Takeaways from Contracting as a Grant Reviewer for a Large U.S. Nonprofit

Over the last few years, I’ve been branching more and more into grant writing. In October I worked on a large contract as a grant reviewer – not looking over grants before submission, but evaluating them after the fact. I was on a panel of other reviewers. We used a rubric of criteria to score submitted grants by numbers to give them rank and priority. We also made yes/no recommendations for funding. Here are some of the major takeaways from this rewarding experience.

Information Matters More than Instructions: Be Thorough!

Misunderstandings of grant instructions were penalized, but not nearly as much as inadequate information. We needed to know enough about each submitting organization to evaluate their likelihood of meeting the grant criteria.

We needed to know statistical evaluations of current capacities. We needed to know their plan for continuing to improve. We needed this to be backed up with specifics. What fundraising events did they plan every year? What funding sources did they already have?

Most applications required a Growth Plan to be submitted alongside the proposal. Some had detailed business plans that had clearly been in place for months. Others had two paragraphs of brainstorming clearly concocted for this application.

Some applicants misunderstood the type of information we were asking for in certain sections. For example, one question regarded sustainability. We were hoping to see them discuss a diversity of funding sources to support their long-term stability. Some applicants named only one or two funding sources in this section – another specific grant they were applying for or an ongoing giving campaign.

The rest of these applications revealed the missing information. Perhaps they had an in-house grant writer, who would clearly be applying for a variety of grants. Perhaps their growth plan revealed they also raised $40,000 in local fundraisers per year. They misunderstood the question, but we still got the information we needed to be able to support them!  

Some applicants misunderstood the instructions to the extent that they skipped entire questions. This was when those misunderstandings and that carelessness really mattered.

Balance Your Budget with Confidence and Flexibility

This grant was federal pass-through funding, so federal funding rules applied. Certain items were prohibited from budgets – bonuses, food (outside of travel), and employee bonuses, to name a few. These applications lost a large chunk of points in the “budget” section of the rubric. It mattered, but it wasn’t always a dealbreaker. One of them had so many other strengths, all of us gave it a high score and recommended it be passed as long as the budget could be renegotiated.

Some budgets were vague. Their computational explanations were incomplete. Some budgets contained items unrelated to anything else mentioned in the rest of the grant. Some applicants included entire items on a hypothetical basis, for example, “we might need to use this for a contractor.”

Budgets presented with confidence were certainly easier to award full points. Some listed out specific items as if copy-pasted from an online listing. The research is commendable, but I foresee a risk with this level of specificity. Those listings change – names, prices, existence.

In the end, all budgets were negotiable and we were able to recommend specific discussions items. Many of them baked in cushion and room for error. In the end, the funder will see all of the receipts.

 

Culture, Innovation, and Teamwork Shine Through

Some applications felt like a cultural experience. They described collaborative relationships between the chapters and local government, businesses, schools, tribal nations, and each other. A Midwest chapter had a lucrative annual fall festival. New England chapters had long-held 5ks. This kind of cultural development takes years to cultivate. We noticed.

One application stood out for prioritizing an expensive marketing plan. They had partnered with a firm to get ads not only on local radio, but local portions of popular TV platforms. This method had a track record of great success and rapid growth, so we supported it.

These innovative and cultural chapters, the ones truly embedded in their society, were always the same ones who demonstrated involvement by a variety of team members. They were never the one-person shows. I found this noteworthy.

I’ll continue to research and post more about grant-writing in 2026. Let’s learn together, defy corruption, and make a difference.