It is true that a vast majority of private foundations skip over government agencies when creating their criteria for giving. This decision is not necessarily because the board disagrees with a Mayor’s politics, or because they don’t appreciate the local fire department. More often than not, the choice to not distribute to government groups is due to some complex tax argument offered by the foundation’s accountant. But there are numerous exceptions to this rule – and finding that needle in a haystack funder can be worthwhile for a small government initiative, particularly if there are no viable state or federal funding sources available.

It is true that a vast majority of private foundations skip over government agencies when creating their criteria for giving. This decision is not necessarily because the board disagrees with a Mayor’s politics, or because they don’t appreciate the local fire department. More often than not, the choice to not distribute to government groups is due to some complex tax argument offered by the foundation’s accountant. But there are numerous exceptions to this rule – and finding that needle in a haystack funder can be worthwhile for a small government initiative, particularly if there are no viable state or federal funding sources available.

Being deliberate and selective in the grant programs and funders that your organization pursues allows you to maximize your most precious commodity: your time. It also decreases the odds of rejection and risk of “giving up on grants completely” after multiple failed attempts.  With that in mind, we encourage you to consider the following before you decided to take the plunge on a given grant opportunity.

Any seasoned grant professional will tell you that rejection is part of life. And while the data for predicting proposal acceptance rates is spotty, at best, many grant seeking organizations set an arbitrary acceptance rate goal for their measure of grant seeking success.

The truth is that your proposal is just a plan. Plans are blueprints to a successful implementation, but they are not meant to be static. As such, you might wish to keep the following tips and suggestions in mind when your next grant-funded project requires modification!

It’s only human nature to feel demoralized after you put all your time and energy into a proposal only to receive a negative response from the grantmaker. The easiest thing to do is throw in the towel, protecting both your time and ego. However, if you are willing to be patient and persevere, the rewards can be plentiful.

On July 31st President Trump signed into law the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. This bill effectively reauthorizes the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. Perkins funds are commonly known for being the federal government’s primary vehicle for supporting Career and Technical Education (CTE) at high schools and community/technical colleges across the country. This is a win for career education advocates who have spent the last 6 years arguing for updates to Perkins law in effort to make it more consistent with previous changes to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (made in 2013).

For many grant funders, requiring that their applicants leverage personal funds towards a proposed project is an effective way to guarantee that their grantmaking dollars have a greater impact. Doing so increases the total amount of monies spent on the propose initiative, effectively making their investment go further. This tactic also ensures that the applicant entity “has some skin in the game”. After all, it’s easy to propose a risky venture when you’re spending someone else’s cash! However, if you’ve also had to pay out of pocket for the initiative, its much more likely that you’re going to want to guarantee the proposed project’s success.

In the wake of recent high profile school shootings across the US, Congress passed the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence Act in June 2018. The bill included key provisions to improve school safety initiatives, providing students and teachers with the tools they need to recognize mental health crises, respond to violent attacks, mitigate risk exposure, and prevent future acts of violence. The $75 million in funding allocated to the STOP School Violence Act in 2018 is dedicated to three brand new grant programs.

The current grants landscape features several law enforcement programs with language prioritizing projects that respond to a “precipitous increase in crime.”