8 sentences. Provide enough detail for clarity without overwhelming the reader with procedures.

6. Goals and Measurable Objectives

Foundations invest in results, not just activities. This section demonstrates that you've thought strategically about how you'll measure success and create meaningful change.

The difference between goals and objectives:

Your goal is the overarching change you seek to accomplish—a broad statement of desired impact. Goals describe the ultimate outcome you're working toward.

Your objectives are specific, measurable activities or milestones that support achieving your goal. These are concrete, time-bound, and quantifiable.

Writing SMART objectives:

Every objective should meet five criteria:

Specific: Clearly defined activities or outcomes, not vague intentions. "Host informational sessions" is specific; "raise awareness" is not.

Measurable: Include numbers, percentages, or other quantifiable metrics. How will you know if you achieved this objective?

Achievable: Realistic given your resources, timeline, and organizational capacity. Avoid objectives that depend entirely on factors outside your control.

Relevant: Directly connected to your stated goal and program activities. Every objective should clearly contribute to your desired impact.

Time-bound: Include a timeframe for completion, whether explicit ("by June 2026") or implied by the grant period.

Example from Westside Link:

Goal: Reduce food insecurity for children and positively impact their ability to learn in school by ensuring students can access nutritious meals during school breaks.

Objectives:

• Host at least ten informational sessions about the program throughout the school district, with targeted outreach to schools where enrollment in free and reduced meal programs exceeds 50%

• Maintain or increase the number of students accessing the program to at least 1,600 participants

• Receive positive feedback indicating that at least 70% of key stakeholders (school staff, volunteers, and participating families) rate the program as 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' via annual surveys.

Why these work: Each objective includes specific numbers (10 sessions, 1,600 students, 70% satisfaction), uses measurable language ("host," "maintain," "receive"), and connects directly to the stated goal. Success can be clearly evaluated.

How many objectives: Include 2-4 objectives. Fewer than two suggests limited planning; more than four becomes difficult to track and may seem unrealistic within typical grant periods.

Common mistakes:

• Confusing activities with outcomes (activities are what you do; outcomes are what changes)

• Using unmeasurable language ("improve understanding," "increase awareness")

• Setting objectives you can't realistically evaluate

• Making objectives too complex or dependent on external factors

7. Budget Overview and Funding Strategy

Foundations want to understand both how you'll use their grant and how your program fits into a larger funding ecosystem. This section demonstrates financial competence and sustainability.

Essential budget information:

Total program cost: State the full cost to operate this program annually. This provides context for your request.

Cost per unit: Break down expenses to per-person, per-meal, or per-service cost. This demonstrates efficiency and helps foundations compare your approach to similar programs.

Your specific request: Clarify exactly what the requested grant will fund. Will it cover specific activities, a portion of the program, or particular budget lines?

Other confirmed funding sources: List other grants, donations, or revenue supporting this program. Include foundation names and amounts when possible. This demonstrates diversified support and reduces foundation risk.

Funding gap: Explain how you'll secure the remaining needed funds if applicable. Mention upcoming fundraising events, pending grant applications, or earned revenue strategies.

Organizational budget context: Include your total organizational budget for the current year. This helps foundations assess your capacity and understand the program's scale relative to your organization.

Future sustainability: If relevant, briefly mention your sustainability strategy. Will this program eventually generate earned income, build an endowment, or secure ongoing public funding?

Example from Westside Link:

"Our Breaktime-Mealtime program budget is $90,000 annually. Since dedicated volunteers pack and distribute boxes, this budget consists primarily of food and supplies. This breaks down to $22,500 for each of the four weeks of school breaks, enabling approximately 1,600 students to access breakfast, lunch, and snacks for five days at a cost of $2.80 per child per day. As the program grows, we plan to raise additional funding to hire a part-time program coordinator to strengthen outreach efforts, volunteer coordination, and program evaluation.

Other funding sources supporting this program include grants from the Norcliffe Foundation ($20,000), Trevor Foundation ($10,000), and Rotary Club ($3,000). We will raise the remaining funds through our annual Gala, individual donations, and additional grant applications. Our total organizational budget is $1,017,938, demonstrating our capacity to manage this program as part of our broader mission to support children and families building economic stability."

Why this works: The reader understands the full program cost, sees the cost efficiency ($2.80 per child per day), knows how the requested $20,000 fits into the funding picture, and has confidence that the organization can manage these funds appropriately within their larger budget.

What to avoid:

• Providing excessive budget detail (save this for the full proposal)

• Listing only your organization's need without showing other support

• Hiding or obscuring your total program cost

• Making the request seem like your only funding source

• Failing to explain how funds will be used

8. Closing Paragraph: Gratitude and Call to Action

Your closing should gracefully conclude the letter while reinforcing key themes and inviting next steps.

What to include:

Expression of gratitude: Thank the reader sincerely for considering your request. Acknowledge that foundations review many worthy proposals.

Reiteration of alignment: Briefly reconnect your program to the foundation's mission, reinforcing the partnership opportunity.

Invitation for next steps: Express hope for an invitation to submit a full proposal without being presumptive.

Clear contact information: Provide your direct phone number and email address, making it easy for staff to reach you with questions.

Professional tone: Maintain confidence in your program while remaining respectful and humble about the foundation's decision-making process.

Example closing: "Thank you for considering this request. We hope that our shared commitment to ensuring students have the resources they need to thrive will lead to a partnership between Westside Link and the Hicks Foundation. We would welcome the opportunity to submit a full grant proposal providing additional details about program impact, evaluation methods, and organizational capacity. Please contact me with any questions at (555) 555-5555 or laura@westsidelink.org."

What to avoid:

• Presumptive language ("We look forward to receiving your grant" or "When you fund this program")

• Overly humble language ("We know you probably have better options" or "This is probably not your priority")

• Pressure tactics ("We need an answer quickly" or "Children will suffer without this")

• Forgetting contact information

• Introducing new information that should have been in earlier sections

How to Format a Grant Letter of Interest

Professional formatting enhances readability and demonstrates attention to detail. Follow these formatting guidelines for maximum impact.

Page length: Aim for 1.5 to 2 pages. Rarely exceed 2.5 pages unless guidelines specify otherwise.

Font selection: Use professional, easy-to-read fonts in 11 or 12-point size. Recommended options include Times New Roman, Arial, Calibri, or Georgia. Avoid decorative, script, or unusual fonts.

Line spacing: Single-space the body of your letter with double spaces between paragraphs. This creates clean visual breaks without wasting space.

Margins: Use standard one-inch margins on all sides. Don't shrink margins to fit more content—this makes text harder to read.

Paragraph structure: Keep paragraphs focused and digestible. Aim for 4-8 sentences per paragraph. Break up long paragraphs into smaller sections.

Organization name and logo: If your letterhead includes your logo, place it at the top. Ensure it's of professional quality and appropriately sized.

Headers and emphasis: Use bold sparingly for subheadings if needed, but avoid excessive formatting. Don't underline, use all caps, or over-bold text.

Page numbers: If your letter extends to a second page, include page numbers and your organization's name in the header or footer.

Signature block: Leave space for a handwritten signature if sending hard copies. Include typed name, title, organization name, phone number, and email below the signature line.

File naming: If submitting electronically, use a clear file name like "WestsideLink_LOI_HicksFoundation_Jan2025.pdf"

Writing Style and Tone for Grant Letters

How you write is as important as what you write. These style principles will strengthen your letter's impact.

Active voice and participant agency: Use active voice, strong verbs, and make program participants the heroes of their own story. "More than 1,600 students will access meals from Westside Link" centers the students' agency rather than positioning them as passive recipients.

Concrete, specific language: Replace vague terms with precise details. Instead of "many children," write "1,600 students." Instead of "some schools," name them specifically or provide exact numbers. Specificity builds credibility.

Empowering, asset-based language: Focus on strengths, goals, and capabilities rather than deficits. Write about "building economic stability" rather than "combating poverty," "families working to increase resources" rather than "needy families," and "students accessing nutrition support" rather than "hungry children." This approach maintains dignity while clearly communicating need.

Professional but warm tone: Strike a balance between formal professionalism and genuine passion for your mission. Your letter should sound like a competent professional who deeply cares about this work, not a bureaucrat filling out forms.

Data-driven with human context: The strongest letters integrate compelling statistics with humanizing stories. Data proves scope; stories make it personal and memorable.

Clear, jargon-free writing: Avoid nonprofit jargon, acronyms without explanation, and overly technical language. Write clearly enough that someone outside your field can understand your program.

Confident without arrogance: Express confidence in your organization's capacity and your program's potential without suggesting you're the only solution or making guarantees about outcomes beyond your control.

Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing Grant LOIs

Learning from common pitfalls helps you craft stronger letters. Avoid these frequent mistakes.

Writing too much: Foundation staff review dozens of LOIs. A letter exceeding three pages signals you can't synthesize information effectively or respect their time.

Failing to research the foundation: Generic letters that could be sent to any foundation demonstrate laziness. Customize each letter to show you understand their priorities, recent grants, and specific focus areas.

Burying the request: Don't make readers hunt for what you want. State your specific dollar amount and program name clearly in the opening paragraph.

Weak or missing mission alignment: Never assume alignment is obvious. Explicitly connect your program to the foundation's stated priorities using concrete language.

Using only emotion or only data: Balance is key. Data without stories feels cold; stories without data lack credibility.

Unmeasurable objectives: Avoid vague objectives like "increase awareness" or "improve outcomes." Use specific, quantifiable language: "Distribute 400 resource guides to participating families" or "Achieve 80% improvement in post-program knowledge assessments."

No proofreading: Typos, grammatical errors, and formatting inconsistencies suggest carelessness with your organization's work. Have at least two people review your letter before submission.

Missing deadlines: Submit early when possible. Last-minute submissions are more likely to contain errors and may miss technical cutoffs.

Ignoring guidelines: If a foundation specifies requirements for format, length, attachments, or submission method, follow them exactly. Failure to follow instructions often results in automatic disqualification.

Sending to the wrong foundation: Some organizations waste time applying to foundations whose guidelines explicitly exclude their type of organization, geography, or program area. Read the eligibility criteria carefully before investing time.

Step-by-Step Process: How to Write Your Grant Letter of Interest

Follow this systematic approach to create a compelling letter of interest efficiently.

Step 1: Research the foundation thoroughly (1 hour)

Before writing a single word, invest time in understanding your potential foundation. Review their website, read their mission and values statements, study recent grants (available on their 990 tax form or website), identify program officers and their areas of focus, note application guidelines and deadlines, and understand geographic or program restrictions.

Step 2: Gather your strongest evidence (1 hour)

Collect the data, stories, and information you'll need. Compile recent program statistics and outcomes, gather compelling participant quotes or testimonials, locate relevant community need data, review your program budget and expenses, list other funding sources and amounts, and prepare your organizational budget figure.

Step 3: Create an outline (30 minutes)

Map out your letter's structure before writing. Identify your most compelling opening hook, select your strongest 2-3 pieces of need data, choose which program details are most important, write your 2-4 SMART objectives, and determine your budget message and funding strategy.

Step 4: Write the first draft (1 hour)

Write freely without editing. Focus on getting all essential information down. Start with whichever section feels easiest—you don't have to write in order. Many writers find the opening paragraph easiest to write after completing the body sections.

Step 5: Revise for content and clarity (45 minutes)

Review your draft critically. Ensure every component is present, verify all data is accurate and sourced, check that objectives are SMART and measurable, confirm mission alignment is explicit, and strengthen weak or vague language.

Step 6: Edit for conciseness (45 minutes)

Cut ruthlessly. Remove redundant information, eliminate unnecessary adjectives and adverbs, replace passive voice with active voice, delete entire sentences that don't serve a clear purpose, and condense wherever possible without losing meaning.

Step 7: Format and proofread (45 minutes)

Polish your letter professionally. Apply consistent formatting throughout, check spelling and grammar carefully, verify all names, titles, and organizations are correct, ensure contact information is accurate, and read the letter aloud to catch awkward phrasing.

Step 8: Get feedback (varies)

Have at least two people review your letter: someone familiar with your program and someone unfamiliar with it. The insider checks for accuracy; the outsider checks for clarity.

Step 9: Submit according to guidelines (30 minutes)

Follow submission instructions precisely. Submit via the requested method (online portal, email, or mail), include all requested attachments, meet the deadline with time to spare, and keep a copy for your records.

Total time investment: Approximately 4-5 hours for a strong letter of interest, significantly less than the 20-40 hours required for a full proposal.

What Happens After You Submit Your Letter of Interest?

Understanding the review process helps manage expectations and plan next steps.

Initial screening (1-2 weeks): Foundation staff review all LOIs received during the submission period. They eliminate projects that don't align with funding priorities, fall outside geographic restrictions, or exceed available grant ranges.

Detailed review (1-2 weeks): Promising LOIs receive more thorough evaluation. Staff may research your organization, review your website and recent Form 990, check references or past foundation relationships, and prepare recommendations for decision-makers.

Board or committee review (1-2 weeks): Selected LOIs are presented to the foundation's board of directors or grants committee during their next scheduled meeting. Meeting frequency varies—some boards meet monthly, others quarterly.

Decision notification (3-6 weeks total): You'll receive one of three responses:

Invitation to submit a full proposal: Congratulations! You've passed the first hurdle. You'll receive specific instructions, required components, and a submission deadline (typically 4-8 weeks). This doesn't guarantee funding, but it means you're seriously under consideration.

Decline with feedback: Some foundations provide brief explanations for why your project wasn't selected. This feedback is valuable—use it to strengthen future applications.

Decline without feedback: Many foundations receive far more qualified requests than they can fund. A generic decline letter doesn't reflect poorly on your organization or program—it simply means resources were limited or priorities shifted.

Important perspective: Even excellent programs receive more declines than approvals. Grant seeking requires persistence. A declined LOI might mean:

• The foundation received proposals from organizations they've funded previously

• Your geographic area or program type wasn't the priority this cycle

• The foundation's board shifted focus to emerging issues

• Other proposals addressed more urgent needs

• Your program timing didn't align with their funding calendar

Don't interpret declines as judgments on your organization's worth or program quality.

Following Up on Your Letter of Interest

Professional follow-up demonstrates respect for the foundation's process while keeping communication lines open.

If invited to submit a full proposal:

Respond immediately with a brief email thanking them for the invitation and confirming you'll submit by the deadline. Note the deadline prominently in your calendar. Consider calling the program officer to ask clarifying questions about their priorities, specific emphasis areas, or required components. Begin working on your full proposal promptly—the timeline will be tight.

If declined:

Send a brief, gracious thank-you note within a week. Express appreciation for their consideration and hope to connect in the future when priorities align. Ask if you may submit an LOI for a different program or in the next funding cycle. Request feedback if they're willing to provide it (but don't pressure if they decline). Update your foundation research database with any information you learned through this process.

If you hear nothing:

Most foundations specify their review timeline in guidelines or confirmation emails. If that period has passed with no response, send a polite inquiry. Keep it brief: "I'm following up on our letter of interest submitted on [date] requesting support for [program name]. Could you provide an update on the review timeline or next steps? Thank you for your consideration."

When not to follow up:

If guidelines explicitly state "do not call or email," respect this boundary. If you received a clear decline letter, additional follow-up (beyond a thank-you note and feedback request) is inappropriate.

Letter of Interest Checklist: Are You Ready to Submit?

Use this checklist to verify your letter includes all essential components and follows best practices. Use the foundation’s specific guidelines. However, if no guidance is provided, use the following format and structure.

Format and Structure:

• Letter is 1-3 pages (ideally 1.5-2 pages)

• Professional business letter format with complete contact information

• Letter addressed to a specific person by name and title

• Professional 11-12 point font (Times New Roman, Arial, Calibri, or Georgia)

• Single-spaced with double spaces between paragraphs

• Standard one-inch margins

• Page numbers included if more than one page

• File named clearly for electronic submission

Content Components:

• Opening paragraph states mission, specific dollar amount requested, program name, and mission alignment

• Organizational background establishes credibility in 3-5 sentences

• Problem statement includes compelling local data and shows trends

• Problem statement includes humanizing context (quotes or brief examples)

• Program description explains specific activities, timeline, and target population

• Program description uses empowering language centering participant agency

• Goal statement articulates desired impact

• 2-4 SMART objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound

• Budget overview includes total program cost and cost per unit

• Other funding sources listed with amounts

• Total organizational budget provided for context

• Closing expresses gratitude and invites next steps

• Direct contact information provided (phone and email)

Quality and Style:

• Foundation's priorities and language reflected throughout

• Every claim backed by data or evidence

• Active voice used throughout

• Empowering, asset-based language

• No jargon, acronyms explained, clear language

• No typos or grammatical errors

• At least two people reviewed the letter

• All names, titles, and organizations verified correct

• All numbers and statistics verified accurate

• Submission follows stated guidelines exactly

Research and Alignment:

• Foundation's name, address, and contact person verified correct

• Confirmed your organization meets eligibility requirements

• Confirmed geographic service area matches foundation's focus

• Confirmed program type aligns with foundation's priorities

• Referenced specific foundation priorities or recent grants when appropriate

• Request amount falls within foundation's typical grant range

Frequently Asked Questions About Grant Letters of Interest

How long does it take to write a letter of interest?

Expect to invest 4-5 hours for a strong letter of interest, including research, writing, revision, and review. This breaks down roughly into 1 hour for foundation research, 30 minutes drafting an outline, 1 hour gathering data and evidence, 45 minutes writing the first draft, 45 minutes revising and editing, and 45 minutes formatting, proofreading, and getting feedback. While this seems significant, it's far less than the 20-40 hours typically required for a full grant proposal.

Can I send the same letter to multiple foundations?

No. Each letter must be customized to the specific foundation's priorities, language, and requirements. While you can use the same core program description and data, you must customize the opening paragraph to demonstrate specific alignment, adjust emphasis based on each foundation's priorities, use language that reflects their mission and values, and ensure all guidelines and requirements are followed precisely. Generic letters are immediately obvious to foundation staff and significantly reduce your chances of success.

What if the foundation doesn't list a specific program officer?

Call the foundation office and ask who should receive letters of interest for your program area. Most staff will gladly provide this information, or you can find it on the 990 Tax Return for the foundation, addressing it to the program officer, president, or secretary. If no one is available or the foundation prefers no direct contact, address your letter to "Board of Trustees." Avoid "To Whom It May Concern."

Should I include attachments with my letter of interest?

Only include attachments if specifically requested in the foundation's guidelines. Most foundations want only the letter at the LOI stage, reserving detailed documents for full proposals. Commonly requested attachments at the LOI stage might include a one-page organizational budget summary or IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter. Never send unrequested attachments—this suggests you can't follow instructions.

How much detail should I include in the budget section?

Provide a high-level overview, not a line-item budget. Include your total program budget, cost per participant or unit of service, your specific funding request and what it will cover, other confirmed funding sources with amounts, and your total organizational budget for context. Save detailed line-item budgets, budget narratives, and financial statements for the full proposal.

What's the success rate for letters of interest?

Success rates vary widely by foundation, program type, and competition level, but generally, 20-40% of LOIs result in invitations to submit full proposals. The important thing to remember is that this is an opportunity to begin building a relationship with the grantmaker, whatever the immediate outcome. Think of this process as a step to open communication channels and get to know the foundation. Often, a longer courting phase results in a larger grant down the road.

Should I follow up if I don't hear back?

Yes, but only after the stated review period has passed. If the foundation indicates they'll respond within 8 weeks, wait at least 9 weeks before following up. Send a brief, professional email asking for a status update. If you receive no response to your follow-up after 2 weeks, you can assume it's a decline and move on.

What if my program doesn't perfectly align with their priorities?

Resist the temptation to apply. Foundation staff can easily identify applications that don't genuinely align with their mission. Instead, invest your time pursuing foundations where alignment is strong and clear. Forcing a connection where none exists wastes everyone's time and may harm your organization's reputation with that foundation. Even more concerning, this practice of submitting misaligned applications is causing more foundations to move to invitation-only processes or stop accepting unsolicited proposals entirely, making funding increasingly difficult to access for all nonprofits.

Can I call a program officer to discuss my idea before submitting?

This depends on the foundation's culture and stated preferences. Some foundations welcome preliminary conversations; others prefer to review written LOIs first. Check the foundation's website or call their general office number to ask about their preference. If they welcome pre-submission calls, prepare thoughtful questions rather than a pitch. Be ready with a brief introduction to your organization (30 seconds to 1 minute), then focus on listening and learning. Ask about their current priorities, upcoming deadlines, or whether your program area aligns with their focus. The goal is to gather information and build a relationship, not to sell your project.

How should I handle if my request amount changes after I submit the LOI?

Avoid changing your request amount if at all possible. Changing the amount after submission signals poor planning and can damage your credibility with the foundation. If you absolutely must adjust the amount due to significant unforeseen circumstances, contact the program officer immediately to discuss the situation before submitting your full proposal. Be prepared to explain clearly why the change is necessary and what has changed since your LOI. Even small adjustments should be discussed with foundation staff rather than simply appearing in your full proposal without explanation. The best approach is to ensure your budget is thoroughly researched and realistic before submitting your initial LOI.

What if I made a mistake in my submitted LOI?

If you notice a minor error (typo, small formatting issue) after submission, don't resubmit or call attention to it. Foundation staff expect occasional small errors and won't reject an otherwise strong proposal for minor mistakes. If you discover a major error (wrong funding amount, incorrect data, missing entire section), contact the foundation immediately, explain the situation professionally, and ask if you may submit a corrected version.

Do I need board approval before submitting a letter of interest?

You need the approval of the executive director, or the board president if it's an all-volunteer organization. Only the official authorized representative of the organization should sign and submit LOIs and grant proposals. The person who signs is legally attesting that all information is true and accurate. Submitting false or misleading information could lead to fraud allegations, loss of tax-exempt status, or disqualification from future funding. Verify all data before submission.

Advanced Tips for Competitive Letters of Interest

Once you've mastered the basics, these advanced strategies can strengthen your letters further.

Lead with your most compelling evidence: Don't bury your strongest data in the middle of paragraphs. Front-load the most impressive statistics, trends, or outcomes in the first sentence of relevant sections.

Use strategic comparison: When appropriate, position your program's efficiency, reach, or outcomes against national benchmarks or similar programs. "At $2.80 per child per day, our program delivers nutrition support at 40% below the national average cost while maintaining high satisfaction ratings."

Demonstrate collaborative capacity: Foundations increasingly value partnerships. Mention formal collaborations with schools, government agencies, or other nonprofits that strengthen your program's reach or effectiveness.

Address obvious questions proactively: If a skeptical reader might question your approach, address it directly. "While some programs provide meal vouchers, our meal box approach ensures nutritional quality while honoring family dignity and choice through included grocery vouchers for perishable items."

Show responsiveness to feedback: If you've previously submitted to this foundation, mention how you've incorporated any feedback or strengthened the program based on their suggestions.

Connect to current priorities: If the foundation recently expressed interest in specific issues (equity, climate, technology integration), thoughtfully connect your program to these themes when genuinely relevant—but never force artificial connections.

Quantify program growth strategically: Showing demand growth (23% increase in participants) signals both community need and organizational capacity to scale effectively.

Include unexpected stakeholder voices: Beyond typical participant quotes, consider brief statements from teachers, volunteers, partner organizations, or community leaders that validate your program's impact.

Download: Free Letter of Interest Template and Checklist

To help you get started, we've created free downloadable resources:

Letter of Interest Template: A fill-in-the-blank template following the structure outlined in this guide, with prompts for each essential component.

LOI Submission Checklist: A printable checklist to ensure you've included all necessary elements before submitting.

Sample Letter of Interest: Download the complete Westside Link sample letter referenced throughout this article to see these principles in action.

These resources provide practical frameworks you can customize for your organization's unique programs and funding needs.

Sample Letter Analysis: Learning from Westside Link

Let's analyze the strengths and improvement opportunities in the sample letter to deepen your understanding.

Strengths of the Westside Link letter:

Strong opening: The first paragraph immediately establishes mission, specific request ($20,000), program name (Breaktime-Mealtime), and clear alignment with foundation priorities. No reader confusion about what's being requested.

Compelling local data: Specific enrollment statistics (39% increase from 2,958 to 4,114 students) with school-by-school breakdown creates urgency. Lake Hills Elementary at 69% and two other schools above 50% demonstrates concentrated need.

Humanizing context: Parent quotes add emotional weight without manipulation. "I'm leaving empty food cartons and packages in the refrigerator...so our children won't realize how bad things are" makes the data personal and memorable.

Specific program description: Clear explanation of what's included (10 meals plus snacks and grocery vouchers), when services occur (three breaks totaling four weeks), and quality assurance (nutritionist review).

SMART objectives: Each of three objectives includes measurable targets (10 sessions, 1,600 students, 70% satisfaction) making evaluation straightforward.

Transparent budget: Clear breakdown showing $90,000 total cost, $2.80 per child per day, and multiple funding sources ($20,000 + $10,000 + $3,000) demonstrates diversified support.

Appropriate length: At approximately 2 pages, comprehensive without being overwhelming.

Areas where the letter could be strengthened:

Language could be more empowering: While the client quotes appropriately remain authentic, organizational language could shift from "helping those less fortunate" to "strengthening community support systems" and from "break the cycle of poverty" to "build pathways to economic stability."

Evaluation details: Beyond satisfaction surveys, the letter could mention tracking participation rates over time, gathering feedback from school administrators about impact on student readiness, or following up on academic attendance data for participating students.

Volunteer sustainability: Since the program relies entirely on volunteers, the letter could briefly mention volunteer recruitment strategies, retention rates, or training approaches that ensure program consistency.

Outcomes beyond satisfaction: While satisfaction is valuable, the letter could reference student-level outcomes if available—improved attendance rates, teacher reports of increased focus, or family feedback about reduced stress.

Connection to foundation's past grants: If the Hicks Foundation previously funded similar nutrition programs or child-focused initiatives, the letter could reference this history to strengthen alignment.

Theory of change: Could briefly articulate the connection between nutrition access during breaks and improved academic outcomes, perhaps citing research on the impact of food insecurity on learning.

Resources for Grant Writers

Foundation Research Tools:

• Instrumentl

• Foundation Directory Online - Searchable grant information

• GuideStar - Nonprofit and foundation profiles with 990 forms

• State and regional associations of foundations

• Local community foundation databases

• State attorney general charity registries

Professional Development:

• Grant Professionals Association (GPA) - Training and certification

• Grant Professionals Certification Institute - GPC credential

• American Grant Writers' Association - Resources and networking

• Regional nonprofit management programs

• State and local foundations associations offering workshops

Templates and Examples: Many successful nonprofits publish sample LOIs on their websites as part of transparency initiatives. Search for "[organization name] sample letter of interest" to find examples in your program area.

Final Thoughts: Your Path to Grant Success

Writing an effective letter of interest requires research, strategy, clear communication, and respect for both the foundation's time and your program participants' dignity. By following the structure outlined in this guide—crafting a compelling opening, demonstrating need with concrete data, describing your solution specifically, establishing measurable objectives, and presenting a transparent budget—you significantly increase your chances of earning that crucial invitation to submit a full proposal.

Remember these key principles:

Every letter must be customized to the specific foundation's priorities and language. Generic applications are obvious and rarely successful.

Specificity builds credibility. Vague descriptions suggest unclear planning. Use concrete numbers, specific activities, and measurable objectives throughout.

Balance data with humanity. Statistics prove scope and urgency; stories make the issue personal and memorable. The strongest letters integrate both.

Use empowering language that centers program participants as active agents, building toward goals rather than passive recipients of charity.

Quality matters more than quantity. A concise, well-crafted two-page letter outperforms a rambling three-page letter every time.

Your next steps:

Identify 5-10 foundations whose missions align closely with your program priorities. Research each foundation's guidelines, recent grants, and application requirements thoroughly. Gather your strongest program data, participant feedback, and outcome evidence. Draft your letter following the seven essential components outlined in this guide. Revise ruthlessly for clarity, conciseness, and impact. Have at least two people review before submission. Submit before the deadline with all required materials. Track your submissions and responses to improve your strategy over time.

Grant seeking is a marathon, not a sprint. Even the best-written letters face rejection due to limited resources, timing issues, or changing priorities. Success comes through persistence, continuous learning, and strategic relationship-building with foundations whose values align with yours.

With careful preparation, attention to these guidelines, and commitment to telling your program's story with both data and heart, your letters of interest will open doors to funding partnerships that support your mission and strengthen your community for years to come. 

About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Join the Conversation!

I’d love to hear from you! Share your thoughts in the comments: 

• What's the most challenging part of writing LOIs for you? 

• Have you discovered any tips or shortcuts that work well? 

• What questions do you still have about the LOI process? 

Your insights help build a stronger community of grant professionals. Comment below!

Trust-based philanthropy has reshaped the conversation about how nonprofits, foundations, and grantmakers work together to create more equitable funding systems. It challenges old habits of control and paperwork, asking funders to loosen their grip and invest in long-term, flexible partnerships.

 That is a welcome shift. The grant world has needed more humanity for a long time.

However, working with thousands of nonprofits and grant writers, I have seen something else, too. The traditional grant application system was broken, but removing it entirely creates new risks. When funding becomes invitation-only, many incredible organizations simply never get seen.

 The goal is not to end applications. It is to build trust that includes…trust that discovers.

A Brief History of Trust-Based Philanthropy

The modern trust-based philanthropy movement began in the late 2010s with the launch of the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, which encouraged foundations to embrace multi-year, unrestricted funding and stronger grantmaker-grantee relationships.

They were responding to a very real problem: nonprofits were drowning in bureaucracy. Many spent more time writing grant proposals and reports than fulfilling their mission.

The movement offered six core principles: multi-year unrestricted funding, streamlined paperwork, transparent communication, and mutual learning among them. It quickly spread across the United States and beyond, influencing major private and community foundations to seek out nonprofits that are making significant community impacts.

At its best, trust-based philanthropy channels multi-year, unrestricted resources to high-impact nonprofits, creating stability and flexibility that strengthen their long-term effectiveness. It affirms that nonprofits closest to the work are best positioned to make decisions. It recognizes that trust is a form of respect.

But as the model gained popularity, a quiet tension emerged. The nonprofits that get to participate in trust-based philanthropy are a narrow selection of all the nonprofits in the community making an impact. What happens to organizations that funders don’t even know about?

Where Grant Proposals Began

Long before philanthropy became an industry, scholars were writing proposals to fund their research. In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European universities, researchers wrote funding petitions describing their ideas, methods, and anticipated discoveries. These proposals were reviewed by peers who were scientists themselves. They could evaluate whether the research was viable or not. Peer review was not bureaucracy. It was accountability. It ensured that promising ideas received support based on merit and feasibility, not on connections or reputation.

It allowed researchers to engage one another as peers, creating a system built on learning, credibility, and shared growth. Over time, philanthropy professionalized. Proposals became forms, then portals, and eventually entire compliance systems. The bridge turned into a gate guarded by jargon and unspoken expectations.

So when trust-based philanthropy emerged, it was a breath of fresh air. But like every reform, it is only a beginning.

The Paradox of Trust-Based Philanthropy

Trust-based philanthropy rightly asks funders to simplify, listen, and support grantees holistically. Yet in practice, it often replaces one imbalance with another.

When the only way to receive funding is through a personal connection or invitation, we have traded one gate for another that is softer but still closed. The funder still decides who gets in, only now without an open line for others to introduce themselves.

For smaller nonprofits, grassroots organizations, and new grant writers, that means fewer entry points into philanthropic funding opportunities. They are simply unknown.

The original purpose of the grant proposal — to bring new ideas into view — quietly disappears.

The Solution: Peer Review for Modern Philanthropy

I dislike it when people bring up problems, but don’t have solutions. I have a solution. If the problem is that trust-based philanthropy can become exclusive, the solution is peer review in philanthropy — a practice that brings expertise, diversity, and accountability into the grantmaking process.

In science, peer review works because peers understand the work. They can assess methods, potential, and integrity in ways outsiders cannot. It is not only about fairness; it is about competence.

Why should philanthropy be any different?

Too often, funding decisions are made by people far removed from the problems they aim to solve. Philanthropy needs more insight at the table, not just oversight.

Peer review offers that. Peer review in the grant review process allows funders to rely on practitioners who understand real-world challenges, making grant funding decisions more credible and community-informed. It introduces expertise, context, and diversity into decision-making. It brings credibility from the ground up rather than judgment from the top down.

The Benefits of Peer Review in the Grantmaking Process

·      Greater transparency for nonprofits

·      Fairer evaluation of proposals

·      Improved equity in funding decisions

Let’s Imagine What Peer Review Could Look Like in Philanthropy

1. Practitioner Panels
   Funders could invite nonprofit leaders working in similar issue areas to review applications, using their practical understanding to assess viability. A literacy nonprofit could review reading programs. An environmental justice leader could assess climate initiatives.

2. Rotating Community Reviewers
   Some community foundations already do this by inviting residents to score proposals or recommend awards. However, this could go further. Instead of one-time participation, reviewers could be trained, compensated, and rotated regularly to create continuity and equity.

3. Tiered Review
   Short concept notes could first be reviewed by peers, who identify the most promising ideas. Funders could then deepen relationships and provide resources, turning peer insight into partnership.

4. Reciprocal Feedback
   Peer review should not only decide winners. It should strengthen organizations. Constructive feedback, even for those not selected, helps nonprofits grow, refine ideas, and try again. Lately, I’ve been seeing decline letters from foundations that preemptively state they do not provide feedback on grant proposals.
   
   What?!
   
   When I have reviewed grants for foundations like 4Culture and School Out Washington, we are asked to leave comments for the applicants as we go. That way, if they request feedback, it’s available. It's really not that hard to do. And guess what? I also received anti-bias training as a part of my reviewer orientation.

5. Cross-Sector Collaboration
   Cross-sector peer review models can help both philanthropic foundations and community-based organizations make smarter funding decisions rooted in local expertise.

How This Differs from Participatory Grantmaking

Participatory grantmaking, where community members or beneficiaries help allocate funds, is an important cousin of trust-based philanthropy. Peer review is slightly different.

Where participatory models emphasize inclusion, peer review emphasizes expertise.
It asks, “Who truly understands this work, and how can we use their insight to fund wisely?”

That is what makes peer review powerful. It combines inclusion with discernment.

Building Trust That Includes

Trust-based philanthropy helped the grantmaking and nonprofit field rediscover compassion. Peer review can help philanthropy rediscover wisdom, creating inclusive funding systems that welcome every organization doing meaningful work.

When peers help shape funding decisions, the result is not only fairer but also smarter.
It balances empathy with expertise and humanity with accountability.

Real trust is not about stepping back. It is about inviting others in.

Trust-based philanthropy has made giving more compassionate. Now it is time to make it more inclusive.

Let’s build a future where trust-based does not mean invitation-only, but instead means peer-informed.

Let’s make it easier for good ideas to be found, even when the people behind them do not have the right connections.

In the end, trust is not just about believing in people we already know. It is about being willing to meet the ones we do not — and giving them a way to be seen.

That is the kind of trust that changes everything.

 About the Author

Allison Jones, CEO and Founder of Spark the Fire Grant Writing Classes, LLC, built one of the highest-rated grant writing education programs in the world, recognized for four consecutive years. She holds the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential, is one of only 30 nationally approved trainers by the Grant Professionals Certification Institute, and has trained over 5,000 grant writers. Her book Meaningful Work is forthcoming in 2026.

Now I Want to Hear from You

What is your take on this topic? Reply and comment below?