Academic Grant Pursuits Newsletter - September 2026

1
ACADEMIC GRANT PURSUITS
September 2026
Adding Color to a Grant Application
In this issue:
• Adding Color to a
Grant Application
• Scheduling Work
• Getting to Try
• Professional
Affiliation When
Applying for a Grant
• Limited
Competition Grants
• Profiling a Grant
Funder
• Extra Meanings in
Grants
• Not Unduly Raising
False Hopes
• Sensitive Data
• Positioning to be
“Grants
Competitive”
• Absent the
Capability
• For-Profit
Intermediary
Companies in the
Academic Grants
Space
• Dynamism in the
Grants Space
• Reimbursement for
Preapplication
Preparation?
• When to Let Go
•Especially
Competitive Parts of
a Grant Application
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Editor
Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew,
Grant Writer
haijes@gmail.com
(cont. on the next page)
In research, which can be pretty dry, “color” may be added by the researcher / author. Color in this
context does not refer to a hue or saturation or lightness. It does not refer to visual sensations on the
retina. Rather, color in academic writing refers to actions taken to enliven the text.
• Research participants’ quotes may be included to augment the data tables. Their voices and
points-of-view may ensure that the work is relatable.
• Real-life anecdotes may be shared.
• Block quotes may be interspersed in a review of the literature.
• Visuals from the fieldwork may be included.
• Diagrams of models may be shared.
• Data visualizations may be added.
Heightened dimensionality may be added to the academic work.
The “genre” of grant applications may also be made more engaging and vivid with added factual col-
or. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Color in a Grant Application
Color in a grant application
In the same way, color may be added to a grant appli-
cation.
In the abstract, perhaps the experiences of the target
beneficiaries may be included to make their challenges
more relatable.
In the problem narrative, perhaps a judicious quote is
included.
In the data section, perhaps data visualizations and
diagrams are included and intertwined with the text.
If a model is one of the outputs of the grant-funded work, perhaps a draft diagrammatic visual may be
offered on which the future work will be built.
If a proposed project involves various geographical coverage, maps may be added.

2
Scheduling Work
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(Adding Color...cont.)
The various aspects of color may not only be informative,
but these may inform the mood and tone of the grant appli-
cation. The aesthetics of the visual elements may be de-
signed aesthetically and with a consistent color palette.
Appealing to grant evaluators
The textual and data and visual richness can make a grant
application more engaging to the grant evaluators. The
contents may be more readable. Visual thinking may be
engaged. The gray text may be broken up.
Conclusion
“Color” in a grant application may brighten the proposal and
make it more compelling. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Bright Colors
One simplification about writing grants is that there are four
main sections that seem to appear in virtually all academic
grants. They include the four following sections:
• A work proposal
• A work schedule
• Staffing
• A budget
The various elements have to stand alone meaningfully but
also have to interact with the other elements in a consistent
and harmonious way. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Harmony
What goes into a work schedule?
A work schedule is essentially comprised of the various
phases of work to help move from the work conceptualiza-
tion to the operationalization of it. At various intervals, partic-
ular deliverables are created and sent on. There are the
outputs at the end of the active period of the grant and then
outcomes that follow in the near-, mid-, and long- term time
periods.
Underlying the general work schedule is the logic model
(which is a core foundational structure for many grant pro-
posals). [The logic model has a left-to-right sequence begin-
ning with inputs -> activities -> outputs -> outcomes (in the
short, medium, and long-terms).]
A work schedule generally has to fit within the action period
of the grant funder for the particular grant project. It has to
have the major reports sections listed…both the intermediate
reports and the cumulative final one. If there are critical pro-
fessional conferences, those should be included. The main
deadlines for deliverables should be in the work schedule.
Etcetera.
Mitigating optimism bias
One common challenge in scheduled work is that those plan-
ning the work tend to be too optimistic about how quickly work
may be reasonably done…to standards…and under budget.
There are dependencies that have to be addressed to
achieve certain work. When individuals work on teams, the
speed of one member may mean that others’ work is held up.
One visual example of dependencies may be seen in Activity-
on-Node (AON) diagrams. This tool is used to calculate both
the shortest and longest amounts of time to achieve particular
tasks based on dependencies. This tool offers credible effi-
cient pathways to project completion.
The internal schedule of the institution of higher education
(IHE) may also affect the availability of the staff on the pro-
ject.
Chance factors may come into play. There may be change
(cont. on p. 4)

3
Getting to Try
By Shalin Hai-Jew
As a grant writer starting in a new workplace (such as a com-
munity and technical college), one of the most challenging
aspects of the job is encouraging faculty, administrators, and
staff to try for grant funding.
This may be thought of as a form of “getting to yes,” but it’s
“getting to try.”
“Show me the money!”
When a federal or state grant emerged that might involve the
work of those in a particular part of campus…and an email
and link was sent to the administrator, for at least the first
year and even beyond, many would merely ignore the email.
When I ran into one in the hallway, half a year after the last
email sent, he gave a hearty greeting…and then said he
would read his emails. Yeah, never mind.
If administrators think there is some money to be had, they
will come out of the woodwork to try to be seen and to get
credit. This is especially if they had done nothing to support
the grant pursuit endeavors.
In another case, an administrator said he was interested in
pursuing grant funding but then went silent and passive.
Because a grant funder cannot encumber the college or any
of its staff, nothing happened. The individual who expressed
interest had not read the grant application and had no idea
that the funding required that the county have a particular law
on the books (which the county did not have). The author’s
connections at a university (several hours of driving distance
away) shed light on when the new law would go into effect
locally.
After many months of these behaviors, it seemed that there
were insufficient incentives for people to risk their positions,
their reputations, and their egos…to pursue grant funding.
Do I have to work for it?
Others put together long wish lists of equipment that they
wanted. One wanted a piece of equipment worth some
$270k. Another had some $750k of wants. In the first case,
the potential principal investigator worked days, nights, and
weekends to help put together a very competitive grant appli-
cation (that was praised by the grant manager at the federal
agency). That grant application was stopped by the college
because the leadership did not want to write a backdated
letter that they would acknowledge as back-dated in the
meeting minutes…to meet a surprise demand of the federal
agency. In the latter case, the potential PI insisted that his
program should receive the funding simply because of sever-
al courses that they taught in the program. He refused to
engage the nitty-gritty of the grant, which requested data
analysis and problem solving. Months later, when the grant-
ees were announced, he sent a link to a public article about
the funding. He perhaps never understood that his own pas-
sivity and silence ended the grant pursuit. He wanted to
believe that all he had to do for nearly a million in funding
was to say they taught a few courses (that were also taught
by many others across the state).
Another area wanted to go for a five-year grant but did not
have the access to the data they need to actualize the work
if they got funded for Y1. They had been thinking of this
grant for decades. They had had the grant at one point
years ago…and lost it mid-stream because they couldn’t
deliver on the requisite work and / or the requisite data re-
portage. In those intervening years, no one actually read the
updated grant NOFO…or did anything relevant to position
the college to be able to compete in that space. What? Is
there actual work involved?
Others meet once and never again. Some say yes but then
go silent. When given a gentle nudge, they make an appoint-
ment for months later.
It is no small amount of work to put together a grant applica-
tion. One has no interest in just flooding the zone with flimsy
tries. (Figure 1) That said, with some basic carved-out time,
it is not that difficult to collect the basic necessary infor-
mation, make a work plan, set up a budget, and have that
sent out for competition. [The college’s administration had
some go-stop stop-go patterns, which resulted in perfectly
competitive grants being stopped at the water’s edge and
not being sent out for competition.]
Figure 1. Try for Everything

4
(Scheduling Work...cont. from p. 2)
(Getting to Try...cont.)
Ideally, a college would empower itself and its staff to pursue
relevant funding and to have a presence in the external spon-
sorships space…to advance the work of the college and to
update its equipment and its buildings.
Ideally, there would not be a say-do or think-do gap. Ideally,
everyone would be trained to action in every case. They
would be open to trying again and again. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Try and Try Again
They would be informed. They would be collegial. They
would see grant seeking as a part of the work, not a grand
production.
Conclusion
In the real, grant pursuits can bring out all sorts of dysfunc-
tions in the workplace. Anxieties may be triggered. Funded
grants are returned. Mixed incentives come into play. Much
potential is lost.
Project scope may have to be adjusted for a doable destina-
tion. (Figure 5)
Figure 5. Bridge to Where?
orders that arise during the grant-funded work. Team mem-
bers may come and go.
If a grant is truly dealing with very cutting-edge research
and / or technologies and / or techniques, there may be even
higher risks of challenges and even non-completion. Works
that test important hypotheses…may be perhaps riskier than
those involving known and familiar work. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Hypothesizing
There may be unexpected detours, periods of being lost and
wandering. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. Times of Being Lost and Wandering
Project managers who have deep experiences with particular
types of work can perhaps better estimate the actual
amounts of time it would take to achieve particular objec-
tives. While grant funders require ambition and value-added
work, the grant application proposal also has to be feasible.
In the marketplace of ideas, ideas have value and implica-
tions in the world. (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Marketplace of Ideas
(cont. on p. 11)

5
Professional Affiliation When Applying for a Grant
By Shalin Hai-Jew
The question of professional affiliation when applying for an
academic grant arose innocently enough. (Figure 1) A col-
lege faculty member applied for a grant and was awarded the
funding. (It was to be one of several grants that she and a
colleague at a different institution of higher education both
won for a collaborative project.)
Figure 1. Professional Affiliation
Contrasting perspectives: a college ad-
min vs. a faculty debate
The college leadership were clear that they did not want fac-
ulty to pursue grants for their own work—research, art sup-
plies, publishing, and others—because there was not a direct
benefit to the college per se. The institution of higher educa-
tion (IHE) had a very close-in sense of what should be pur-
sued for grant funding. They also had the sense that re-
search work might not reflect what the college wanted to
communicate about itself. It might not align with the PR ver-
sion of the college.
The college wanted at least the right of first refusal to consid-
er such a grant, so they could either accept or decline re-
sponsibility for such a grant. They also made it clear that
they would prefer that the faculty member perhaps not pursue
such grant funding at all. The administration also quashed a
different grant that was perceived by some community mem-
bers as being political vs. neutral (it was about encouraging
American citizens to vote).
They had the sense of limited grant-seeking resources and
limited ability to track and follow the various funded grants
(which required business and accounting oversight, to ensure
alignment with applicable laws). (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Limited Bites at the Apple
The faculty member said she was not using any college re-
sources for the grant pursuit or the grant work. She would
not even use her personal email during the work day from
her office to achieve any of the work. So why did she need
to get approval at the college for the side gig of grant-funded
research? She was not using the cobbled IRB committee for
any of the work. She was assiduously careful not to use col-
lege resources. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. Working through Issues
She also saw benefits for the college to have a faculty mem-
ber who was achieving work unheard of in the history of the
community and technical college. She thought that the pres-
tige and renown would be a net positive for the college. She
could also take what she learned and use some of that in her
courses for the freshmen and sophomores.
Going it alone or unaffiliated
The faculty member asked if she couldn’t just go it alone as

6
(Professional Affiliation...cont.)
Limited Competition Grants
By Shalin Hai-Jew
an unaffiliated individual. This evolved into a debate about
why an IHE might be valuable to vouch for a faculty mem-
ber…and to enable access to institutional resources
(colleagues, facilities, library, Internet connectivity, technolo-
gies, and others). If grant funding involves a whole of insti-
tution approach, this case could be an important example.
Further, most grant funders do not fund stand-alone individ-
ual academics who are unaffiliated. That is too much of a
risk. They do not have much recourse except perhaps
through the court system if the individual does not follow
through with the funded work.
If research data and publications stem from the grant-funded
work, the awardee would not be an affiliation under which to
present at professional conferences and under which to pub-
lish.
Conclusion
For better or for worse, this is how the granting system has
generally evolved, for various reasons. It would seem like
there is a middle ground around which the various stake-
holders can meet.
The faculty member later acquired a position as a full-time
faculty member at a university in another state. She would
have the full support of the administrators there, optimally,
and have access to subscription databases and libraries and
technologies that she did not at the junior college.
“Limited competition grants” are those that restrict the group
of potential applicants with particular eligibility requirements.
Only those in the in-group can apply. The narrowed field
improves the odds of being funded markedly. The grant
NOFOs (notices of funding opportunities) may even read a
little like a specific invitation. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Limited Competition Grants
Such grants are designed to achieve particular and specific
aims. These are still discretionary grants, so they require
competition among the applicants from the small, restricted
pool.
Types of pooling
Apparently, eligible entities may be pooled based on selected
restrictions: (community and technical colleges) that have
(particular educational and training programs)… The above
is a real-world example (albeit abstract). The eligibility is
limited by sectors and by a particular topical program. The
above program also had a geographical focus to a particular
state. [The program has existed for decades. The invitation
to apply confers a specific specialness…which is hard-
earned. Such programs have taken many hundreds of thou-
sands of human labor hours to evolve…and much in the way
of funding and equipment and facilities, too.]
The delimitation by pool means that the grant funder may
choose to spend the whole fund on the few applicants that
apply, if only a few apply. Or it may divvy up the funds
among the applicants and pay partial support, and the respec-
tive programs may have to pony up the difference. Or it may
choose to be highly selective and only fund a few with the
total funding amount and decline to find some of the appli-
cants. A funder who puts out limited competition grants are
under no compunction to fund anyone. They may choose to
not fund any of the applications if they do not pass muster.
One obvious challenge in such a context is that the grant fun-
der may have an ambitious “ask” to weed out those who dare
and who can…vs. those who may not have the headspace
and capability.
Conclusion
For grant seekers, any legitimate break is welcome. Typical-
ly, there are tough odds in the world of grant seeking and
grant funding.
For grant seekers, any legitimate break
is welcome. Typically, there are tough
odds in the world of grant seeking and
grant funding.

7
Profiling a Grant Funder
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Getting to yes in the grant funding space requires a mutuali-
ty of interests: the grant applicant with their offered work,
the grant funder with their offered funding. That overlap is
necessary for sparks to fly.
To figure out if there is potential, a grant applicant would do
well to know who’s who in the grants space, particularly in
their discipline and industry. The exploration is to know
both (1) whether the organization is trustworthy and profes-
sional and credible, and (2) whether there is potential con-
vergence of interests. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. A Sense of Promise
What goes into a grant funder profile?
Grant funders offer public information, often via the WWW
and Internet. They share who they are and what their inter-
ests are.
They share about their leadership, their mission and values,
their history, their available grants, the grant eligibility re-
quirements, their objectives, their standards for grant (and
grant work) assessment, and even listings of prior funded
grants. It is important to dig beyond the surface and to ac-
cess downloadable documents and reports, for a deeper dive.
Many enable subscribing to their newsletters to stay updated
on their goings-ons. Read leader statements. Read for text
and subtext. Get as complete a picture as possible in terms
of identity, actions, and impetuses.
Most professional grant funders—from government, from
foundations, from corporations, and from individuals—are
fairly transparent.
Check with outside validators. How well funded is the grant
funder? How professional are they? Do they treat grantees
professionally? Are they ethical in how they handle moneys?
Data? Information? How are they regarded by others? (Is it
an earned reputation, or not?)
It helps to acquire less formal information, such as from word-
of-mouth, from social media, from colleagues, and other
sources. There should be less weight applied to WOM, of
course…but sometimes, WOM may be informative.
Stay attentive to questions of organizational credibility and
trustworthiness. If red flags arise, those should be explored
further.
Assessment of the convergence of in-
terests
After the assessment of the credibility of the grant funder, the
next step is to assess whether the grant funder’s interests
may be sufficient to consider the local works of interest. In
other words, might the funder invest in local work because
the local work aligns with the funder’s values, objectives, in-
terests, areas of expertise, and desired outcomes? If there is
some alignment, some overlap, there may be grounds for
investing in a grants package to apply. In some cases, the

8
Extra Meanings in Grants
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(Profiling...cont.)
local application may have to be tweaked to better fit with the
grant funder’s vision.
Conclusion
It helps to have a Word file in which to collect URLs and
notes…in case a need arises from the college later on. The
notes can be used to jog memory, and they can be refreshed
with new information as time allows.
A colleague clued me in. A particular office on campus
had just canceled a completed grant application that had
been approved earlier…because the administrator did not
like the messaging on the website of the grant funder. The
offending information had something to do with needing to
provide support to the dispossessed essentially. This was
in mid- to late- 2024.
On the upside, the administrator understood the zeitgeist of
the coming age…in which DEI would not be tolerated.
The protection of core values, political
virtues
On the downside, another hurdle had been put up to the
acquiring of grant funding for the college. The work was
not just about acquiring funding for deserving projects but
about allying the college’s name with certain ideologies
espoused by the grant funders. Or not. This pull back
from the grant was about the college protecting its core
values, its political virtues, its political identity (or that of its
leadership). (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Meanings and Ideologies
Conclusion
In politicized times, a grant is not just a grant. It is a threat to
self-identity and political virtues.

9
Not Unduly Raising False Hopes
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Applying for outside funding is not work that all people are
necessarily comfortable with. The effort can seem heavy,
and the risk-taking feels perhaps onerous. There can be
pressures from administrators to pursue funding while there
is a lack of direct incentive or reward to do so. The extra
work is just assumed to be part of the professional role of the
faculty members and / or mid-tier administrators.
One wants colleague initiatives to pursue external funding
because grants start and end with the subject matter experts
(faculty, administrators, staff).
Grant writers cannot encumber the college with various appli-
cations. They are support staff to actualize grant applica-
tions and grant funding.
Not raising hopes unduly
Because of the head winds, one may want to unduly raise
false hopes. In general, that is bad practice. It is misleading.
It is disrespectful, as if colleagues are not adults who can
handle true odds.
Ideally, one would share the understanding of the actual
probabilities of being funded and the uncertainty with col-
leagues as a baseline and not over speak into areas where
one does not have the necessary insight. This is the only
professionally ethical approach. It is also the only sustaina-
ble one…because truth outs about where things land (in
terms of grant funder decisions). Over-promising breaks
trust.
Grant opportunities come and go. Project ideas arise and
are acted on or not. Deadlines come and go (Figure 1). It
helps to think of the works as part of the landscape, with
some wins and some losses.
Figure 1. Deadline
But not discouraging either
Ideally, what each member of a team can do is to give it their
all and proceed from there and learn with each iteration. If
everyone has given their best, they can be sanguine about
the decisions in others’ court. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Sanguine
Conclusion
True hope comes from true capability, true knowledge, and
true work. These are all within the purview of the respective
organizations, if everyone is willing to put in the learning and
the work.

10
Sensitive Data in Grant Applications, Grant-Funded
Work
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Grant applications are not typically documents that can be
shared beyond a very small circle (the in-house team, in-
house administration, the grant funder, the grant evaluators).
The titles and abstracts may be publicly share-able, but little
else beyond that.
As such, institutions of higher education (IHE) that pursue
grant funding need to be careful in terms of information and
data handling.
What is “sensitive data”?
“Sensitive data” refers to any information that if released
broadly may be misused to cause harm to individuals,
groups, and organizations. (Figure 1) For example, if per-
sonally identifiable information (PII) is unduly released, that
can result in leaked and compromised personal information
linked to a person. That information may be used to cause
personal embarrassment. That may be used to commit fraud
or extortion.
Figure 1. Sensitive Data
Some data may be de-identified, with PII removed, but based
on the variables included, the contextual information, and
other factors, others may re-identify individuals and extract
PII. There are a number of known “attacks” that enable
reidentification of identities. Being careful in a “naïve” way is
not particularly effective.
Sensitive information may be inflammatory. If that infor-
mation—textual, numerical, visual, or multimodal—is re-
leased, it may spark emotional and even violent reactions.
Sensitive information or data may contain competitive ad-
vantage. For example, intellectual property results from hard
-earned research and development. If that information is
leaked or stolen, others may gain the advantages from that
IP without having done any of the hard work. They can mon-
etize what belongs to someone else.
Those who handle sensitive data need to engage in due
care:
• They should ensure that sensitive information is not mis-
handled.
• They should ensure that sensitive information is stored
securely…and when needed…transferred securely.
• Those who handle sensitive data should err on the side
of not sharing.
• People should not collect sensitive information unless it
is absolutely necessary. They should avoid any over-
collection.
The above are some principled practices, but the applied
work is actually more complex. It is beyond the purview of
this work to go through the various applied work.
Sensitive data in grant applications,
grant-funded work
A grant application may contain various types of sensitive
information and data about people, demographic groups,
vulnerable groups, programs, strategies, intellectual proper-
ty, original designs, original research data, health infor-
mation, financial information, confidential business or IHE
information, security credentials, legal information, and oth-
ers.
In terms of grant-funded work, sensitive information may
include research methodology data, instrumentation, primary
research data, locational data, and others, in addition to the
types above. (Figure 2)

11
(Sensitive Data...cont.)
Figure 2. Research and Data
Conclusion
There is an opportunistic world out there. Those outside a
coterie may not have a need to know. When there is a need
-to-know, there are ways to mask sensitive information so
that work may progress without anyone or any institution
being compromised.
IHEs should not be in the business of giving away unearned
advantages. (Figure 3)
Figure 3. Opportunistic World
The nature of time
Generally, schedules have some padding built into them.
Time may be accordian-ed, with stretches in some periods
and condensing in others.
Grant funders often have soft (negotiable) deadlines, and
hard (non-negotiable) ones. For example, some allow back-
dating in order to meet deadlines a bit later than the actual
due date. (Figure 6)
Figure 6. Backdating
Conclusion
A work schedule is an important blueprint for the work plan-
ning in a grant application. It is written in permanent ink in
some aspects but erasable pencil lead in others. Putting
some thought in how time is doled out is an important part of
planning the proposed work in a grant applications package.
(Scheduling Work...cont. from p. 4)

12
Positioning to be “Grants Competitive”
By Shalin Hai-Jew
An institution of higher education (IHE) is not “grants com-
petitive” just by existing. Having access to some mandatory
grants might give that false impression though. Discretion-
ary grants, those given out competitively, are given out
based on merit, capabilities, access to target beneficiaries /
stakeholders, and geography.
How can an IHE position to stand out in a competitive
grants arena? How can it self-differentiate? (Figure 1) How
can it set a direction and follow that into new achievements?
Figure 1. Competitive Grants Arena
Merit and capabilities
What grant funders see as meritorious depends in part on
their objectives and standards. What grant funders want
filters how they see the respective grant applicants.
• What can the local IHE team and organization do?
• How savvy is their leadership? How supportive is their
authorizing environment? (Teams can be held back
seriously by administrators who are not savvy in the
grants space.)
• Is the organization professional? Ethical? Law abid-
ing?
• Does the organization pass a pre-awards risk assess-
ment? Do they have a sufficient track record? Do they
have a bureaucratic structure that would enable the
grant-funded work? (An IRB office? A grants office?
Capable business functions? Legal counsel?)
• Does the organization collaborate well with partners?
Fellow colleges? Industries? Nonprofits?
Access to target beneficiaries, stake-
holders
There is also assessment of whether the IHE has access to
the target beneficiaries and stakeholders of the grant-funded
work. Is there a constructive relationship already set up? Or
potential for constructive relationships?
Geography
Also, the geography (locations, formal service areas) of the
IHE can also be a competitive advantage. State govern-
ments divvy up locales for servicing by particular IHEs, so
this angle is unique to the institution.
Repositioning to be more competitive
in the grants space
The various prior elements have determine the organization-
al niche that the IHE fills.
The convenient option for an IHE is to do nothing and just to
feel deserving and then to wait for the moneys and glory to
pour down. The convenient option is to rest on laurels. It is
to be self-satisfied with programming and to avoid aspiring,
planning, and stretching.
The prior approach is a losing one. Grant funders are not
necessarily out there to fill budget holes and address needs.
(There are many needs in society that are not being met at
present, and the billionaires and government agencies and
foundations are not jumping into those gaps per se. There
are more needs than there are resources to address them.)
Grant funders do not throw good money after bad. They are
more interested in thriving IHEs than those that are on a
downhill slope. There is interest in what an IHE has to offer.
The right way to approach competitiveness in the grants
space is for an IHE to strengthen staff and organizational
capabilities; maintain ties with potential beneficiary and
stakeholder populations; and be a constructive presence in
their various geographies. (Figure 2)

13
(“Grants Competitive”...cont.)
Figure 2. Positioning to Take On Grant Work
Organizations can define and work towards their own
“personal bests,” which they can create from their own base-
lines.
Inward-looking
In terms of self-awareness, an IHE has to have an up-to-date
audit of its capabilities. What is being taught? What are the
faculty and staff and administrative capabilities? What spac-
es and equipment does the college have access to? Where
are opportunities to build out potential? Centrally? Peripher-
ally? Disciplinarily? In an interdisciplinary way?
Then, the idea is to build on those strengths and to shore up
weaknesses. There should be a strategy on how to develop
and then to communicate those capabilities to the broad pub-
lic and to the grant-funder publics. The idea is to stand out
for capabilities.
This part is somewhat self-referential and even inward-
looking. An outward-looking perspective is also critical.
Outward-looking
A healthy IHE has many ties to the larger community, to gov-
ernment, to industries, to nonprofits, to the larger community,
and so on. All members of the college can be part of a
“human sensor network” to scan the external environment for
innovation ideas and for funding opportunities and for part-
nerships
The IHE has contributions it can make to society. It may
have research and insights to share in professional confer-
ences and academic publications. There are workforce col-
laborations to be had. The IHE can speak into the space in
constructive ways.
Ready when grant funders are ready
Another important aspect to competitive positioning for grant
seeking involves having a clear understanding of grants and
being ready to apply when grant funders release their
NOFOs.
• Are the administrators ready? Are they aware of what
the potentials are to grow out programs?
• Are the staff resumes up-to-date?
• Are the various documents about IHE standing in order?
Attestations? College standing as a non-profit? As a
rural-serving institution? As a minority-serving institu-
tion?
• Are consortiums healthy? Does the IHE engage well in
those groups?
• Is the relevant data available? Up-to-date?
• Is there a culture of initiative? Mutual support? Con-
structive collaboration?

14
• Are there innovative ideas for projects? Blue sky dream-
ing?
• Is there practical planning for work design, work schedul-
ing, staffing, and budgeting?
Is the IHE in a position to stalk opportunity? (Figure 3)
Figure 3. Stalking Opportunity
Or is everyone (or most) just phoning it in? Ensuring a per-
sonal paycheck only and not taking on any initiative or risk?
(Figure 4)
Figure 4. Phoning it In
Are leaders only interested in the grant funding but not the
grant-funded work? (Figure 5) Suffice it to say that grant
funders are about achieving their goals, not getting taken, not
getting fooled. To be competitive in the grants space, an IHE
needs to flip the script. The work has to be first, and the
grant funding to enable the work comes in second. [Greed is
not a competitive advantage. Valuable work is.] Grant fun-
ders are reading for capabilities, and they are reading for
attitudes.
Figure 5. Want Money Not Work
Conclusion
An IHE has to empower itself to pursue grant funding by
building up the staff and the organization to field competitive
teams that can bring home the wins.
(“Grants Competitive”...cont.)

15
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Absent the Capability
lege have a set of variables for all students that might indi-
cate need. It needed to be able to identifier a randomized
sample from that student population for whom interventions
might be given. Then the college had to be able to track
those students in their time at the college…and beyond…to
their further higher education learning and / or jobs and / or
other futures. The top administrator suggested going to arti-
ficial intelligence to acquire the necessary data. (This is not
a capability of the LLMs.) Instead of directly working the
problem, even if it would take a year or two, the going to a
non-solution spoke to the gaps that existed that did not ena-
ble effective problem solving. Dead-end.
Another required the capture of student information past
their time at the college…for several years…to contribute to
a database at a university, to enhance knowledge and re-
search. Dead-end. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Dead Ends
Pursuing external grant funding is a challenging enterprise,
particularly for smaller institutions of higher education (IHE).
The grant pursuit opens that community and technical col-
lege to more of the cutting-edge aspects of academia, which
help benchmark how far that organization is.
Every moment that a college does not keep up with outside
pacing, they are getting left further and further behind, with
the speed of the world. The less competitive an organization
is, the less funding it can credibly compete for, and the vi-
cious cycle sets in. By the time administrators look long and
hard at their predicament, they may be so far behind that an
unbridgeable gap has formed. The buildings are decades
old with internal systems held together by duct tape.
Non-contenders
A colleague at another college was new to her position. She
was trying to apply for grant funding to extend a program
another five years. Her predecessor had not left any rec-
ords. Prior staff had moved on. She had no resources from
which to put together a 300 pp. grant application. She was
flat-footed by the circumstance. She would try, which is at
least a start, but she had little to try with.
Lacking research and data capabilities
If the lifeblood of grants is research and data, any who would
pursue external funding would need the basic capabilities of
legally and effectively conducting research, collecting data,
processing data, and presenting that data to the world.
More than one grant possibility has been lost due to a lack of
this capability. One grant required that the IHE have basic
demographic data of all its students. It required that the col- (cont. on the next page)

16
(Absent the Capability...cont.)
Limited (and dwindling) options
Without internal capabilities, the college has limited options.
It can acquire the capability if they can find talent willing to
work for a third- or fourth-tier institution, with limited re-
sources, limited benefits, and limited pay. The college then
has to adapt, change, and accept the new staff. The college
has to be aware of the needs and deal positively with the
change. It has to go to the root of the problem, not try to
solve the issue with PR messaging and positivism alone. [It
has to get past the idea that they are deserving of free mon-
ey without any work in return.]
Another option is to work with an outside partner on a project
-by-project basis. This will require the sharing of sensitive
information. This will mean outflow of funds.
Another option is to let go and to let the deep slide continue.
The leadership can just make sure basic services are provid-
ed and that the government has an interest in those basic
services. [The defunding of the federal government chal-
lenges that notion.]
These are stark choices. Every opportunity lost is not re-
claimable. Many such schools will exist in barebones fash-
ion. Others will disappear.
If the leadership goes to wishful thinking and false positivism,
the college falls further behind. If the leadership goes to pride
and self-made kudos alone, the college falls further behind.
At each iteration, it has fewer resources by which to com-
pete.
If the leadership gets to a point of clear understanding and
develops the in-house skills, they may have a chance. A
diminishing one. (Everyone else is competing for the same
resources in real time.)
Conclusion
Struggling as an organization absent various necessary ca-
pabilities is dangerous. This dynamic is not uncommon,
however. Few will actually get out of the vicious cycle be-
cause of the hard demands of the situation and the drop in
financial resources.

17
For-Profit Intermediary Companies in the Academic
Grants Space
By Shalin Hai-Jew
One does not have to spend much time in the academic
grants space before one runs into for-profit intermediary
companies.
Some are necessary to the process, and others are just
along for the ride. Some benefit the grant applicant with
traction, and others just result in spinning wheels. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Spinning Wheels
Necessary for-profits
Virtually all grant funders require grant applicants to validate
their identities on a digital platform…and submit grant appli-
cations through that platform. That technical platform may
also be the space where the various stakeholders communi-
cate with each other. In some cases, that is also where
payments are processed to the grantee.
The government platforms may be a widely centralized one
like Grants.gov, or it may be different online spaces created
for various agencies. Most of these are apparently quite
secure. They are designed accessibly. They have logical
sequences. There is much to like.
Foundations also have technical platforms that they use.
These tend to be for-profits. There is not a smooth through-
line. One has to apply to different entities to handle the vali-
dation, another to handle the payments, and another to han-
dle the applications. The sequences can be unwieldy. The
foundations may change their technology platforms every few
years, and grant applicants have to go through the processes
again and hope that the sensitive information is not lost along
the way.
Less necessary for-profits
Some of the less necessary for-profits in the academic space
include the following:
• There are information collators that make wildly inaccu-
rate assertions about what various grant funders are
about and what they want to fund. Many of these are not
up-to-date either. They sell “subscriptions” to their collat-
ed information. Most grant funders are highly public
about what they have on offer because they want the
best applications out there. The repackaged information
does not add value. These often leave a misleading
impression of just how much grant funding is out there to
be competed for.
• Other organizations explain themselves as go-betweens
between the grant applicant and the grant funder. They
consult on various grant opportunities. They go out into
the world to seek and find possibilities. Perhaps they do
the reading where an institution of higher education (IHE)
does not have the interest.
• Another category of for-profits are those outside organi-

18
(For-Profit Intermediary Companies...cont.)
zations that help write grant applications. Grant applica-
tions are not about templates and boilerplate content.
They are formal and legally binding documents. They
entail actual commitments by the applicant organization,
if accepted by the grant funder, and there are legal impli-
cations.
• An outside third party does not have the inside
knowledge to cross-reference what is important
information.
• Even if an outside grant writer service is used, the
IHE will still have to handle pre-awards and post-
awards and to be savvy in the space.
• Also, grant writing occurs in a regulatory thicket,
with laws related to procurement and expenditures
(CFRs), intellectual property, privacy protections,
budgeting, and others. Then, too, there are profes-
sional habits of source citations. Professional appli-
cations have to abide by these to be legal and effec-
tive.
• Many grants go to subject matter experts (SMEs)
and content experts (CEs) in various fields. No out-
sider can write these to standard without expertise.
• Some companies create software to help structure grant
applications. Given the wide variance between the req-
uisite structures of grant applications, these tools may
be for very early beginners in the space. Most grants
packages are not one document but a number of them,
with different requirements in terms of forms: letters of
support, letters of attestation, memorandums of under-
standing (MOUs), and so on.
Non-profits
Some organizations collect information about grant funders
based on IRS data in order to verify them. Many private
foundations read as incomplete “stubs” as the start of a po-
tentially good intention but that does not end up with much in
the way of available funding. Some such information collec-
tors charge a subscription fee to access this information.
Conclusion
An IHE that wants to be competitive in the grants space
needs to learn the space as accurately as possible. They
would do well to avoid the companies that will leave them
further away from their goals.

19
Dynamism in the Grants Space
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 21)
The grants space is a “happening” one. A number of differ-
ent issues affect the grants space simultaneously, which can
result in some unpredictability and speeded-up changes.
(Figure 1)
Figure 1. Speed of Changes
Administrative priorities
One timely case-in-point involves top-down administrative
changes (such as executive orders) that have changed up
federal government’s grant-funding priorities. In early 2025,
grants were retracted and funds clawed back based on new
priorities that supplanted the older ones (from the prior pres-
ident’s term). The scale of the cancellation of funded grants
was historically unprecedented and highly damaging to the
work.
New rules for frugality are being worked out. Overhead
costs—facilities and administration (F&A)—are being chal-
lenged. There is a new focus to ensure that numbers line
up to the new standards which are in development. (Figure
2)
Figure 2. Making Sure Numbers Line Up
Grant applications are being reviewed for verbiage that might
suggest alignment to the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)
values of the prior administration, with threats of further fund-
ing pullbacks for such programs.
In such fluid times, grant applicants are double-checking the
applications to make sure that there is no offending verbiage
or apparent “political orientation.” Grant seekers take various
actions in order to be competitive.
Regulatory changes
Laws that affect grant-seeking are constantly under review
and change as well. Directly, there is the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) that set the standards for how grant fund-
ing is handed. Then, there are various laws related to intel-
lectual property, privacy protections, accessibility, human
subjects research laws, and others, that affect the grant ap-
plications work.

20
Reimbursement for Preapplication Preparation?
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Prior to 2025, some federal grant funders would enable win-
ning grant awardees to recoup funds from all or part of what
they invested into the pre-application preparation. This reim-
bursement is often given to help defray some of the higher
expenses of primary research, data processing, or other
costly measures to ensure the strength of a grant application.
(Figure 1)
Figure 1. Reimbursement
Of course, if the grant application is not selected for funding,
whatever was invested into the preapplication preparation is
just a sunk cost that the grant applicant has to cover. In oth-
er words, the costs to prepare a grant application are typical-
ly all at-risk.
What are typical costs to be reim-
bursed?
What is covered or not is spelled out in a grant funder’s no-
tice of funding opportunity (NOFO). The various pre-
assessment work is supposed to enhance the quality of the
grant proposal. Coverages may include some of the follow-
ing:
• Initial research: feasibility studies, surveys, needs as-
sessments, community focus groups, and others
• Environmental impact assessments
• Architectural plans
• Engineering plans
• Data review
• Literature review
Pre-application work is not usually included in grant applica-
tions as indirect costs [facilities & administrative (F&A) or
overhead costs] because they do not directly relate to the
proposed work.
How much to invest in grant funding
pursuit?
An organization has to decide how much it wants to expend
(and risk) in terms of pre-application work in grant-seeking.
In some cases, the preparatory work may overlap with other
research that is required for another purpose. There may be
funding from another project, which can benefit pre-
application work. Or the preliminary work may be applied to
multiple different grant applications, to put more tries on the
table.
Given the low odds of grant funding, even for very well-
conceptualized and well-prepared grant applications, most

21
(cont. on p. 24)
(Reimbursement...cont.)
administrators assume that pre-application work is just a sunk
cost.
Conclusion
It is always a good idea to read a grant NOFO thoroughly…
and to understand what is or is not funded…and to what lev-
els. Having a solid budget builds professional trust and
speaks to the feasibility / infeasibility of the proposed work.
Figure 3. Day Late Dollar Short
If the local organization is slow on the uptake, they take on
all losses, including lost opportunities. (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Time Pressures
In a changing environment, what is seen as valuable and
fundable / investible also evolves. A grant applicant individu-
al, team, and organization has to be able to bring something
(of value) to the table. (Figure 5) Grant applicants should not
just bring their appetite.
Grant funder changes
Grant funders have changing priorities and standards year
over year…and sometimes within even shorter time spans.
The “hot topics” that are favored also evolve over time.
Research advances
Advances in research methods also affect requirements
for grant applications, with particular selected approaches
for particular disciplines and areas.
Preferred data
Another dimension of change in the grants space involves
the type of data collected and the valid data analytics
methods applied. Often, federal and state grants will point
grant seekers off to government data sources for their
preferred data.
Technological changes
Changing technologies change the requirements for grant
applications, too, such as requiring maps, environmental
impact websites (to check locales for possible environ-
mental risks), and so on.
Workplace practices
Professional practices in work places and industry may
also inform changes in grant applications. Grant applica-
tions that contravene federal or state laws in work places
will not be funded. Those grantees awarded funding often
have to provide attestations of their law abiding approach-
es…in the organization…and in the grant-funded work.
Interaction effects
The above dimensions—administrative priorities, regulato-
ry changes, grant funder changes, research advances,
preferred data, technological changes, and workplace
practices—simultaneously affect the work in terms of grant
funding pursuits and the direct grant-funded work.
To be competitive in the grant-funding space, applicants
would do well to keep up with changes in the field. Some
of the changes are obvious, but others are more nuanced.
It is important to be up-to-date on the changes in order to
be responsive. It does not pay to be a day late and a dol-
lar short. (Figure 3)
(Dynamism...cont. from p. 19)

22
When to Let Go
By Shalin Hai-Jew
(cont. on p. 24)
The resizing of the U.S. federal government started with a
vengeance in early 2025. Federal agencies were disman-
tled, staff let go, grant funds retracted and clawed back, fu-
ture grant funding stopped outright in many cases, and hir-
ing freezes put into place. The unrelenting pace took most
by surprise. The fact that awarded grants and contracts
were broken en masse was also surprising.
The Department of Education was hollowed out, and some
of its functions are said to be sent to other parts of the feder-
al and state bureaucracies.
The external environment directly impacted grant pursuits.
What is the point of having a position to pursue grant funds if
grant funding has been cut across the board in many cases
and with no sense of any return of such funding in the near-
to mid-term?
A catch-22 for a grant writer
In 18 months, the grant writer worked on grants that brought
in funds in the low six figures. By the second year, with
some two dozen grant applications having been sent out,
the college was in contention for two million in funds. That
time was spent also in training the campus in what grant
funding was about through short courses, face-to-face train-
ings, and a campus-wide newsletter. A large effort went into
de-mythifying the process of grant applications and the
grants space. [No, there is no free money. No, grant writ-
ing is not fiction writing. No, grant writing is not like applying
for welfare. No, making a list of equipment wants is not the
start of an actual grant-seeking endeavor. Yes, we’ll have to
compete in the real, and here’s how.]
The college was coming off a “sugar high” of grant funding
from the pandemic that seemed to find anyone (and any
organization) who breathed (and many who did not even
breathe and did not even exist in the real). The quantitative
easing during COVID-19 was to flood the zone with liquidity
to try to keep the economy afloat and to keep organizational
structures in place and to protect jobs. With 20/20 hindsight,
many say now that that over-spending may not have been
fully necessary, and it has left the USG with a massive fed-
eral deficit and overhang.
There are new terms for reviewing awarded grants to see if
they are in alignment with the new U.S. president’s admin-
istration. Going forward, there will likely be different stand-
ards for grant applications.
A mutuality of alignments
Internally, the college was showing that very few had the
initiative to pursue grant funding in good faith. There were
some false starts: people making lists of equipment they
wanted, money that people wanted without doing the work,
administrators expressing interest in pursuing a particular
grant but then going silent, requests for funds for wacky en-
deavors, and others. Signals from the outside showed some
support in pockets. But where an external grant funder
might award funds, the college would fumble the awarded
grant and retreat (and return the money). The college gave
a sense of being over-matched by the external environment.
At the time when it is necessary to learn the new rules and to
help reposition an institution of higher education (IHE), a
grant writer would have less funding available to apply for.
The dry season was upon higher education, with the
“enrollment cliff” affecting student numbers, and with water-
ing holes for moneys drying up (without replacement from
private sources). The basic raison d’etre for a grant writer
was gone.
Where the grant writer position was seen as a resource
waste for administrators, it was also simultaneously a time
and talent waste for the grant writer. Still, an employee
should generally make the administrators take the move for
various reasons. All to say, there was an alignment of mutu-
ality, which resulted in the ending of the position of grant
writer at the college. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Cancelled
A bum rush out the door
The march-on orders were sprung without any other formal
notification on a Monday morning in early April 2025. In half
an hour, the author was out on the pavement, without keys…
and with her office packed up into cardboard boxes. This
method was perhaps to ensure the “security” of the campus
and its holdings. The IT access was canceled moments
after the bum rush out of the door. Someone had removed

23
Especially Competitive Parts of a Grant Application
By Shalin Hai-Jew
Grant funding is decided on the strength of an entire grants
package, in totality. However, not every part is created
equally. There are some parts of especial relevance.
Knowing what is of particular focus may enhance the com-
petitiveness of the grant application. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Rope Ladder
The parts that attract particular focus relate to value and
credibility.
Value and credibility
The beating heart of a grant proposal relates to the two
critical elements: value and credibility. The first relates to
the proposed work and anticipated outcomes. These are
balanced against the necessary inputs, including the in-
vestment by the grant funder. Will the work result in new
data, new modeling, new technologies, new scientific dis-
coveries, and a large number of beneficiaries? This infor-
mation enables the grant funder to conduct a rough cost-
benefit calculation to see if the work is worth possibly fund-
ing.
The second critical element relates to credibility. Who are
the team members, the host institution of higher education
(IHE), and their track record in the grants space (and other
work spaces)? Does the IHE have the wherewithal to exe-
cute on the work? In terms of work feasibility, is the staff-
ing proper and sufficient? Does the timeline make sense?
Are the requested resources sufficient, in combination with
the local facilities, matching funds, and in-kind contribu-
tions? Is the preliminary research suggesting the credibility
of the work compelling? Is there a practical and powerful
and reasonable evaluation plan to assess the success or
failure of the proposed work? Is there a believable sustain-
ability plan to continue to work past the initial funding
stage?
Said another way, the first part (the promised work) is whol-
ly irrelevant if the organization is just blowing smoke and
overclaiming and cannot essentially deliver. Big cheap talk is
worthless (but so common among lesser IHEs). The various
elements are interconnected and relevant singly and in com-
bination.
Rigor and style
Infused in the grant application are other critical elements:
• Structure
• Comprehensiveness
• Professional tone
• Clarity (in narration, in logic, in assertions)
• Concision
• Factual rigor
• Aesthetic style
• Precise language
• Logic
• Discipline (and / or industry) knowledge
• Research source citations
Every element of a grant application reveals something of the
grant applicant, their aspirations, their vision, their capabili-
ties, and their promise.
Alignment with grant funder priorities
and objectives
Another critical element involves how well the proposed work
aligns with the grant funder’s priorities and objectives. With-
out this overlap, a well written grant package will not speak to
the funder, the ultimate decision-maker.

24
(Especially Competitive...cont.)
Conclusion
Knowing what is of particular importance can help a grant
applicants team hone what is critical, especially in times of
limited resources and tight deadlines. These ideas are help-
ful even in less straitened circumstances because they pro-
vide a sense of directional strategy and tactics.
some possessions from the desk drawer prior to the pack-up.
[The move was not a surprise, and the various individuals
around the campus behaved in ways that leaked the impend-
ing cancellation of the grant writer position. One tell was the
secretary being even more abusive and hateful without prov-
ocation.]
The direct supervisor was in such a spiteful hurry to get this
done that he failed to acquire the 20,000 files from various
grant applications, teaching and training materials, newsletter
files, and others, related to the job. [The college had provid-
ed a “brick” for a laptop, so the author had been using her
own laptop and software in many cases. The contents could
have easily been moved over for usage by the college. That
said, their line was that the position would not be continued.
They were not in a good position to ask for the digital files,
apparently.]
Some of the friction came from the college administrators
cutting corners and going with falsehoods to try to attain
grant funds. Where they thought they were being competi-
tive, they were actually lowering their chances of being com-
petitive and of being funded. Trying to bring professional
practices back to plumb did not endear the grant writer to the
powers-that-be. There was a tension in terms of disliking the
message of the need for facts (not falsehoods), and an ele-
ment of this was about destroying the messenger. There
was no debriefing, no exit interview. The entire effort was
classless but not surprisingly so.
The realization, too, was that the college needed to reposition
to be competitive for grant funding…to offer something to the
world that others could not provide…and had value in an
open grants marketplace. The receptivity to new learning, to
changing grant pursuit practices, seemed somewhat limited.
Then, the college and everyone else was overtaken by
events.
Conclusion
The cancellation of the grant position is a necessity for a
small college with many needs. (Staff have come to the
grant writer asking for calculators, police radios, and even
highlighters.)
If this means the college is closing doors to outside funding,
that is not the case. It is likely that the efforts to pursue fund-
ing will not fall to respective units, and on those with some
experiences with grants. Perhaps the college will wait out the
difficult period, and if they survive, they will set up a new en-
deavor to pursue grant funds then.
The struggle to survive is ongoing. The odds of survival are
60:40 if current estimates are to be accepted. This will be
done without formal grant writer support for the next while
anyway.
(When to Let Go...cont.)
Figure 5. Bring Something to the Table
Grant funding is a highly competitive space. There is always
something waiting in the wings to do the work that one can’t.
(Figure 6)
Figure 6. Always Someone Waiting in the Wings
Conclusion
The grant funding space is highly dynamic, and grant seekers
have to be nimble to be aware and competitive.
(Dynamism...cont. from p. 21)

Academic Grant Pursuits Newsletter - September 2026

More Related Content

Similar to Academic Grant Pursuits Newsletter - September 2026 (20)

More from Shalin Hai-Jew (14)

Recently uploaded (20)

Academic Grant Pursuits Newsletter - September 2026