Boards want your organization to win more grants, but many have never seen what it takes to produce them. When the request for more grant capacity arrives as "we need another writer" or "we need better tools", it sounds like a cost without a plan.
This article shows development directors and executive directors how to turn grant work into a proposal a board can approve: what boards want to know, how to build the case from your own pipeline, how to set realistic expectations and how to report back.
Know what boards want to know
Board members are responsible for the organization's finances and risk, so they tend to ask four questions, whether or not they say them aloud:
- Cost: what are we being asked to spend, and for how long?
- Return: what do we expect to get back, and how sure are you?
- Risk: what could go wrong, and what would it cost us?
- Time frame: when will we see results, and when will we know if it's working?
Answer all four on one page. A board member who has to ask will assume you haven't thought about it.
Build the case from your own pipeline
Don't start with the ask. Start with what is already happening.
- Show the current pipeline. How many opportunities did you review last cycle, how many did you apply to and how many were funded? Building a grants calendar and pipeline shows how to count these.
- Show the capacity limit. Say plainly how many applications your team can produce per quarter, and where hours go.
- Show what you passed on. List the opportunities you declined for lack of time, with approximate award sizes. Use real opportunities from your own records. Missed opportunities are the clearest evidence of unmet capacity.
- Make the ask specific. Name the position, contract or tool, the cost and the term.
Keep the language plain. A board does not need a lecture on grant types. It needs to see that the limit is time, and what extra time would buy. Hiring or contracting a grant writer compares the options if you haven't chosen one.
Present cost, return and time in one table
Say a nonprofit proposes a new grant writer at a total cost of $52,000 a year, including benefits. The pipeline review suggests the new capacity could support about twelve more applications a year. At a hypothetical 25 percent success rate and an average award of $40,000, that is three awards a year once the position is established. In the first year, ramp-up and the timing of funder decisions mean only one award arrives.
| Period | Cost | Awards expected | Cumulative net |
|---|---|---|---|
| Months 1 to 12 | $52,000 | 1 × $40,000 = $40,000 | -$12,000 |
| Months 13 to 24 | $52,000 | 3 × $40,000 = $120,000 | +$56,000 |
These numbers are illustrative, and your own history should supply yours. Use your actual success rate and award sizes, and show a conservative case next to a base case.
The table also makes the honest point that the first year may not pay for itself. Say so up front. A board that expects an immediate return will judge the investment a failure at month six.
Be honest about the risks
Board members are right to ask about risk, and a plan that names its own risks earns trust. Cover:
- Timing. Funders decide on their own schedules, and money often arrives long after the work. Federal agencies, for example, should make an opportunity available for at least 60 calendar days under 2 CFR 200.204, and decisions and award start dates come afterward. Reimbursement and cash flow explains why a won award can still strain cash.
- Restrictions. Grant money is usually restricted to a purpose, so it does not automatically cover the cost of the staff member who wrote the proposal.
- Compliance. More federal awards bring more obligations. Under 2 CFR 200.303, recipients must maintain effective internal control over each federal award, and under 2 CFR 200.501 an entity that expends $1,000,000 or more in federal awards in a fiscal year must have a single or program-specific audit. Mention these if your plan could move you toward that level, and confirm the details with your auditor.
- Dependence. Say how you will avoid relying on a single funder.
How the cost can be covered
Ask your finance team how grant-writing costs will be funded. Under 2 CFR 200.460, the costs of preparing proposals normally should be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all current activities, so a federal indirect cost rate can recover part of them. Some foundations also allow an overhead percentage, so check each funder's guidelines. Be careful not to promise a board that any award will pay for the position.
Set a 12 to 24 month view
Grants take time to produce revenue: opportunities must be found, applications written, decisions made and agreements signed. Ask the board to judge the investment on a 12 to 24 month view, with checkpoints along the way. Early checkpoints should track leading indicators, such as applications submitted and qualified opportunities in the pipeline, because awards come later.
Plan how you will report back
Tell the board in advance what you will report and when. A short quarterly dashboard works: applications submitted, awards received, dollars requested and awarded, and the current pipeline. Grant metrics that matter suggests which numbers to include. Boards also have their own oversight duties. For example, the IRS Form 990 asks whether a copy of the final Form 990 was provided to each voting member of the governing body before filing. Regular, plain reporting makes that part of oversight routine.
Your next step
Draft a one-page grant capacity proposal for your next board meeting. Include the current pipeline, the capacity limit, two or three opportunities you passed on, the ask, a cost-and-return table with a conservative case and the dates when you will report back. Share it with your board chair beforehand so there are no surprises in the room.
SoliContraX is one option for a team that needs help getting from a notice to a finished application. Upload the notice, approve a concept and start from a draft built from your own materials. See how to get started.