nonprofit funding

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

 
Grant writers strategizing with sticky notes

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.

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.

 

The "Six, Seven" Problem: Why Your Grant Proposal Isn't Getting Funded

 
Grant writer starring out wondering why her proposal isn't getting funded.
 

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.

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.

The Future of Trust-Based Philanthropy: Building Trust That Includes Every Nonprofit

 

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.

 

 

Impact Words that Win Grants

 
 

The difference between "We help people" and "We serve 300 families annually" isn't just word choice—it's the difference between getting funded and getting overlooked.

Impact language is about precision, not complexity. Sharper, not longer. But exceptional grant writing goes beyond clarity—it transforms how you present both your work and the people you serve.

The Foundation: Action Verbs

Action verbs create immediacy and energy in your writing. Instead of passive phrases like "assistance is provided" or "services are offered," use active language: "we deliver," "we connect," "participants achieve." Action verbs make your work sound immediate and results-focused.

Compare these examples:

  • Passive: "Support is given to families"

  • Active: "We support families"

  • Action-focused: "Families build financial stability"

Notice how the progression moves from vague to specific to empowered.

The Next Level: Empowering Language

Empowering language positions program participants as the heroes of their own stories, not passive recipients of services. This approach recognizes people's inherent strengths, agency, and capacity for growth. Instead of describing what your organization does TO people, describe what people accomplish WITH your support.

Person-first language puts the person before their circumstances or characteristics. This means saying "adults experiencing homelessness" rather than "the homeless," or "young people ages 14-18" instead of "at-risk youth." Person-first language recognizes that circumstances don't define people—they're individuals with goals, dreams, and capabilities who happen to be navigating challenges.

Compare these approaches:

  • Service-centered: "We provide financial literacy classes to low-income families"

  • Person-centered: "Parents increase their savings and reduce debt through our financial coaching program"

The second version puts people first, uses empowering language about what they accomplish, and positions your organization as the supportive resource rather than the primary actor. This shift matters because funders increasingly want to see that organizations respect and recognize participants' agency and potential.

Here are 15 phrase upgrades that incorporate these principles and will make your next proposal more compelling and credible.

Problem Identification

1. Replace general populations with person-first, specific demographics

  • Weak: "Many seniors struggle with isolation"

  • Impact: "Over 2,000 adults ages 65+ in our county experience chronic isolation"

  • Why it works: Person-first language with specific numbers and demographics

2. Replace "struggle with" with empowering, action-oriented language

  • Weak: "Families struggle with food insecurity"

  • Impact: "Families work to overcome irregular meals and nutritional gaps"

  • Why it works: Acknowledges effort and resilience rather than depicting people as victims

3. Replace vague statistics with local, person-centered ratios

  • Weak: "Homelessness is a growing problem"

  • Impact: "1 in 8 students in our district seeks stable housing solutions"

  • Why it works: Shows agency while making the issue immediate and local

4. Replace "there is a need" with community-voiced evidence

  • Weak: "There is a need for mental health services"

  • Impact: "Community members report a 6-month wait for counseling services"

  • Why it works: Centers community voice rather than organizational assumption

Solution Positioning

5. Replace organization-centered language with participant achievements

  • Weak: "We provide job training"

  • Impact: "Participants achieve welding certification and connect to employers through our resources"

  • Why it works: Participants are the heroes; your organization provides support

6. Replace "program" with participant-focused descriptions

  • Weak: "Our youth program serves at-risk teens"

  • Impact: "Young people ages 14-18 build leadership skills through mentorship partnerships"

  • Why it works: Person-first language that focuses on growth, not deficits

7. Replace "we offer services" with what participants accomplish

  • Weak: "We offer comprehensive support"

  • Impact: "Participants navigate housing options, access benefits, and secure employment"

  • Why it works: Shows people taking active steps toward their goals

8. Replace "we will implement" with participant-centered outcomes

  • Weak: "We will implement evidence-based practices"

  • Impact: "Participants benefit from the nationally recognized Housing First approach"

  • Why it works: Centers the people who benefit rather than organizational actions

Outcome Description

9. Replace "will help" with measurable changes

  • Weak: "The program will help participants succeed"

  • Impact: "Participants increase their income by an average of 40%"

  • Why it works: Reviewers see concrete return on investment

10. Replace "better outcomes" with quantified improvements

  • Weak: "Students achieve better academic outcomes"

  • Impact: "Students improve reading levels by 1.5 grades in 6 months"

  • Why it works: Specific metrics demonstrate real progress

11. Replace future promises with past performance

  • Weak: "We expect to reduce recidivism"

  • Impact: "Our graduates show 15% lower re-arrest rates than county average"

  • Why it works: Track record beats promises every time

12. Replace "positive impact" with specific participant transformations

  • Weak: "Our work creates positive impact in the community"

  • Impact: "Families transition from emergency shelter to permanent housing within 90 days"

  • Why it works: Shows the human transformation and participant agency in achieving goals

Organizational Credibility

13. Replace "we believe" with "our experience shows"

  • Weak: "We believe in community-centered approaches"

  • Impact: "Our 15-year track record demonstrates that resident-led initiatives succeed"

  • Why it works: Experience carries more weight than philosophy

14. Replace "we are committed to" with "we have successfully"

  • Weak: "We are committed to serving diverse populations"

  • Impact: "We have successfully served clients speaking 12 different languages"

  • Why it works: Actions speak louder than intentions

15. Replace "we plan to" with current capacity

  • Weak: "We plan to leverage community partnerships"

  • Impact: "We currently collaborate with 15 local organizations"

  • Why it works: Shows existing infrastructure rather than future hopes

Character Count Reality Check

You'll notice that many of the improved examples are slightly longer than the originals. That's okay—and often necessary. The goal isn't fewer words; it's more impactful words.

Person-first language and specific details naturally require more characters, but they're worth every keystroke. "Adults ages 55+ earn welding certifications" uses more characters than "seniors get job training," but it's infinitely more compelling to funders.

The real test: Does each additional word work hard? If you're adding empty phrases like "innovative and comprehensive" or "cutting-edge approach," cut them. But if you're adding specifics, demographics, or empowering language that shows participant agency, those extra characters earn their place.

Put It Into Practice

Ready to transform your next proposal? Pick 3 phrases from your current draft and upgrade them using the principles above. Focus on replacing weak verbs with action verbs, and vague statements with specific, measurable language.

For grant writers who want to go deeper, our Action Words for Grant Writing e-book provides 200+ carefully selected verbs organized by program type—from direct service to advocacy to capacity building. It's designed specifically for nonprofit professionals who want to transform their proposal language from ordinary to outstanding.

The difference between a funded proposal and a rejection often comes down to these small but crucial word choices. Start with these 15 phrases, and watch your proposals become more compelling, more credible, and more successful.

What Degree is Good for Grant Writing?

 
 

While there isn't a specific degree in grant writing, several academic paths can complement and enhance a career in this field. Having a strong academic background can help you win more grants, propel your career, and support causes that matter to you.

Whether you are new to grant writing or seeking to level up your skills, keep reading to learn what degrees can give you an edge.

The Importance of Writing Degrees

Strong writing skills are paramount; therefore, degrees focusing on writing are particularly beneficial.

Effective grant writing hinges on clear and compelling communication. A grant writer must be able to convey complex ideas in an organized, persuasive, and easy-to-understand manner. Strong writing is the foundation of successful grant proposals, helping organizations secure the funding they need to make an impact. Without clear writing, even the best programs and initiatives can go unnoticed by funders.

Unfortunately, many individuals have moved away from proper grammar and structured writing since their school days. The prevalence of brief emails, social media posts, and even modern news articles has shifted focus away from traditional paragraph construction. These trends have led to a decline in people's ability to craft well-organized and thoughtful pieces of writing. While concise writing is valuable, grant writing requires a balance between brevity and thoroughness, with clear and detailed explanations.

In my experience teaching grant writing certification courses, professional writers transitioning into grant writing often excel due to their strong writing backgrounds. Because they already have experience in structuring narratives, using correct grammar, and maintaining clarity, they only need to learn the nuances of grant writing rather than starting from scratch. These students quickly grasp how to tailor their writing to meet funders’ requirements, making them especially successful in this field.

Degrees Aligned with Specific Sectors

Although degrees in certain fields may not include a dedicated course on grant writing, they provide critical knowledge of how organizations function. A great grant writer isn’t just someone who can craft persuasive proposals; they must also understand the inner workings of the organizations they represent. A grant writer needs to explain an organization’s mission, financials, programs, and goals in a clear and compelling manner for funders. The better you understand the field you are writing for, the more effective you’ll be at communicating its needs and impact. Here are some degree options based on the types of organizations you may work with:

  • Writing: Degrees in English, Communications, and Creative Writing provide strong foundations in effective writing, research, and critical thinking—essential skills for grant writing.

  • Nonprofit Sector: A degree in Nonprofit Management provides insights into the unique challenges and operations of nonprofit organizations.

  • Government Sector: A degree in Public Administration equips you with knowledge about governmental processes and public sector management.

  • Tribal Organizations: A degree in Indigenous or Tribal Studies offers an understanding of the cultural and administrative aspects of tribal entities.

  • For-Profit Sector: A Business Administration degree is beneficial for those looking to secure grants within the corporate world.

  • Field-Specific Areas: If you're passionate about a particular cause, such as environmental conservation, social services, or education, obtaining a degree in Environmental Studies, Social Work, or Education respectively will establish you as a subject matter expert.

For those who are already experienced grant writers but want to level up their skills, pursuing an advanced degree or specialized training in fields such as nonprofit management, public administration, or business administration can provide deeper insights into organizational strategy, financial management, and fundraising. Advanced education can help grant writers move into leadership positions, expand their consulting businesses, or increase their effectiveness in securing funding for large-scale initiatives.

Notable Academic Programs

If you’re looking to pursue a degree that aligns with grant writing, choosing a reputable university with a strong program in your field of interest is key. Below are some of the highest-rated schools for each relevant degree path:

Whatever degree you choose, be sure to combine it with an accredited certificate in grant writing through a reputable provider like Spark the Fire. A grant writing certification course is vital because it provides hands-on experience, practical skills, and insight into the grant writing process that most degree programs do not cover in-depth. The best certification programs include actually writing a grant proposal and receiving individualized feedback on your writing, ensuring you gain the skills necessary to succeed in real-world scenarios.

Learn more about certifications for grant writing and what it is like to be a grant writer in our blog.

Has your degree been useful for grant writing? Is there a different degree you wish you had pursued? Let us know in the comments!

How Long Does It Take to Learn Grant Writing?

So, you want to learn grant writing—but how long will it take before you can confidently write winning proposals? The answer depends on your dedication, writing skills, and hands-on experience, but one thing is certain: grant writing isn’t something you master overnight.

12 Tips for Filling Out and Submitting Online Applications

Trees everywhere are rejoicing as more and more funders switch from paper to online applications. But for some grantwriters, having to disrupt the flow of their narrative to accommodate character-limited text fields is both inconvenient and cumbersome.

If you're one of those grantwriters, here are some tips designed to make the online application process a little more enjoyable and productive: