The Art of the Grant Letter of Support (And Why You Should Write It Yourself)

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.

The Evolving Role of Grant Writers: Why Strategic Thinking Matters More Than Ever in 2026

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.