With Generative AI, it’s important to get the prompts right. I thought about this as if I were having a conversation with a tour guide for a new-to-me destination. What are the main sights to see, and what’s worth passing? What are the off-the-beaten path gems to keep in mind? Should I be aware of any safety issues? What are the ratings for various places for lodging and dining? Sure, I could pick up the latest tour book or go down various travel website rabbit holes. But when you’re short on time, a good tour guide can help.

Taking this same mindset to AI, I began by giving it a definition of philanthropic landscape and then asking it to describe it for a specific type of organization in a specific region. I also asked AI  to pull information from the latest philanthropic industry reports (including GrantStation, of course!) and any local trend information, including community assessments or strategic plans from relevant funders. My last directive was to include links to all sources. 

The results were pleasantly surprising! There were key details included that went far beyond a list of funders and recommendations for approaching them (and identifying those to pass on). A local community organization had recently published a strategic plan that included a focus on the organization’s target population. There were local government assessments that underscored a community-wide focus on the type of work this organization does. And the more localized information reinforced national trends in this particular subsector. I chose not to make my search time-bound so that I could use it at various points throughout the year, or from year-to-year, to see what changes and what stays the same.

While I still needed to check each source for validity, this saved me a significant amount of time that I would have otherwise spent on various internet searches just trying to get on the right path—much like a good tour guide. I could now spend my time reviewing the sources and the summary provided. From there, I can synthesize an in-depth assessment of the funding landscape and develop recommendations for future funder relationships. Thinking of AI as a tour guide has shifted my stance from hesitant user to an integral tool for developing grant seeking strategy. 


What is your process for assessing the philanthropic landscape? What are ways you are using AI to inform grant seeking strategy for your work?

Author Bio: Kelley Malcolm, PhD, GPC, serves as a Quality Assurance Specialist focused on grant seeking strategy for Grants Plus, a leading consultancy firm serving clients across the country. Based in Cleveland, she works with a variety of clients from regional health care systems to local human services organizations to help them strategically pursue grant funding from federal and state sources, private foundations, and corporations. www.linkedin.com/in/kelleymalcolm

GPC Competency: 2. Knowledge of organizational development as it pertains to grant seeking

Author Bio: Jen Hurst, M.A. has defended - with pen, paintbrush, and elbow grease - the rights and value of marginalized people in Southern California and internationally for over 25 years.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenhurstma/

GPC Competency 8: Practices and services that raise the level of professionalism of grant professionals

• For 9 weeks last fall, I joined grant professionals from the US and Canada as part of a GPC study group coordinated by the Middle Tennessee chapter.
• I regularly attend continuing education sessions organized by other chapters, even those outside my region. For example, I have not been to Southeast Texas, but their team consistently offers strong programming. Every day, another chapter seems to be offering something new.
• I have also appreciated approaches from other chapters:

• A strong public advocacy emphasis in the Chicago area and on both coasts;
• Leadership styles in more established chapters like St. Louis and Georgia;
• Staying connected to updates from my former home region in New England; and
• Wisconsin’s recent exploration of expat grant professionals working with US clients, which I contributed to.

There is much we have in common across chapters, starting with the work we do. We have our own styles and approaches. Both chapters I am involved with contain diversity: small rural, large urban, conservative, liberal, etc. In Kentucky, Lexington feels different from Crab Orchard; in Canada, the demographics of Iqaluit are not like Quebec City’s or Bobcaygeon’s. Each chapter contains grant professionals dealing with public needs, funding systems, and policies at multiple levels that look vastly different from each other (historically, and in this moment). 

I’ve been a GPA member since 2018, when I was based in Louisville. At my first GPA conference in Chicago, I was first introduced to the Kentucky Chapter by welcoming colleagues who made a large conference feel small. (Thanks, y’all!). By the time the GPA conference came to Louisville in 2022, I had moved to Atlantic Canada and had to take 3 flights to get to Kentucky. I lived in Kentucky for 25 years and maintain client relationships still, so it was a great way to be back in the place much of my work impacts. I was one of 3 grant professionals from the newly-formed Canadian Chapter to make the journey, each of us coming from different provinces. It was meaningful to experience that return alongside colleagues from north of the border.

Chapter evolution depends on developmental stage, member interests, and leadership priorities. Kentucky’s chapter, for example, has been established longer and hosts an annual in-person conference to strengthen grant readiness statewide. The Canadian Chapter meets monthly online, exploring topics more relevant to us. For example, Uniform Guidance is not something that pertains to our context, but working with Francophone cultures in a bilingual country, and with Indigenous populations in the spirit of Truth and Reconciliation are essential concepts. 

I am fulfilled by the sense of belonging with others like me, and the ability to come together and gain insights from each other. How about you - what drives your participation in your chapter? Social events? Learning locally? Something else? Shout out your chapter in the comments!

Many chapters welcome attendance at their meetings and conferences, many of which can be found on the GPA Chapter Community Calendar here.

Author Bio: Michael Weinrauch, GPC, is a grants specialist operating Marysville Grants Consulting from Fredericton, New Brunswick, in the Canadian Maritimes. Michael’s work with registered charities, nonprofit organizations, and public sector agencies (in Canada and the US) is informed by a social work background and over 20 years of government experience in program administration and policy development. Michael’s professional contributions include current service on GPA’s Ethics Committee and GPF’s Scholarship Committee. Social media handle: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeweinrauch

GPC Competency: 8: Practices and services that raise the level of professionalism of grant professionals - 8.1, 8.2, 8.3

We, as grant writers, are composers, vision weavers, and storytellers who manifest the relationship among societal needs, qualitative assertions, quantitative evidence, conviction, and envisioned impacts. We are conductors directing a symphony of words and numbers that becomes a grant submission: narrative and budget, purpose and proof, aspiration and accountability. We are likened to artists awaiting reviewers whose judgment may determine whether our vision advances or remains unrealized.

The dissonance we face as we select each word for our symphonic grant narrative is the result of a hyperpolarized socio-political landscape in which familiar words have become restricted, scrutinized, discouraged, or effectively prohibited from the grant writer’s lexicon in some funding contexts. A seismic shift has occurred among nonprofits, foundations, philanthropists, and public-sector partners as they evaluate regulations that have changed which words we select and how we compose them. Noncompliance can result in rejection of our work and denial of our vision for tomorrow.

This is not merely theoretical. Writing for the medical device and diagnostics industry, Lisette Hilton observed in 2025 that governmental funders may decline proposals containing words associated with equality, gender, diversity, minorities, and similar terms, while nongovernmental grants may operate differently unless they must comply with governmental restrictions. Her observation reflects a larger reality: language that once served as a bridge among need, identity, evidence, and impact may now be read differently depending on the funder, environment, and political moment.

At United World Colleges, I was introduced to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This theory examines how language may influence perception and understanding. Research across linguistics, psychology, and cognition has explored how lexicon and grammar can shape attention, categorization, memory, and meaning. Simply stated: words matter. They affect how we view the world, understand one another, and frame possibilities.

I have heard fellow grant writers lament what they describe as Orwellian “Newspeak” from George Orwell’s 1984. Whether one accepts the comparison or not, the warning remains relevant: when language narrows, thought, trust, and shared understanding can narrow with it. History reminds us that language has been used to define, redefine, elevate, or suppress meaning. Such examples should not be invoked carelessly, but neither should they be ignored. Language is power, perception, access, and consequence.

As ethical grant writers, we have a duty to those whom we represent and to future beneficiaries to present challenges, responses, impact, and outcomes in a manner that is collectively understood. We must use words that allow stakeholders, whether right, center, left, progressive, moderate, liberal, or conservative, to be acknowledged, heard, and understood. Ethical grant writing is a test of tolerance.

Grant writers never know who will sit on a review panel. Our symphonic grant narrative must be heard, understood, respected, and found compelling by readers with different experiences and assumptions. We must first share a lexicon to be understood.

Frank Luntz’s book, Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear, offers a practical reminder for this moment: the perception of words can be as consequential as the words themselves. Grant success may depend not only on what we say, but on how responsibly, precisely, and inclusively we say it.

Our success has always depended on weaving words, numbers, stories, needs, evidence, budgets, and outcomes into a harmonized symphonic narrative. The words may change. The terrain may shift. But mission, vision, impact, and tomorrow remain our bedrock. We are resilient. We are disciplined. We are ethical stewards of language. In this divided public moment, we must write as though every word has consequence, because it does.

As grant professionals, how are you preserving mission, evidence, and impact while adapting your language to be heard, understood, and trusted in this divided public moment?

Author Bio: Tony Spearman-Leach, CFRE, GPC, CNE, is a transformational nonprofit executive, strategist, and fundraiser whose work has strengthened institutions, advanced good government, and expanded civic impact in the United States and around the world. As Senior Director of Institutional Advancement at the U.S. Congressionally chartered National Academy of Public Administration, he has led major philanthropic initiatives, built a culture of giving, and helped reposition the Academy for long-term sustainability and public-service impact. Through the U.S. Department of State’s International Visitor Leadership Program, he has trained NGO leaders from more than 100 countries, and as an Excelsior University Board Trustee, he advances governance, alumni engagement, and educational opportunity with the same vision, authenticity, and results-driven leadership that define his career.Competencies Addressed: #4: Crafting, constructing, and submitting an effective grant application,

GPC Competency: #9: Ability to write a convincing case for fundingEND

In today’s competitive funding environment, grant professionals are under constant pressure to pursue opportunities quickly. Federal and state funding cycles are moving rapidly, application requirements continue to expand, and communities understandably do not want to miss potential funding opportunities. Yet amid that urgency, an important ethical question often receives too little attention: Is the project truly ready to pursue funding responsibly?

Ethics in grants is often discussed in terms of fraud prevention, conflicts of interest, or compliance violations. While those issues remain critically important, ethical responsibility in grant development extends much further. It also includes the professional obligation to realistically assess whether a project is positioned to deliver on the commitments made in an application.

Across infrastructure, resilience, transportation, and implementation-focused programs, agencies increasingly prioritize project readiness. Detailed cost estimates, environmental compliance strategies, procurement timelines, matching fund commitments, stakeholder coordination, and implementation capacity are no longer secondary considerations, they are central evaluation criteria. 

This creates a difficult tension for applicants and consultants alike. Communities may feel pressure to pursue every available opportunity, even when key components are still uncertain. Consultants may hesitate to recommend delaying a submission when clients are eager to move forward.  In many cases, the ethical challenge is not intentional misrepresentation, but optimism presented with more certainty than the facts support.

Examples of this ethical gray area appear frequently:

• conceptual budgets presented as validated construction costs;
• tentative partnerships described as firm commitments;
• schedules that overlook permitting or procurement realities; or
• match funding strategies that has not yet been secured.

While these issues may seem minor individually, the downstream consequences can be significant. Projects awarded before they are adequately prepared may experience delays, cost escalations, scope reductions, or implementation failures. Over time, this can damage an applicant’s credibility with funding agencies and weaken future competitive as reviewers begin to question an applicant’s reliability and capacity.

Recently, I faced this situation directly with a client pursuing a highly competitive funding opportunity. After evaluating the project schedule, supporting documentation, and unresolved readiness issues, I recommended that we not move forward during the current cycle. It was a difficult conversation. Everyone involved had invested substantial time and effort, and there was understandable disappointment in stepping back. However, submitting an incomplete or insufficiently supported application would not have served the client, or the profession, well. 

As grant professionals, our role is not simply to maximize submissions or increase win rates. It is to provide honest, informed guidance that protects the long-term interests of the client, the funding agency, and the public resources entrusted through the grant process. Sometimes ethical grantmanship means advising a client to wait. 

That recommendation is rarely easy, particularly when funding opportunities are limited or politically important. Yet helping a client strengthen documentation, validate budgets, secure commitments, or complete preliminary design before submission may ultimately result in a far more competitive, and, frankly, more responsible application.

As grant programs continue emphasizing implementation and accountability, readiness assessments should not be viewed solely as strategic tools but as ethical ones as well. Public trust in grant-funded projects depends not simply on whether funding is awarded, but whether promised outcomes can realistically be delivered.

Author Bio: Allison Megrath, AICP, CNU-A, GPC (5/29/2026), GPA Ethics Committee Member

Choosing how you work together is crucial. Who leads, and who follows? How do you leverage everyone’s strengths? You’ll likely adapt to each situation, but identifying potential approaches and roles in advance can make the process more seamless. Consider not only your natural talents but also your partners’ needs and where you can grow. Below are some options to jumpstart your roster: 

Day-to-Day Roles:

Courier: Part messenger and part town crier, Couriers ferry helpful information and resources, leaving it up to partners to interpret and use (or not).

• Strengths: Never spin information; allow partners to take ownership of processes and materials
• Weaknesses: May not provide enough guidance

Curator: Curators operate meticulously, cataloguing all materials but only sharing the most pertinent and high-value items, guiding partners’ attention and energy to the right exhibits. 

• Strengths: Help maintain group focus; accurate and thorough
• Weaknesses: May get too focused on details and lose sight of the full process

Liaison: As natural people connectors, Liaisons bring groups together, gathering ideas, bridging divides, and building cooperation. 

• Strengths: Supportive; excel at convening and driving genuine consensus
  
• Weaknesses: May be reluctant to actively manage others

Diplomat: By attuning themselves to everything partners communicate, from the explicit to the unspoken, Diplomats navigate and balance team interests, adjusting as they go.

• Strengths: Nimble and suave; smooth over challenges and rough edges
• Weaknesses: May sacrifice or downplay items to keep the peace or assuage egos 

Chess Master: Chess Masters function in perpetual “planning mode,” examining projects from every angle and looking for future opportunities and strategic alignments.

• Strengths: Astute, long-term thinkers; set organizations and partnerships up for success
  
• Cons: May miss details or lose sight of present tasks

Captain: Good Captains manage the full process, juggling input from other crew members and ensuring the team makes it to every port of call.

• Pros: Decisive and take-charge
  
• Cons: May dominate the process and miss valuable input from quieter or less assertive team members

Specialty Roles:

Sometimes, a project requires that you level up into an “add-on” role. Any of the day-to-day players can transform as the occasion arises, operating in an intensive, targeted way:

• Hostage Negotiator: When outside forces take a project captive (capacity hold-ups, funder requests, etc.), a Hostage Negotiator maneuvers through barriers, meeting demands, making asks, and applying pressure until the project is freed to move forward.
• Break-Puller: If new information or situational developments make it necessary to recalibrate, course correction may require more than just a polite email. Someone may need to pull the emergency brake, ensuring the team comes to a stop and assesses the landscape.

If you’re working alone, you’ll likely need to cycle through multiple roles with each partner and/or project. When you’re working with a set project team, you might be able to stay within a range of roles as long as the team is balanced. For example, a Curator + Diplomat combo may call for a Chess Master or a Captain as a counterweight. A Courier paired with a Chess Master may find they can stretch to become a Courier-Liaison to boost team impact.

Centering the needs of the project will often help clarify which role(s) will create the best outcomes. But don’t be afraid to have a little fun selecting (or developing) a character that suits you and your superpowers.


Which role(s) come most naturally to you? Which role(s) would you like to develop further, and why? (Roles are not limited to those listed.)

Author Bio: Bethany Lee, PhD, is a Senior Writer for the American Hospital Association’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit affiliate, the Health Research & Educational Trust, which develops and implements programs to benefit hospitals and health systems across the United States. She has worked in the nonprofit sector — including K-12 and higher education, performing arts, community organizations, and health care — for more than 25 years.

GPC Competency: 3: Strategies for effective program and project design, sub-competency 3: Identify methods of soliciting meaningful substantive contributions by interested parties. Other competencies addressed include 2.3, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 5.4, and 6.3. 

That gap sits at the center of Through Their Eyes: Navigating Institutional Funding as BIPOC Nonprofit Leaders, a report by Marques Beene and Heather Boswell. Drawing on interviews with Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) nonprofit executives in Greater Grand Rapids, MI, the study surfaces four persistent realities of institutional philanthropy, along with actionable strategies for funders and grant professionals ready to close the distance.

The Four Realities

First, financial and administrative barriers are not neutral. Reimbursement-based payment structures, complex application requirements, and inadequate support for indirect costs disproportionately burden organizations operating without large reserves. As one leader noted, smaller grants often require more reporting than larger grants, yet smaller organizations have fewer staff to meet those demands.

Second, the emotional and cultural toll of fundraising is real and largely unacknowledged. BIPOC leaders described having to continuously prove their legitimacy in ways white-led organizations do not. Many carry the added burden of being treated as default DEI consultants, often without compensation. Burnout is a predictable outcome of a system that demands more while offering less support.

Third, funder priorities often override community-defined needs. Restricted grants, short-term pilot funding, and reluctance to invest in market research create an environment where organizations are funded to deliver what funders want rather than what communities need. As one leader observed, funding is too often restricted to the funder priorities rather than the needs of the organizations and communities they serve.

Fourth, philanthropy is evolving in ways that increase burden rather than reduce it. Funders are demanding more data, evaluation, and reporting than ever before, yet they remain unwilling to fund the staff, systems, and infrastructure required to produce it. The expectation has grown. The investment to meet it has not.

What Grant Professionals Can Do

The report does not stop at diagnosis. It calls for four systemic shifts: simplifying and right-sizing administrative requirements, building trust through multi-year commitments and transparent communication, facilitating genuine connections rather than performative partnerships, and intentionally redistributing power in grantmaking decisions.

For grant professionals, the implications are direct. When we write needs statements, are we centering the community's voice or translating it into language palatable to funders? When we build budgets, are we advocating for indirect costs and fair wages, or accepting constraints as fixed? When we advise organizations, are we coaching them through the application alone, or are we helping them build the relationships and access that shape funding outcomes?

The leaders interviewed for this report are not asking for charity. They are asking for the same trust, flexibility, and investment extended to organizations already well resourced. That is not a radical demand. It is the foundation of effective philanthropy.

National data confirm the stakes. Candid's 2024 State of Diversity in the U.S. Nonprofit Sector found that majority white-led nonprofits report median revenue 54% higher than majority BIPOC-led organizations, even as BIPOC-led nonprofits disproportionately serve communities with the highest needs.

The gap between who does the work and who gets resourced to do it is not a pipeline problem. It is a systems problem. And grant professionals, as the connective tissue between funders and communities, are uniquely positioned to help close it.

What is one change you could advocate for in your own organization's grantmaking or grant-seeking practices that would reduce burden on BIPOC-led organizations and better align resources with community-defined need?

Author Bio: Marques J. Beene, MSW is the Development Director for the NAACP Greater Grand Rapids Branch and Founder of Creative Academic Networks, LLC. With over two decades of experience in nonprofit leadership, civil rights, and social entrepreneurship, he is a recognized advocate for BIPOC-led organizations and equity-centered philanthropy. He is a Top 40 Under 40 honoree (Grand Rapids Business Journal) and a recipient of a Michigan Governor's Office Tribute of Salute. 

Author Bio: Heather S. Boswell, MPA is the Founder and Principal of SuccessStone Strategies, a West Michigan consulting company advancing community impact through public funding strategy and competitive grant development. With 20+ years in the nonprofit sector, her work helped secure Kent County's Ready by Five Early Childhood Millage, a $6 million annual investment in young children and families. A former national Community Fellow with the Pritzker Children's Initiative, she holds an MPA from Grand Valley State University.

GPC Competency: 2: Organizational development as it pertains to grant seeking

Grants professionals are labeled under a variety of different titles: Grants Administrator, Grants Coordinator, Grants Specialist, Project Officer. While the nuances of these different titles highlight the multidisciplinary knowledge required to plan, draft, implement, monitor, and report on grants, the artistic and creative skills of this profession are often forgotten. The ability to write a persuasive, well-researched, and audience-tailored grant narrative is one of the strongest assets a grant professional has and is certainly one of the talents that makes a project stand out among hundreds of funding applications. 

As large language models and generative AI become more prevalent, drafting grant narratives and project reports have been identified as time and resource intensive. It has become increasingly common for institutions to experiment with having project narratives drafted by AI; however, this practice risks a project’s integrity, efficacy, and innovation. In fact, “when [large language models are] used in proposal preparation… projects more closely resemble those that have recently succeeded” in being funded, thereby “narrowing the diversity of ideas” (Qian, Wen, Furnas, Bai, Shao, & Wang, 2026). When AI is used to draft grant narratives, projects lose distinction and become standardized. As grants become increasingly competitive and application pools widen, persuasive writing skills will be the key to securing project funding.

While not every grant professional has a background in rhetoric or creative writing, all grant professionals can use the following three strategies to make their project proposal more persuasive:

• Logos/Ethos - Utilize Data and Research-Based Claims: When preparing a grant proposal, it can be tempting to latch on to any and every piece of data gathered at the planning phase; however, it is important to integrate data intentionally. Research is strongest when it directly supports the claim that is being made. When using data and research, ensure that (1) all sources are cited, (2) research is recent (published within 5 years), and (3) references connect directly to both the current paragraph’s claim and the project as a whole.

• Grab your Audience’s Attention with Figurative Language: While it is vital that all work aligns with grant guidelines, don’t be afraid to show your writing prowess. Make your proposal stand out by grabbing your evaluator’s interest with an allusion to a funder’s own work or some well-timed imagery. Be creative! The more intriguing your writing, the more invested your evaluator will be in your project.

• Pathos - Pull at your Audience’s Heartstrings: Helping others is the heart of what grant funding does. Whether funding a scientific project that explores the long-term impacts of a disease or a project that helps fund single-parent childcare, grant projects aim to make a difference. Don’t be afraid to be vulnerable, because that’s what makes us human. Qualitative data, like testimonials, are just as important for persuasion as quantitative data. 
  

As generative AI continues to permeate institutional processes, it is important to value the expansive, versatile skills each grant professional possesses. So, dust off those creative muscles and persuade your audience that your project is worth funding.

What other writing skills do you use to make your grant project proposal persuasive?

Author Bio: Katelyn Roellchen is a grant professional, former English/Language Arts teacher, and aspiring author with a passion for writing and creativity. When not drafting grant proposals for Adult Education and student success in postsecondary education, Katelyn uses her writing skills to enrich literacy in her community. 

GPC Competency: 4 – Crafting, constructing, and submitting an effective grant application.

References
Qian, Y., Wen, Z., Furnas, A. C., Bai, Y., Shao, E., & Wang, D. (2026, April 25). The Rise of Large Language Models and the Direction and Impact of US Federal Research Funding. Northwestern University. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15485

Author Bio: Laura Chynoweth, GPC, CFRE, has 14 years of grant writing and fundraising experience. She is the founder & CEO of Granted Fundraising Consultants, which serves nonprofits of all sizes and missions nationwide.

Imagined answer: “By definition, a program cannot be both innovative and evidence-based.” Right after you’ve described how innovative you are, you are asked to reverse your position. One idea in some cases may be to show that your program is evidence-based (if it is) and also describe how you are introducing new elements into the core program. Or if it is evidence-based but will be new in your region.

Do you have general liability insurance? If so, what is the amount of coverage? Should your organization be awarded funding, does your organization agree to add the foundation to its general liability insurance for the duration of your grant?

I have no idea why this is asked, but I’d say the funder has crossed a line.

From the same funder who asked you to insure them: Provide the last three dates your organization held a board meeting. Be advised that the foundation may request board minutes before proceeding with a grant.

Ditto.

Please input content in the third person perspective instead of the first person (e.g. please use terms such as “the organization”/“its programs”, and not “our organization”/“our programs”).

Who writes like that? Lawyers. That’s who. Do they think the organization runs itself without people? That people don’t do the work, the organization does?

Let’s talk character limits. One foundation LOI allows 350 characters for the proposal summary. And no subsequent question to expand. This is your only shot. Another limits one answer to 300 characters as they use 350 characters asking the question.

One email from a foundation trustee to an applicant with a proposal in review reads: “I am just clarifying that your grant proposal is for scholarships for the students to attend the summer youth programs and not for program supplies and off-site programs.” The trustee seems to not understand what scholarships actually fund. And after fifty years as trustee of the foundation. Sad.


What have you seen that’s nonstandard, weird, or strange? Please share it in the comments. We could use a laugh.

Author Bio: Ellen Gugel, GPC, is an independent grants consultant (Grants & More) in Massachusetts. She works with community-based organizations that improve communities and inspire, engage, and enrich the lives of children and families; refugees and immigrants; people with disabilities; and students by providing basic needs, social supports, job training, education, conservation, and arts and culture. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellengugel/

GPC Competencies: Competency #4: Crafting, constructing, and submitting an effective grant application

During a recent joint webinar hosted by the Grant Professionals Association (GPA) and the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), I moderated a panel of legal and policy experts about the significant risks posed by proposed changes to the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) certification process[a].

What Is Being Proposed?

Under the proposal issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), organizations applying for or receiving federal financial assistance would be required to certify compliance with new conditions tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), immigration, and public safety policies. These certifications would apply across federal financial assistance programs and require annual recertification through SAM.gov.

On the webinar Julia Szybala with Democracy Forward warned that the proposal contains vague and expansive language that could expose nonprofits and grant recipients to increased legal, operational, and financial risk. Szybala says, “proposed certification reference terms such as “unlawful DEI,” activities related to “harboring,” and threats to “public safety” or “national security” without clearly defining what compliance would require of the organization.”

In my work with nonprofits and philanthropic associations across the country, I’ve seen how vague compliance standards can create confusion, delay funding, and discourage organizations from seeking federal funding altogether. I work closely with organizations serving survivors of domestic violence,  sexual assault, and youth who have experienced trafficking that rely on federal funding to provide housing, counseling, legal assistance, and prevention services. Many of these organizations are concerned that unclear certification requirements could increase risk and hinder mission-driven work that federal programs were intended to support.

Advocacy in Action

The nonprofit and grants community have already mobilized in response.

Sarah Saadian, Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Campaigns at  the National Council of Nonprofits (NCN), shared that more than 22,000 public comments were submitted during the initial 60-day comment period—an unusually high volume for a Paperwork Reduction Act process. More than 1,300 organizations also signed NCN’s national coalition letter opposing the proposal.

GPA signed onto the coalition letter and submitted separate formal comments raising concerns about vague certification standards, increased compliance burdens, conflicting federal requirements, and the potential chilling effect on organizations seeking federal funding. GPA and AFP also coordinated grassroots advocacy efforts that generated outreach to more than 200 Congressional offices across over 40 states

It is my opinion that this engagement has already made an impact, however, continued advocacy will remain critical. Policymakers need to hear directly from grant professionals about how unclear compliance requirements can delay funding, disrupt programs, and create barriers for organizations serving communities. 

You can submit your own comments on the proposed SAM.gov grant certification changes using GPA’s take action campaign. 

What Happens Next?

The proposal now moves to the Office of Management and Budget, where another 30-day public comment period is expected before any final action is taken.

The certifications are not currently in effect, and related legal challenges are already underway. Still, this is not the time for the sector to disengage.

I encourage GPA members to stay informed, monitor developments, and engage with their Members of Congress about the importance of a fair, transparent, and workable federal grants process. Personal stories and practical examples shared by grant professionals carry significant weight with policymakers and help illustrate the real-world impact of proposed changes. Concurrently, GPA will continue advocating for bipartisan reforms that would actually improve grantmaking efficiency and reduce administrative burden, including the bipartisan Streamlining Federal Grants Act (S. 3709), which seeks to modernize and simplify federal grant processes while enhancing access, transparency, and accountability.

As someone who works closely with nonprofits and philanthropic-serving organizations navigating federal policy changes, grant professionals play an essential role in this conversation. While accountability and responsible stewardship of federal funds are critical, federal grant systems must also remain clear, fair, and accessible to the organizations serving communities every day.

How could these proposed certification changes affect your organization or the communities you serve? GPA wants to hear from members as advocacy efforts continue in the comments. 

Author Bio: Sally Schaeffer is founder and principal of Uncorked Advocates, a federal advocacy and public policy consulting firm representing nonprofit organizations and philanthropic leaders. She serves as a lobbyist and federal policy advisor to the Grant Professionals Association and works extensively on issues impacting the nonprofit sector, federal funding, and charitable organizations.

Many of you work in silos or within organizations where only a handful of people truly understand the weight of a deadline or the complexity of a budget narrative. At GrantSummit, you aren't alone. You are surrounded by 1,400 individuals who "get" the terminology, share your joys, and understand your unique challenges. It is a community of peers eager to learn from one another.

Whether you are a newcomer or a seasoned pro, our curriculum is designed to meet you where you are. This year features over 80 educational sessions, including:

• AI in Grant Practice: Navigating the future of technology.
• The NOFO Lab: Deep dives into complex funding notices.
• When Funders Lose Trust: Navigating difficult professional pivots.

Can’t make it to San Antonio? You can still join us! Our virtual pass offers access to over 35 educational sessions and exclusive online networking opportunities.

Education happens in the classrooms, but the magic happens in the hallways. Whether it’s over breakfast, during our evening events, or in those spontaneous "hallway huddles," there is nothing like a conversation with someone who truly understands your daily grind.

And because we know grant pros run on caffeine, we keep the coffee flowing! You can also look forward to our legendary GrantSummit traditions:

• The Friday Ice Cream Social
• Saturday Morning Donuts

We hope to see you in San Antonio (or online) from November 4–7 for GrantSummit 2026. Come for the outstanding education, but stay for the community.

What are you looking forward to most about GrantSummit 2026?

Author Bio: 

Barb Boggs, CMP

GPA Events & GovernanceManager

Author Bio: Melody B. Hernandez is a San Francisco-based consultant passionate about creating more equitable communities through strategic grant work. Melody’s firm, Root Reach Rise Inc., works to ensure that communities that have been historically less likely to receive grant funding have access to the information and resources they need to navigate systems and processes.

GPC Competency: #9: Ability to write a convincing case for funding
 

1. AI does not replace your strategic brain.

 The positioning of the proposal, the alignment to the funder, the understanding of the community context, and the final judgment about what should or should not be included still belong to the grant professional. Those are some of the most important parts of the work, and they are also the parts that AI cannot truly do for you.

2. Guard the information being entered into a tool.

Grant professionals often work with sensitive information, whether it is budget details, internal planning conversations, student or community needs, organizational challenges, or partner information. Unless your organization has approved tools and clear internal guidance, sensitive or confidential information should not be entered into AI platforms simply for convenience. Ethical AI use requires the same care, discretion, and professionalism that grant work already demands.

3. AI can support your initial drafts but the final draft should be from you.

AI can help to organize ideas, build a rough outline, suggest wording, or help identify areas that need to be strengthened. However, that does not mean the output is ready to use. Grant professionals still have a responsibility to review the content for accuracy, alignment, tone, funder responsiveness, and whether the writing actually reflects the organization and the work being proposed. 

4. Know your AI tools and use the right tool for the right job.

 One of the easiest mistakes to make with AI is to treat every tool as though it does the same thing. Some tools are stronger for real-time, source-backed research. Others are more useful when working from the documents you provide, and some are most effective when integrated directly into the platforms where your team already drafts, reviews, and revises content. Part of using AI effectively is understanding the strengths of the tool being used. When grant professionals take the time to match the tool to the task, the work is usually more efficient, more accurate, and easier to manage. 

5. Set a limit.

 One of the easiest ways for AI to become more frustrating than helpful is when the writer gets pulled into constant back-and-forth trying to make the chatbot produce exactly the right wording. At a certain point, the time spent revising prompts, reworking output, and trying to force the language into something usable may be more than the time it would have taken to draft the section yourself. Part of using AI well is knowing when it is helping and when it has simply become one more thing to manage.

Ethical AI use in grant work is about using it in ways that protect professional judgment, support stronger work products, and reduce unnecessary workload. When used thoughtfully, AI can be a valuable support tool in the grant process. However, it is only helpful when grant professionals are clear about what still requires their expertise, what information should be protected, and when the tool has stopped saving time and started creating more work. At the end of the day, AI may support the process, but it cannot replace the judgment, context, and strategy that strong grant work requires.

How have you used AI in your daily work?

Author Bio: Faryal Shaukat, Ed.D., is a grant professional and former educator with 10 years of classroom experience. Before moving into grants, she focused extensively on AI in education, training educators and presenting on its use in instructional settings at state and national conferences. Her work now centers on strengthening grant development systems, building organizational capacity, and helping teams use innovation strategically and responsibly in support of sustainable grant seeking.

GPC Competency: Competency 2: Organizational Development as it Pertains to Grant Seeking

A community foundation steps in after natural disaster to ensure that community members receive care and have a safe place to sleep. 

A non-funder organization partners with an established grantmaker to launch a rapid response fund that can quickly and accessibly push dollars to organizations led by and for the communities they serve. How will they do this? By using a streamlined application asking for only essential information, a video option, forms available in Spanish, and decisions made within a month.

What do these funders have in common? They could all be nominations for this year’s GPA Grantmaker of the Year Awards.

At the Grant Summit conference last fall, Deepa Iyer offered an authentic and inspiring perspective on grant seeking and change making during disruptive and challenging times. She shared with us her Social Change Ecosystem Framework, which includes 10 roles such as Weavers, Storytellers, and Disrupters.

One of my key takeaways was that the framework can be used not only at the individual level (“What role am I playing?”), but also for organizations and networks (“What role is my organization playing?”). The framework can help us get clear about how we (and organizations) are showing up for the values we care about. It can also help us see opportunities for transformation even in the midst of being in the “pressure cooker,” as Deepa called it, that grant professionals understand all too well. 

If we begin to envision ourselves, and nonprofits, in the same ecosystem as grantmakers and funders, we can identify where we are resonating (by sharing similar roles) and also situations where all the roles are needed to shift the ecosystem to better care for our communities. What does being in a Disruptor role look like for a grantmaker? A Healer? A Guide?

We all have a lot on our plate, but the Grantmaker of the Year nomination process is an opportunity to recognize grantmakers who are courageously using their resources and positional power to show up for communities. We often hear about competition and scarcity within grantseeking and fundraising, but the reality is that there are enough resources for everyone to have access to thriving and wellbeing. I believe in a future where a vision of everyone thriving, no exceptions, is made real through reimagining “the way things are done” and experimenting with how they can be done better. 

This year, as you consider nominating a grantmaker to be recognized through this award, I encourage you to think about this process as tool: first, for critical thinking about how our sector can and should evolve, and second, to shine a spotlight on places where grantmakers are “doing it right.” Which social change ecosystem role(s) is being exemplified by the grantmaker you’re nominating? Why and how did this make a difference for your organization, and for your community?

These are important questions that can take us a layer deeper than surface-level thinking. But please, don’t let it stop there. If you decide to nominate a grantmaker, do it so that you can ask them to advocate with their peer grantmakers to use similar practices. Tell a compelling story that will reach the hearts of others and inspire change. Make connections between this grantmaker and nonprofits in your community who could benefit from an introduction. Use whatever strengths you gather from your own ecosystem role(s) to keep the conversation going, and be sure to submit your nomination form by May 31.

Author Bio: Emily Blue is a grant professional with more than 15 years of experience. Emily lives and works in the traditional homelands of the sdukʷalbixʷ Snoqualmie People in the beautiful Pacific Northwest.

My own entry into fund development came not by design, but by necessity. As a young program director, I was focused on keeping a program alive rather than building a long-term funding strategy. I had no mentor, no formal training, and no access to a grant directory. Instead, I relied on what I knew best—our program’s existing connections. By paying attention to who was already engaged with our work, I noticed that a local store was a significant referral source. Rather than treating this as incidental, I took the time to visit the store manager and learn more about their role in the community. That conversation led to an introduction to the store’s foundation.

The initial response from the foundation officer was discouraging. Our program did not appear to align with the foundation’s stated mission, and it would have been easy to walk away at that point. Instead, I took time to explain our work more fully—how our outcomes benefited not only program participants, but also the store, and the surrounding community. I reframed our impact in a way that connected with their values. Over time, that dialogue led to funding. What made the difference was not a perfectly crafted proposal, but a relationship built through conversation, persistence, and mutual understanding.

Looking back, the most important lesson—the one I wish someone had told me sooner—is that funding is built on relationships, not transactions. Early in my career, I did not fully understand the importance of maintaining regular contact with funders after an award was made. I now recognize that stewardship is not an optional add-on; it is foundational to sustainable funding. Funders want to know the people behind the programs. They want transparency, communication, and confidence that their investment is valued beyond the check they write.

Strong funder relationships are built over time through consistent, thoughtful engagement. This includes sharing successes and challenges, inviting funders to see programs in action, seeking their input, and acknowledging their role as partners in the work. Trust grows when funders see that nonprofit professionals are honest, prepared, and committed to delivering outcomes. When that trust exists, funders are more likely to advocate internally, renew support, and consider deeper investment.

This relationship-centered approach extends beyond institutional funders to individual donors as well. Donor engagement is not about persuasion alone; it is about connection. People give because they believe in the mission and trust the organization to carry it forward. When relationships are nurtured, donors feel seen, informed, and appreciated. When they are neglected, even successful programs can struggle to maintain support.

Grant writing, fund development, and donor engagement are, at their core, about relationships—building them intentionally, nurturing them over time, and treating them as the foundation for sustained funding. Proposals may open the door, but relationships keep it open. If I could offer one lesson to those entering the field, it would be this: invest as much time in people as you do in paperwork. The return on that investment is not only funding, but partnership, credibility, and long-term impact.

As a fellow grant writer, what do you wish “someone would have told you?”

Author Bio: Allison Huber works with government, political, private and nonprofit sectors enabling her to pivot successfully through any obstacle to achieve goals and is comfortable engaging with C-Suite to Mid-Management to Front-Line professionals from all backgrounds. Known for her strategic problem-solving skills with emotional intelligence, Allison can envision the "big picture" and translate it into an actionable, operational plan. With experience in managing staff and support consultants, she also possesses a knack for identifying and fostering strategic alliances to enhance project goals and funding proposals, but more importantly to build long-lasting relationships for greater impacts.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/allisonascend/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ascendadvisorsllc/

GPC Competency #8: Knowledge of methods and strategies that cultivate and maintain relationships between fund-seeking and recipient organizations and funders.

Here’s the conversation:

The nonprofit asked, “Could you share your insights into our proposal?”

The program officer replied pleasantly, “Sure, we enjoyed your organization’s proposal. You do great work!”

“Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. Would you encourage us to apply again?” my client asked, hoping for a green light.

The program officer stated definitively, “No, dear. No, I would not.”

Perplexed, my client asked, “Can you share why?”.

The program officer offered a rare insight, “Even though your program fits our priorities, our board members fund their pet projects leaving no room for new programs. They have been committed to funding their favorites for several years with no deviations. It is best that you seek funding from other sources.” 

Ouch. After the initial shock of the virtual door being slammed shut to future funding probabilities, we realized the gift of clarity we gained that day. Had she called the program officer before applying, she might still have been disappointed, but she would have saved time and money pursuing more suitable opportunities.  

Change your Perspective

Calling funders becomes less intimidating when dependency is replaced with self-directed curiosity. Free yourself from the pressure to gain approval from every funder. Ask informed questions and be gracious about the feedback. The purpose of the call is not to pitch your project or declare your financial need. Your first objective is to start a relationship with the funding organization. Ask strategic questions and listen intently. Your second objective is to assess the funder’s alignment with yours and determine if their pre- and post-award requirements are worth  your time, effort, and related expenses. Envision a positive path to work together; but be prepared to accept negative responses.

Be Equipped for the Call  

Demonstrate that you studied the funder by researching the website, 990, and other public data sources. You will stimulate a deeper and insightful conversation. If there are inconsistencies between what you found and what you heard, ask them to clarify. Your findings may be outdated. Be ready to reference your source if you are asked. 

Ask Open-Ended Questions

Once you’ve introduced yourself and confirmed that they have time for you, share a high-level overview about your organization. Do not ramble trying to ‘sell’ the program; get to your questions quickly.

• What types of organizations tend to be the strongest fit for your portfolio?
• Where do you see the strongest alignment between our work and your priorities?
• If we were to apply, what would make our proposal most compelling to you?
  

If you are discouraged quickly from applying, don’t hang up yet. Ask them a few more questions:

• What other funders do you suggest we reach out to?
• May we follow up in the future to share program results or new program proposals?
• Is there anything else you can share that I haven’t asked?
  
  

Be Gracious 

 Thank them for their feedback and time. Recap any follow up tasks you will do. Finally, offer to share your organization’s relevant expertise, outcomes, or case studies to help advance their mission. This goodwill gesture distinguishes you from most nonprofits and can open doors to additional funders and grant opportunities.


What is your go-to question to ask prospective funders? 

Author Bio: Jan Rodusky, MPA, GPC, is the founder of Venn There Grants Consulting in South Florida. She has spent 25+ years as a funder, awarding over $60 million to 750 nonprofits, and as a grant professional securing more than $80 million for clients across the country. Her email is Jan@VennThereGrants.com

Have changes in federal data impacted your work as a grant professional? Please share your experience.

Author Bio: Mark Goldstein, CFRE, GPC, is President/CEO of Communication Mark, a grant writing firm founded in 2000. He has raised more than $100 million for his clients by obtaining grants for organizations of all types, sizes and locales, and is currently serving as Past President on the board of GPA’s North Carolina Chapter.

GPCI Competency: 4: Crafting, constructing, and submitting an effective grant application (4. Cite accurate and relevant data sources to support proposal narratives). Other competencies touched on include 1.1, 2.3, 3.9, and 7.3.

And yes, our work includes all of that.

But anyone who has written grants for more than an afternoon knows there is another layer that rarely gets named: grant writing is emotional labor.

We absorb stories that weigh heavy. We sit with the realities our nonprofits are trying to solve. We carry the pressure of knowing that our words, our deadlines, and our accuracy can have real consequences in someone else’s life. Yet in many workplaces, this part of our role stays invisible.

Most grant writers did not choose this profession because we love compliance portals. We chose it because we care about people, community, and change. That same care is often what can wear us down.

We carry stories: trauma, loss, resilience, and survival. Families on the edge. Kids sleeping on floors. Women rebuilding their lives. Veterans navigating mental health. Older adults aging without connection. To write about these realities well, we have to sit with them long enough to understand them and honor them. And sometimes those realities linger, even after the “submit” confirmation arrives.

Then there is the pressure to get it right. Every grant professional knows the thought that shows up at 3:00 a.m.: “I hope I didn’t miss anything.” A missed attachment, misplaced sentence, or incomplete answer can affect an organization’s ability to keep serving. Even when responsibility is shared across a team, grant writers often feel it in their bodies because we care.

Sometimes the emotional load has less to do with the story and more to do with the structure of the sector:

• Last-minute requests
• Program descriptions still evolving up until deadline
• Budget gaps we did not create but are expected to explain
• Pressure to be the “fixer” for upstream challenges
• An urgent-turnaround culture that turns every deadline into an emergency

This is not a criticism of nonprofits. Many operate on razor-thin margins. But the pressure is real, and grant writers absorb more of it than we acknowledge.

The cost can look like compassion fatigue, professional isolation, and chronic decision fatigue. You can love this profession and still be tired. That does not make you unprofessional. It makes you human.

So what do grant writers need? In my experience, it starts with clarity, rational timelines, open communication, respect for the emotional complexity of the role, supportive partnerships across program and finance, and community among peers.

We cannot fix every systemic issue in the sector, but we can take steps that make the work more sustainable: name what feels heavy, separate your worth from outcomes, build boundaries that protect your creativity and empathy, and allow yourself to be proud of the emotional expertise you bring.

Grant writers are not machines. Our emotional intelligence is not a side note to our skill. It is part of our professional excellence.

What is one way you protect your empathy and resilience while still doing high-impact grant work?

Author Bio: Angie Clemens Mardis is the founder of Clementine Consulting, LLC., a consultancy firm specializing in grant writing and strategic planning which serves mission-driven organizations across Oklahoma with funder-aligned storytelling, evaluation-minded strategy, and capacity building. She is a committed member of her community, a devoted wife, a mom of boys and a member of the Grant Professionals Association.

GPC Competency: 5 – Knowledge of practices and services that raise the level of professionalism of grant practice.

Today’s grant professionals are working in a funding environment that is more competitive, more nuanced, and more compressed than ever. Foundations are receiving more requests each year, even as many narrow their focus or seek deeper alignment with fewer organizations. In that landscape, strong writing alone cannot carry a proposal that lacks fit, clarity, or strategic grounding.

As a result, the role of the grant professional is quietly evolving.

Increasingly, our work happens before a single word is written. We are helping organizations decide whether an opportunity is worth pursuing at all. We are weighing mission alignment, organizational readiness, funder intent, and long-term strategy. Sometimes the most valuable guidance we provide is helping a client or internal team recognize when not to apply, even when the need for funding feels urgent.

This shift away from high-volume proposal production toward strategic positioning reflects broader conversations in philanthropy about effectiveness and impact. Alignment matters. Readiness matters. And grant professionals are often the ones translating those realities into practical decision-making.

With that shift comes a more advisory role. Many grant professionals now help shape program framing, identify gaps between internal language and funder expectations, and guide leadership teams through questions of sustainability and capacity. In practice, we often hold a uniquely holistic view of an organization, its programs, budgets, outcomes, and funding landscape, which naturally positions us as strategic partners, whether or not that title appears in our job description.

This evolution also shows up in how we frame impact. As philanthropy continues to explore trust-based and grantee-centered practices, grant professionals are responsible for helping organizations tell a more complete story. That includes articulating why staffing, systems, and infrastructure matter—not as “overhead,” but as essential components of effective service delivery. Doing that well requires judgment and context, not just good prose.

Technology has accelerated this shift. AI-assisted tools can support research, outlining, and early drafting, but they cannot assess nuance, determine funder fit, or build relationships. As execution becomes more efficient, strategic thinking becomes even more valuable. The real differentiator is no longer whether grant professionals use technology, but how they use it and what they do with the time it saves.

Of course, this expanded role adds complexity. Grant professionals today are managing more stakeholders, tighter timelines, and higher expectations, often with limited resources. Burnout is a real concern across the field. As the profession evolves, there is growing importance in advocating for realistic grant calendars, intentional pacing, and sustainable workloads. Not just for ourselves, but for the quality of the work.

Ultimately, this evolution invites us to rethink how value is defined in grant writing. Dollars awarded will always matter, but so will the strategic groundwork that makes long-term success possible. Writing remains foundational, but today’s grant professionals are doing far more than writing. We are helping organizations navigate complexity, make informed decisions, and pursue funding with intention.

How has your role as a grant professional shifted in recent years and what strategic work are you doing now that wasn’t part of your role earlier in your career?

Author Bio: Melanie Lambert is the Managing Director of Just Write Grants, a nonprofit consulting firm providing strategic grant writing and funding advisory services to organizations across the U.S. With almost two decades of experience, she partners with nonprofits to strengthen positioning, align funding strategies, and build sustainable grant programs. When she’s not working with clients, she enjoys strong coffee, Broadway soundtracks, and cheering on her three sons from the sidelines.

GPC Competency:
Competency 3 – Strategies for Effective Program and Project Design
Competency 6 – Cultivating and Maintaining Funder Relationships
Competency 8 – Raising the Level of Professionalism

We’ve all been there.

The truth is, post-award stewardship is where trust is built. It’s how a funder experiences the work while it’s happening, not just after it’s wrapped in a tidy narrative. And yes, reports matter, but the most powerful stewardship usually feels less like compliance and more like connection.

The classic thank-you note still works, especially when it sounds like a real human wrote it. One approach I love is the “thank-you relay”: a short message with one line from the grant professional, one from a program lead, and one from someone closest to the work. Not a script, not overly polished. Just a small chorus of gratitude. It’s heartfelt without being heavy.

Another go-to is what I call a “receipt of impact.” Not a tax receipt, more like: “Here’s what your grant is already making possible.” Three to five outcomes, one photo, one quote, and one sentence about what’s next. It’s the kind of update a busy program officer can absorb quickly and, if they want, share internally without rewriting.

For those times when your brain can’t handle another long email, the “three-sentence postcard” is a lifesaver. One image. Three sentences. No jargon. One sentence on what happened, one on why it matters, and one on what you’re doing next. It’s simple, honest, and surprisingly powerful.

If you want to make a funder smile, try a choose-your-own-adventure update. One email with a few options: “Want the numbers?” “Want the story?” “Want the behind-the-scenes lesson learned?” People are busy. Let them pick their doorway.

And if you really want something memorable, consider a tiny “field artifact,” when it fits your work. A small map, a seed packet, a photo card from the site, a snapshot of a whiteboard from a community meeting, even a 30-second “sound of the work” voice memo with a caption . These small touches say, “You’re not just funding a line item. You’re part of something real.”

Stewardship also gets easier when we don’t do it alone. That’s where the intersection of chapter and national membership comes in. As Vice President of the GPA New Jersey Chapter, with close to 100 members, I’m constantly reminded that we’re all building the plane while flying it. Our chapter offers monthly education sessions (virtual and sometime in person, often with partners), weekly communications, and opportunities to jump in on committees and volunteer roles. We try to listen closely to what members need and keep pace with trends in our geographic area. National GPA adds fuel through GrantSchool webinars and events, GrantZone community connection, GrantStation access for funder research, mentoring, career services, and discounts from grant tech, training, and insurance partners.

At the end of the day, stewardship doesn’t have to be stiff. It can be warm, a little creative, and deeply human, because that’s what our work is. And if you’re reading this thinking, “Thank you, I needed that,” just know: same.

So tell me, what’s the most memorable (or unexpectedly effective) post-award stewardship touch you’ve used, and did it change the relationship with the funder?

Author Bio: Lauren Swern is a creative, people-centered Development Director at the New Jersey Highlands Coalition, where she brings fundraising to life through storytelling, community-building, and big-picture strategy, and she is the founder of the NJ Environmental Fundraisers Gathering, a growing network of nearly 100 nonprofit professionals across New Jersey’s environmental sector. A champion of learning and collaboration, she served as Lead Instructor for County College of Morris’s Nonprofit Certificate Program, where she curated speakers, shaped curriculum, and encouraged new ideas, and she shares her expertise as an Expert Advisor with the Institute for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Lauren is deeply engaged in the profession, serving as Vice President of the New Jersey Chapter of the Grant Professionals Association, Co–Vice President of Programs for AFP-NJ, and contributing to national GPA committees, all while creating meaningful professional development experiences rooted in connection, creativity, and growth. 

GPCI Competency 6: Methods that cultivate and maintain relationships between fund-seeking organizations and funders

In a previous article, I wrote that ethics is a mountain with no top. There is no summit where we can plant a flag and declare ourselves “ethical enough.” We always climb upward, striving for improvement. The climb demands constant attention, recalibration, and humility. Every step requires intention.

But there is another way to understand ethics — not as ascent toward ethical perfection, but as descent into ethical turmoil

We are all familiar with the old rhetorical question: would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family? The question forces us into discomfort because it exposes something we prefer not to admit: sometimes choices are a luxury. Sometimes the space to deliberate and to weigh abstract principles against survival is a privilege, dare I say even frivolous.

Yet, it is precisely in those moments — when the stakes are high, when the pressure is real, when the justification feels urgent — that ethical standards matter most.

Ethical challenges do not manifest out of thin air. It is almost never a single, dramatic moment in which a bright line in the sand is suddenly crossed. Usually, ethical challenges are a cascade event.  A small compromise here. A rationalization there. A decision framed as temporary. A choice made “just this once.” We slide incrementally, often without noticing, until the ground beneath us feels less stable than we remember.

If the mountain metaphor captures the discipline required to climb upward, the slope captures the danger of inattention. And once the downward movement begins, it can accelerate. What starts as a small concession gathers momentum — a snowball rolling downhill, picking up speed and mass, becoming harder to stop the longer it continues.

The most difficult part is that these situations are rarely black and white. We are not choosing between cartoon villainy and pristine virtue. We are navigating grey areas — competing duties, incomplete information, imperfect systems, and real human consequences. The cognitive dissonance this creates is uncomfortable. We want clean answers. We want moral certainty.

But ethical maturity requires tolerating ambiguity.

Part of the national tension we are experiencing today stems from our collective discomfort with grey space. We are polarized not only by policy differences, but by our varying tolerances for complexity. Some seek rigid rules; others default to outcome-based justifications. In the absence of shared frameworks for navigating ambiguity, we talk past one another.

Ethics is not all-or-nothing. It is not a single decision point. It is a pattern of decisions over time.
When survival, fear, ambition, loyalty, or urgency enter the equation, we are tempted to redefine our standards in ways that feel reasonable in the moment. That is precisely why self-awareness matters. The question is not whether hard situations will arise — they will. The question is whether we recognize the slope before it steepens, or whether we pause before the snowball grows too large to redirect.

Climbing a mountain requires stamina. Avoiding a slide requires vigilance.

Ethics is both ascent and restraint — the daily choice to keep climbing, and the conscious refusal to let ourselves drift downward simply because the path of least resistance is easier.

And perhaps the real work is not pretending the grey areas do not exist but learning how to stand steadily within them.

*AI was used to help organize my thoughts for this post, but the ideas and analogies are my own. 

Author Bio: Amanda Faye Ethics Committee

Author Bio: Beth Oldham wrote her first grant by hand in Mali, West Africa in 1989 and didn’t need email to submit it. She has written grants, primarily U.S. federal grants, for more than 30 years and serves clients throughout North America.

GPCI Competency: 2, 3

The difference between a certificate and a certification (also known as a credential) is related to their purpose. Certificates demonstrate learning. Certification verifies professional competence (Institute for Credentialing Excellence, n.d.). Further, accreditation indicates external standards have been met and verified by an independent authority (National Commission for Certifying Agencies, n.d.). 

🎓 Certificate: Demonstrates completion of a training 
🏅 Certification: Verifies professional competence
✅ Accreditation: Confirms external standards and quality assurance


A certificate program demonstrates that a participant completed a prescribed course of study or training. The training is designed for participants to build knowledge through  learning outcomes linked to the event or program. Upon completion or attainment, the individual earns a certificate. There are a variety of certificate trainings and programs, including those that are accredited by external education quality standards organizations. However, none of the certificates are certifications (credentials). 

A certification or professional credential verifies that an individual has met industry specific standards for professional competency. A certification indicates an individual is qualified and competent in their profession; they have met eligibility requirements; passed an assessment or exam; demonstrated competence in their field; and follow ethical standards (Institute for Credentialing Excellence, n.d.).  

Certification shows that an individual is qualified; Accreditation proves the certification itself meets rigorous standards.

A certification program that has been independently verified to meet and follow rigorous standards is an accredited credential. The GPC credential is accredited through the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) , the accrediting body of the Institute for Credentialing Excellence. First attained in 2019, and renewed in 2024, the NCCA accreditation is a mark of quality for the GPC, the first grant professional certification to gain accreditation. 

The Value of Accreditation

Accreditation, whether for a certificate or certification, indicates an independent authority has verified the quality and standards of the program, thereby enhancing credibility and trust. For a certificate, accreditation indicates that it provides high quality education. However, when a certification program is accredited, it indicates much more than just quality; it provides trust and credibility. Certification accreditation ensures quality, protects the public, verifies real-world competencies, ensures independence and fairness, and elevates the profession in the following ways:

Ensures Quality

•  Establishes rigorous requirements for program design, assessment, and administration
• Mandates continuous quality improvement and compliance monitoring
• Confirms alignment with nationally or internationally recognized best practices

Protects the Public Interest

• Establishes safeguards to ensure only qualified professionals earn the credential
• Requires ethical standards, accountability mechanisms, and due process
• Reduces institutional and financial risk by promoting competent practice

Verifies Real-World Competencies

• Aligns certification standards with documented professional roles and responsibilities
• Uses validated, competency-based assessments grounded in industry practice
• Ensures ongoing relevance through periodic review and updates

Ensures Independence and Fairness

• Requires clear separation between education/training and credentialing decisions
• Implements governance structures that prevent conflicts of interest
• Applies consistent and transparent standards across all candidates

Elevates the Profession

• Defines clear professional standards and expectations
• Enhances credibility with employers, funders, and regulatory stakeholders
• Supports workforce development, career advancement, and professional recognition
  

Understanding the distinction between certificates, certifications, and accredited credentials empowers grant professionals to make informed choices about their professional development. As you design your career path, explore credentials that not only build knowledge but also validate competence through recognized external standards.

Consider the following questions and share your thoughts in the comments:

• Have you pursued certificates, certifications, or both in your professional journey — and what value have you found in each?
• What has been most helpful in strengthening your professional credibility in the grants field so far?
• For those who hold the GPC or are considering it, how has (or how do you hope) the credential supported your professional growth and credibility?
  
  

Author Bio: LaKeesha Morris‑Moreau, MSW, GPC, is the 2026 President of the Grant Professionals Certification Institute (GPCI), where she oversees national credentialing standards and leads the advancement of ethical, high‑quality grant practice. As the GPC Exam Administration Chair, she ensures rigor and integrity in the certification process. She is also the CEO of BellTower Consulting Group in Miami and brings more than 25 years of experience supporting funding success for cities, counties, and colleges. Learn more at www.grantcredential.org

GPC Competency:  #7

Sources:

Institute for Credentialing Excellence. (n.d.). Certificate programs vs. certification programs. https://www.credentialingexcellence.org/Accreditation/New-to-Accreditation/Certificate-vs-Certification

Institute for Credentialing Excellence. (n.d.). What is accreditation? https://www.credentialingexcellence.org/Accreditation/New-to-Accreditation/What-is-Accreditation

National Commission for Certifying Agencies. (n.d.). NCCA standards for the accreditation of certification programs. Institute for Credentialing Excellence. https://www.credentialingexcellence.org/Accreditation/Earn-Accreditation/NCCA

While wearing my evaluator hat at GrantSummit, I asked the grant professionals I met what steps they take to ensure their clients have a solid evaluation plan, as well as the capacity to implement it upon award. I learned that, overwhelmingly, the grant professionals (and grant consulting firms) I spoke with are not partnering with evaluation specialists to set their clients up for long-term success.

This is not a critique of grant professionals’ skills or intentions. Most are very good at crafting evaluation narratives that align with funder expectations (as reflected  in GPC Competencies). Where things get challenging is after the award, when organizations are asked to carry out plans that assume staffing, systems, or skills they may not yet have. Recognizing that evaluation is an entire field unto itself, it’s unrealistic to expect grant professionals to maintain the expertise needed to guide  clients in developing and implementing high-quality evaluation work across complex and varied contexts.

When Evaluation Plans Meet Reality

From the evaluation side, I often see organizations scrambling post-award to answer questions they did not have the opportunity (or support) to ask earlier. Who will collect the data? How much staff time will it take? What tools are required? What happens if reporting timelines don’t line up with the cadence of program activities? How can our grant-funded evaluation work be leveraged for future opportunities and sustainability planning? 

The shift that has helped me (both as a grant professional and an evaluator) is treating evaluation readiness as part of proposal readiness. Early input from an evaluation specialist can help right-size expectations, surface capacity gaps before they become compliance issues, and ensure that what is proposed is something the organization can realistically carry forward.

Helping Clients Find the Right Evaluation Support

One challenge I see repeatedly is how difficult it can be for organizations to identify an external evaluator once funding is awarded. Many clients do not know where to look, how to assess fit, or what questions to ask. Their best option often is to show someone who “is good with data” their evaluation plan and ask, “Can you do this?” Grant professionals who cultivate relationships with evaluators during pre-award work are better positioned to guide clients through that transition—whether by sharing insights, offering referrals, or encouraging continuity when appropriate. Moreover, many of my evaluation colleagues are eager for more collaboration with grant professionals to promote evaluation best practices and capacity building, and to ensure that evaluators hired in post-award have solid, realistic plans to follow.

Building Evaluation Capacity Considerations into Your Practice

Small changes can have a big impact on your clients’ success with evaluation post-award: building in brief evaluation check-ins, naming capacity needs explicitly, and maintaining relationships with evaluation experts as part of professional practice. Winning a grant is not the finish line. When evaluation plans are grounded in both funder expectations and organizational realities, clients are better positioned to succeed long after submission.

Do you collaborate with internal or external evaluation experts when crafting evaluation plans? If not, how do you build and maintain your evaluation capacity as a grant professional? Do you consider ensuring your client has the capacity (either internally, or connections/leads for external) to execute an evaluation plan part of your professional practice?

Author Bio: Emma Alston, MPH is an independent consultant working primarily in public health and social service settings, and founder of Ginkgo Leaf Writing & Consulting. Drawing on experience in both grant development and program evaluation, she partners with organizations to design fundable initiatives and evaluation approaches that are feasible, aligned, and useful in practice.

GPC Competencies: 3 (7) Identify definitions of elements of project design; 3(8): Determine interrelationships among elements of project design; 3 (11) Identify effects of defensible evaluation designs in programs and projects; 4 (11): Identify evaluation methods appropriate for grant proposals.