Starting a collaborative grant project that requires the successful coordination of team effort can feel daunting. While teamwork can improve myriad business functions, positively impact program delivery and outcomes, and drive organizational growth, implementing collaborative projects without a hitch is often a big challenge. It is no secret that teams often struggle with unfocused vision, lack of clarity and communication related to goals or deliverables, and waiting for other team members to do their part. However, one of the easiest ways to build a foundation for collaborative success is to ensure you have the right people on the team at the beginning.

An organization's board of directors has overarching “fiduciary responsibility” for the organization. What does that mean? According to BoardSource, “the board [of directors] is responsible for ensuring that the organization is appropriately stewarding the resources entrusted to it and following all legal and ethical standards.” This commitment by an organization’s governing body is the crux of fiduciary responsibility. While board members play an important role in assuring agency finances and grant funds are treated ethically, they are also partially responsible for resource development – that is, ensuring their organization has the resources needed to fulfill its mission. An active and engaged board of directors can be vital to the success of your grant team.

Several years ago, I worked with a nonprofit client who had received funding from a particular foundation many times in the past. The client felt confident putting the funder on their own grant calendar for the upcoming year, allowing me to focus my time on another funding priority because they were sure that the foundation would continue its support. Despite my recommendation, the client did not want to approve any research time for current funders. However, when the rejection letter came, they were surprised. After reviewing the foundation’s recent priorities, it became clear that their focus had shifted, and the grant proposal they submitted no longer aligned with their new direction. That experience was a costly lesson for the client, reinforcing how critical it is to research every funder, even returning ones, before applying. This extra step can make the difference between receiving funding and being rejected.

This past year, I have been diving into my career goals with a renewed focus, and the GrantSummit 2024 was a key step on that path. First, joining the Grants Professionals Association (GPA) opened new opportunities, which led me to pursue a position with Assel Grant Services (AGS). Then, with the support of the Grants Professional Foundation, I earned my grant professional certified (GPC) credential. Needless to say, when AGS offered me the opportunity to travel to Denver, I felt both excited and grateful for the chance to connect, learn, and grow alongside others in the grants field.

In working with nonprofit organizations, I have been a part of numerous conversations with organizational leadership who have seen grants as the solution to all their revenue shortfalls. Grants are part of the revenue mix for many nonprofit organizations, providing a source of funding for various projects. However, grant recipients need to have a clear understanding of what grants can and cannot pay for as they build this revenue into their budgets. Let us explore the possibilities and limitations of grant funding.

Funder relations can sometimes feel tricky to navigate. Is it okay to reach out? What’s an appropriate amount of time to wait? It’s important to remember that funders are people, too. Even though they hold the purse strings, you can approach them respectfully unless the opportunity prohibits them from talking individually with applicants. Let’s discuss timing, communication strategies, and what to do if you get ghosted.

Many organizations lack the qualified staff to conduct a program evaluation. While some organizations do have the capacity and expertise, many need to contract with an external evaluator for one or several reasons. For instance, using an external evaluator can be more economical and efficient, can provide a more credible report due to objectivity, and is sometimes a grant requirement.

Observation is a method to gather data by watching events or behaviors that can give information beyond what you can draw from numbers and is helpful in several situations:
  • To collect data that is unavailable through other methods. People are sometimes unable or unwilling to participate in surveys or interviews.
  • To understand an ongoing situation or process. For example, you want to identify efficiencies/inefficiencies in the process of college registration process as students meet with advisors to create a semester schedule.
  • To know more about a physical setting. For example, you want to determine if a residential rehabilitation center’s facilities are conducive to recovery.
  • To understand more about interactions. For example, you want to determine if a motivational guest speaker sparks interest in at-risk youth in a college preparatory program.

Have you been tasked with evaluating a program and don’t know where to begin? If so, you aren’t alone. Many people struggle with program evaluation. This new three-part series on evaluation will prepare you to design and implement a strong evaluation comprised of quantitative and qualitative data analysis. You will also understand how to secure a third-party evaluator, if you need one. This post focuses on how to conduct an environmental scan and needs assessment.

It’s not news that grant professionals are often underrecognized for their vast knowledge, technical and subject matter expertise, and contributions to organizational success. It’s also not infrequent that grant professionals are excluded from project planning or meetings with potential funders until late in project development when they are asked to “just” find funding or write a grant. For many individuals, that lack of validation can often be internalized as a lack of acceptance or value. For others, the recognition received is passed on to others they believe are more worthy than themselves. This is especially true for women, BIPOC professionals, and those who have been subjected to microaggressions in their community and workplace (but that’s an entirely separate subject worthy of its own time and space). When highly qualified, high-achieving professionals question their value, competence, or adequacy to successfully perform work that they are 100% capable of performing, it leads to self-doubt, negative self-image, burnout, and workplace toxicity. While not a recognized mental health disorder – you won’t find this in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – the common term for these unfounded feelings of inadequacy is imposter syndrome.