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.
Your Turn
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.