Essential Tips for Successful Online Fundraising for Ministries

Over the last several months, we've been exploring how to build strategic clarity by identifying what to stop , where to focus , and how to get your board on the same page . Now comes the practical question: how do you fund new initiatives when your budget is already stretched? The answer might surprise you: your innovation budget is hiding in plain sight. Last fall I was catching up with Kathy Kempff , CEO of Nuclavis , a mobile technology company serving the peer-to-peer fundraising space. I knew I didn't know as much as I wanted to about mobile fundraising, but until I talked to her I didn't know how much there was to know! I was impressed with the technology and with the application to mission work. I asked about the market potential and the kinds of challenges her team faces in implementation, which led to a larger conversation about planning and innovation. We were lamenting the fact that many organizations we work with don't think they can afford to innovate when Kathy said something that stopped me mid-sentence. "Some of our clients don't think they can afford mobile. But their mobile spend is hiding in their old email budget." I've been thinking about that line ever since, because it applies well beyond mobile fundraising. The Habit Trap Here's a conversation I keep having with nonprofit leaders: "We know we need to try something new. But we just don't have the budget for it." I get it. Budgets are tight. Donors are distracted, and once reliable funding sources are shaky. The pressure to do more with less is real. But what if the budget already exists—it's just trapped somewhere else? Many peer-to-peer fundraising programs I work with have email open rates hovering around ten to fifteen percent. A solid open rate might be 20%, or perhaps 25%. Which is a nice way of saying, three-quarters of their carefully crafted communications are disappearing into the void. And they're not alone. Across the sector, organizations are pouring resources into tactics that stopped working years ago, then saying they can't afford to try something new. Strategy Before Budget This is exactly why taking time to understand your strategic landscape before you set your budget is so critical. A thoughtful strategic planning process, like More For Many's own Ariadne framework, should challenge you to identify the two or three major initiatives that will define your next few years. Those initiatives require investment. And that investment has to come from somewhere. I've written before about using a simple Investment-Impact Matrix to evaluate your current activities . The exercise sorts everything into four quadrants based on what you're putting in and what you're getting out. The most revealing quadrant is always the lower left: high investment, low impact. These are the programs that absorb real budget and staff time but don't move the mission forward. That's where your innovation budget is hiding. For Kathy's clients, it's often email programs with declining returns. The email budget could fund mobile engagement that actually reaches supporters. But I see the same pattern everywhere: the annual event that costs $80,000 and nets $12,000. The quarterly report that takes 40 hours to produce and nobody reads. The legacy program that made sense a decade ago but now exists because "that's what we do every year." The Uncomfortable Math Here's a quick exercise worth trying: Pick one program or initiative that's been on autopilot for more than three years. Add up the real cost—not just direct expenses, but staff time, opportunity cost, and management attention. Now look honestly at what it produces. Not what it produced five years ago, or what it might produce if everything goes perfectly. What does it produce now? If the math doesn't work, you've found budget. The question is whether you're willing to reallocate it. Kathy shared an example that made the point concrete: One organization was paying $60,000 annually for a mobile app solution that wasn't even branded to them—a generic container app where supporters had to scroll through dozens of other organizations just to find theirs. For roughly the same investment, they could have had a fully branded mobile experience. They didn't need more budget. They needed to see what they were already spending. What Real Strategy Looks Like Good strategy isn't about doing more. It's about doing differently, focusing on the things that will set you apart and help you grow. That means making hard choices about what to stop. Most strategic plans fall apart in the middle. Teams jump from lofty vision statements straight to tactical to-do lists without ever deciding where they'll invest differently. Channel strategy is a perfect example. If your communications plan looks the same as it did five years ago, you haven't made a strategic choice. You've just kept going. The question isn't "Can we afford to innovate?" The question is "What are we funding out of habit that isn't working anymore?" And what would happen if you redirected that investment toward something that does?  Your innovation budget isn't missing. The question is whether you're ready to go find it. Kathy Kempff is CEO of Nuclavis , which provides mobile fundraising technology for peer-to-peer programs. At More For Many, we write about the tools we use and people who inspire us. In other words, we weren’t paid to write this article. Ready to take stock of what's working—and what isn't? [ Contact us ]

Over the last few months, we've been writing about the gap between where most nonprofit strategic plans start and where they end up. Plans that are too fluffy to act on, or too tactical to inspire, or worst of all, sit in a binder and never see daylight. Through our Strategy For What's Next series , we introduced a framework called Ariadne , named for the Greek princess whose thread was the solution to the labyrinth. We're happy to announce that our complete guide to Ariadne is now available as a free download. Setting Better Strategy: An Introduction to the Ariadne Strategy Framework is a free, 27-page ebook that walks you through the three layers of Identity, Focus, and Execution. It's built on 30 years of experience helping organizations close the gap between vision and action, and is a tool you can use together with your team to create an inspiring strategy that is tactical enough to execute and compelling enough to follow.

Over the last few posts in our Strategy For What's Next series, we've looked at taking stock, clearing the decks, using our strategy framework, Ariadne, and rallying your board. In this post, what to do when you have great execution but unclear direction. Too Many Meetings, Not Enough Meaning I've had three conversations in the past quarter that followed almost the exact same script. Each nonprofit had adopted a popular "operating system" and followed it faithfully for a year or two. You probably know the one I'm talking about. It includes structured weekly meetings, quarterly "rocks," scorecards, and accountability charts. And each executive director described the same frustration: "We're really good at our meetings now. Everyone knows their numbers. We hit most of our quarterly goals. And yet … I'm not sure we're actually moving forward. We're busy and we're organized, that's for sure. But something's missing." One executive director put it perfectly: "We've become excellent at executing. We're just not always sure what we're executing toward." What Operating Systems Do Well Let's be clear: operating systems can be really helpful. They can solve real problems for organizations that need to get things done. And since that's pretty much every organization, implementing some kind of standardized system to discuss and transact your work makes a lot of sense. They create meeting discipline when your calendar was chaos. They build accountability when no one was tracking results. They establish quarterly rhythms when everything felt reactive. They define roles when responsibilities were blurry. For organizations stuck in operational chaos, with too many fires, too little follow-through, and too much confusion about who does what, these systems can be transformative. The structure they provide is genuinely valuable. Weekly check-ins keep everyone aligned, quarterly goals create focus, scorecards make progress visible so that issues get surfaced and solved systematically. However, because these systems put focus on the process, over time they usually create new problems. The team becomes focused on repetition, rather than creativity. And the culture slowly starts to erode until it feels like a slog. You're making good time, and yet you never really seem to get anywhere. Strategy Isn't Paint By Numbers By definition, operating systems are designed for execution, not strategy. They help you run your organization efficiently. They don't help you decide where your organization should go. These systems typically address: Meeting structure and cadence Quarterly goal-setting and tracking Accountability and role clarity Issue identification and resolution Metrics and scorecards But they don't address the strategic issues that usually keep organizations from growing: What value you create, and for whom (beyond a general target market description) What makes you different from other nonprofits doing similar work (beyond a few surface-level differentiators) Where you'll focus resources to create the most impact (strategic trade-offs and choices) Why your particular organization is positioned to succeed (competitive advantage in your mission space) Most operating systems include vision and values work at the top, then jump straight to quarterly goals and weekly metrics. They skip the layer where strategy lives. When you have operational discipline but strategic ambiguity, you get a kind of efficient busyness. You complete your quarterly goals—but they don't connect to a larger direction. You hit your numbers—but you're not sure the numbers measure what actually matters for mission impact. You solve issues efficiently—but the same fundamental problems keep resurfacing quarter after quarter. And worst of all, your team is sitting in too many meetings, talking about issues instead of talking about people, values, culture, challenges, and dreams. Your Mission Is Not A Computer Strategy isn't a fill-in-the-blanks undertaking. You can't use a mad lib to make your organization valuable and vibrant. Clearly, I'm not impartial. More For Many helps organizations with strategic planning, not execution worksheets. But again and again, I see operational efficiency that is hollow because it isn't adding up to anything meaningful. An "operating system" is great for a device that needs to do the same thing over and over again. But your mission is not a computer. Your mission happens through passion and people. Yes, repetition and execution are important. However, for most of the groups I work with, those aren't the challenges. The challenges are responding dynamically to a shifting environment; talking openly about problems; building the patience and runway to try new things; finding the time to slow down and better understand the landscape. If you look at your strategic initiatives from three years ago and realize you're still working on essentially the same things, you don't have an execution problem. You have a strategy problem. Finding the Thread This is exactly the gap our strategy framework, Ariadne , is designed to fill. Remember the story about the thread that guides you through the maze? Operating systems give you the discipline to move through the maze methodically. But they don't give you any guidance about where to go. The Ariadne process helps you find the thread that shows you which path to take. If you know your vision, and your quarterly goals, but aren't sure how pursuing the latter gets the world to the former, then Ariadne can help by challenging you to think specifically about that connection. What specific value do you create, and for whom? Many organizations either haven't thought about this, or answer it in broad strokes: "We help people in need." Which people? What specific transformation do you create? Who needs you and why? What makes you different from other nonprofits doing similar work? We don't always like to think about it, but our donors, funders, and constituents have a choice in the groups they support. If the only thing that makes you different is "our people," then you do not have a strategic differentiator. Everyone has great people. What's defensible about your organization? What three to five strategic initiatives will drive the most impact? I've written this before, but most nonprofit strategic plans I review confuse outcomes (what you are working towards) with the actual initiatives you'll take to achieve them. I commonly read "diversify revenue" and "strengthen our brand" in strategic plans. These are not strategies, these are outcomes. How will you diversify revenue? How will you strengthen your brand? The Focus layer in Ariadne helps you get specific: Value Creation: What problem are your constituents counting on you to solve? What tangible, immediate value would they miss if you didn't exist? Differentiators: What makes you uniquely able to create that value? Not "we care more"—the actual, specific reasons people choose you over other organizations serving similar populations. Strategic Initiatives: What major directions will you pursue over the next several years? Not everything you could do. What are the few things that matter most for mission advancement? These aren't quarterly goals. They're the deeper choices that determine whether your quarterly goals actually connect to something meaningful. How to Use Them Together If you're already using an operating system and it's working well for execution, you don't need to abandon it. You just need to give it the strategic foundation it assumes you have. Here's how that works: 1. Use Ariadne to build your Focus layer. Work through the Value Creation, Differentiators, and Strategic Initiatives questions. Get clear about where you're going and why you're positioned to get there. 2. Let your operating system handle Execution. Use whatever quarterly planning, weekly meetings, and accountability structures you've already built. They're valuable. Keep them. 3. Connect the two explicitly. Every quarterly goal should tie back to one of your Strategic Initiatives. Every metric should measure progress toward your value creation. When you set your quarterly priorities, ask: "Which Strategic Initiative does this advance?" 4. Review Focus annually, adjust Execution quarterly. Your Strategic Initiatives shouldn't change every 90 days—that's not strategy, that's chasing trends. But your quarterly priorities should show steady progress toward those initiatives. The Question to Ask If you're using an operating system and feeling stuck, ask yourself this: "If someone looked at our last four quarters of goals, could they figure out our strategy?" If the answer is no—if your goals look like a disconnected list of projects rather than a coherent path toward something—you don't have an execution problem. You have a strategy problem that no amount of operational discipline will solve. Want to fix that? Start with Focus. Gather your key leaders, print out the Ariadne worksheet, and spend an hour or two creating clarity on how you create value, how you are different, and what your strategic initiatives really are. Then let your operating system do what it does best: execute the strategy you've actually decided on. Need help building the Focus layer your operating system assumes you have? We work with nonprofit leadership teams to clarify strategy before execution. [ Learn about our strategic planning services → ] This article is the fifth in our series Strategy For What's Next, designed to help you create meaningful plans and excellent results in the year ahead. Read the earlier posts: Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

When a new donor or potential donor decides to initiate a relationship with your nonprofit by donating or by joining your email list, something meaningful occurs. Someone has raised their hand and indicated support, or at least interest in your organization. What happens over the next few days will either draw them into a deeper relationship or push them away. This is a place where marketing automation can shine brightly, as it allows you to curate every detail of what a new person will experience. This is one of those times where marketers and fundraisers can do and say everything right to maximize impact and donor engagement. But that kind of idealistic talk is hard to live up to. So let us examine what the average nonprofit can realistically achieve by using marketing automation to nurture new donors. There is recent research that indicates how important it is to get a second gift from a new donor within 30-60 days. However, we must be cautious not to allow a correlation between timing and lifetime value to prompt hasty decisions. Automation can make it too easy to ask too soon, too strong, and too often. The big question we need to consider is, why did that donor give their first gift? Or why did they join your email list? What was their motivation? Perhaps they are trying to meet an urgent need, and your organization is the conduit. Perhaps someone referred them to you, and they like what you stand for, so they gave a token gift. Maybe they saw some of your marketing, and they thought your cause was worthy of a small contribution. There are many options. But do not assume that the donor has fallen head over heels in love with your mission, read every page of your website, and is lining up to make monthly gifts. The first interaction may be situational or non-committal. So, the next steps should be geared to deepening the relationship. Ask the question, what does a new donor need to know or feel to give a second gift? First, they need to know that their first gift was appreciated and made a difference. They need to feel like the organization cares about them and will be a good steward of their resources. This can be accomplished in many ways; an immediate thank-you email is mandatory, a printed receipt goes further, and a personal phone call from a volunteer takes it to the next level. Second, new supporters need information. They need to know what your organization does. They already know something, but it’s unlikely they have a comprehensive understanding. An automated email can deliver a long list of bullet points to check that box, but the donor needs to be inspired as well as informed. Long copy early on is rarely the best method. So, while email text can be helpful, a video may be more helpful, and infographics or other digital or print resources can work together to fill in the gaps while keeping any one item from feeling too long or overwhelming. You want the donor to know what you do, and just as importantly, connect on a heart level. Next, the donor should see evidence. This is proof that you are having the impact you claim to have. Statistics can help some here, but that alone may be too dry. Testimonies, videos, and photos of those benefited do more. For one client, we created little 4×6” printed photo cards. On one side, they look like a personal photo of someone recovering from something. On the back, they tell the harrowing story of that person who nearly died, and their life was saved thanks to the support of “friends like you.” One goes in every first-time donor receipt letter package. This process is also part of their automation. After you have thanked the donor, instilled confidence in your handling of the funds, informed and inspired them regarding your work, and provided sufficient evidence related to the impact of your work, it is time to make the case for them to engage on a deeper level. The next step is to communicate a core need that the donor can solve through their giving. Sometimes this is one email or letter. But, depending on how diverse your work is, this is likely to involve multiple communications expressing a handful of different core needs. The donor may not connect with every aspect of what you are doing, so having multiple appeals that highlight your biggest initiatives maximizes the potential connection points. After all this is mapped out, the matter turns to the actual automations. What systems, media, and timing are best will vary greatly by organization. I recommend a mix of email, print mail, and phone calls as the channels used. The content should be a mix of text, images, videos, stories, and data. But be assured, that the content and spirit of the nurture process matter just as much or more than the tools used. Here is a sample first-month automation sequence: Instantly: Thank you email receipt Within 48 hours: Printed receipt is mailed 3 days: Email with a thank you video from the founder 7 days: Thank you phone call from a volunteer 10 days: Email sharing your mission and vision 14 days: Print mail welcome package is mailed 17 days: Email with testimonies video is sent 24 days: First appeal email sent about program A 27 days: Text message sent with a thank you and story of someone helped 31 days: Second appeal email sent about program B You might think that this 10-step sample plan is a lot of work, and it is. But it is work that only needs to be done once and may be used for years with occasional adjustments. It is also work that can be done over time. If you have nothing in place now, tackling one bullet per month could get you to a strong automation sequence in less than a year. And the automation process helps ensure that every new donor thereafter has a well-thought-out experience with your organization. Need help setting up your automation process? We would be happy to chat! Click Here or call us at 724-733-1200.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Your healthiest revenue portfolio should reflect your mission, your operating model, and your market. By balancing government (federal, state, local), foundations, corporations, individuals, and earned income where appropriate, you reduce concentration risk and increase resilience. For years, the refrain was familiar: “Federal grants are too hard.” It sounded pragmatic. It also led many organizations into a bottleneck. As more nonprofits crowded into the same foundation pools, competitiveness spiked, not because foundations stopped caring, but because the volume of submissions outpaced any modest growth in payouts. 1) Foundation giving held steady… In 2023, U.S. charitable giving totaled about $557.16 billion , with foundations contributing roughly $103.53 billion . There’s been meaningful growth, but it’s not explosive, especially relative to the number of organizations trying to tap it. And adjusted for inflation, foundation giving was essentially flat. Philanthropy is resilient, but it’s not bottomless. (Giving USA) 2) …while applicants multiplied. There are now well over a million charitable nonprofits operating in the U.S., and broader counts of registered nonprofits exceed 1.9 million when you include other tax-exempt types. More organizations chasing a relatively stable pot of foundation dollars equals… tougher odds. (Independent Sector) At the same time, over the last decade or so, we slowly saw more small and mid-sized organizations competing for federal grants and winning. A larger percentage of nonprofits were receiving some form of federal funding. Then, January 2025 happened, and we saw a loud chorus of “run to foundations” led by consultants and development directors. And, I would argue, they have largely been wrong. I get the allure of a quick fix. A need to control. To take action. But we have to face the facts. There is no scenario where foundations match the loss in federal funding. Could they? Possibly. Would they close as a result? Likely. Will they do that? Absolutely not. This isn’t conjecture. The data is out there. Foundations (as a group) are not raising their payouts from previous years. There are outliers, but even the vast majority of outliers are not even doubling their giving. As a result, we are seeing foundations report between four and ten times as many applications this year as they have seen in the recent past. Of course, we have a confounding variable, AI, so it’s not exactly clear that the drive to foundations is entirely the result of nonprofits' frantic applications following the loss of federal funding. Myth vs. Truth Myth 1: Federal money dried up, so your best bet is private philanthropy. The truth: Federal funding continues to flow, yes, the flows have shifted, and there is less, but the answer for every nonprofit shouldn’t be to abandon a federal grants strategy. Federal funding is likely to remain a cornerstone of durable, multi-year revenue. The headline noise obscures that reality. Myth 2: Foundations are faster and friendlier, so it is “easier” money. The truth: Sometimes faster, yes; often invite-only, narrower, or one-year. As submission counts rise, “friendlier” does not translate to “more likely.” Myth 3: If you just write a stronger proposal, you will break through. The truth: Strong writing matters, but even more so do relationships, fit, timing, and structural constraints like portfolio limits. This is where to focus your strategy. You need a real strategy, not just a call to apply to more foundations. What’s a Grant Writer To Do? Strengthen the Relationships You Already Have You know this; this has long been a best practice. And, yet, it may be the thing that you’ve avoided or under-emphasized. Your existing funders know your work, your leadership, and your track record. Invite them into problem-solving with you. Be honest about what has changed. Name what stability would make possible for your community. Make specific asks (pick the ones that fit your situation): Ask for a no- or low-interest loan to smooth reimbursement or a delayed renewal. Ask your longest committed funders to commit to a multi-year grant (if they typically fund one year) to stabilize core delivery and free you up for other work. Ask your longest committed funders to move from programmatic funding to general operating funding. Explain why this matters in this moment. Ask for introductions to peer funders or a hosted roundtable to widen your circle. Ask for flexible or bridge funding to cover cash flow while a public award ramps back up (explain why you believe this will happen). Ask for strategic support from your funders for business planning, program right-sizing, or scenario planning. Ask for capacity building for finance, data, evaluation, fundraising, legal, or compliance infrastructure. Ask for matching dollars to unlock a government opportunity you are competitively positioned to win; we are predicting an increase in match requirements. How to start the conversation (use and adapt): “ We’ve been impacted by the shifts in federal funding [in these ways]. Here is where we are: [two honest bullets]. Here is what would stabilize delivery for the next 12–24 months: [specific support]. If that is not feasible, an introduction to [X funder/agency contact] or a time-bound no-interest loan would make a meaningful difference.” We need to treat funders like partners. They often have ample resources, not just program funding, but they do not know what is happening within nonprofits. We have been led to believe (and are reinforced through our personal learning about power dynamics) that we cannot let foundation funders know that we are struggling, so we shield them from the reality. But I can guarantee you this: no funder wants to learn that your organization is shutting down when they receive your question, “What do we do with the funding we haven’t spent?” Let them know the pain points you are experiencing now and give them specific ways they could be of help. Have a meeting, in person, if possible. Talk all this through. Treat them like a partner. Do Not Abandon Federal Without a Thoughtful Conversation Are there organizations for whom federal funding is gone? Absolutely. You already know who you are. Your constituents have been named in Executive Orders and Memos. The administration could not be more clear. You will not be receiving funding. (And it’s unfair, dehumanizing, and shitty). For many organizations, however, there is more wiggle room. But here are the questions you need to ask of leadership and the board: Are we willing to sanitize our language? If we work with Black women entrepreneurs, are we willing to say we work with entrepreneurs? If we work with homeless LGBT youth, are we willing to say we work with youth finding their feet to adulthood? Are we willing to sanitize our website and public-facing materials? There are threats that if you engage in “illegal” DEI work, your grants could be cancelled, and there could be additional repercussions. If the federal agency asks you if you do “illegal” DEI, do you know how you will respond? Does the organization’s leadership and board fully understand what that would mean? Does your organization have the resources (time, energy, focus, and funding) to engage a lawyer to help with appeals? I’m hearing more and more stories of applicants who need to appeal decisions in the application process. Most are winning, but their first appeal is rejected without legal representation, then a second is approved once they bring a lawyer into the action. Identify who you would engage now, if you plan to pursue a federal strategy. Instead of firing off 15 new applications to probably-not-the-best-fit foundation funders before the end of the year, I recommend building your funding through relationships. Here’s a quick plan for you to edit as you like. A One-Page Relationship Plan Quarterly goals (choose 1 or try all 4, but choose based on capacity and org need, not fear): Convert one annual funder to a multi-year commitment. Secure one no-/low-interest loan or a formal bridge line. Land two introductions to aligned funders or public program officers. Add one capacity-building grant tied to finance, data, or whatever you need right now. Through the end of the year: Week 1: Identify the top 5-8 funder prospects that are prime for a request Indicators you might consider They have funded you for 3+ years They have multiple ways they give to grantees They have staff to respond to your request You have a personal connection to them (or a board member does) Week 2: Send a concise impact/status email to the top funders (wins, risks, needs). Personalize each one with a specific request. Week 3: Reach back out to those funders by phone and ask for a meeting to discuss your email in more detail. In those meetings, share both the dire needs of both the organization and your service population, but also share why you are hopeful and how the funder can build that hope with you. Week 4: Ask the board or advisory champion to make one warm intro to someone new. Week 5: Engage in collaborative outreach with a nonprofit partner to a shared funder, to demonstrate ecosystem alignment and share a broader vision for your collective work. Week 6: Breathe. Note if things have changed. Note if things are moving. Note where you want to spend more time. Breathe. When it comes to foundation funders, relationships matter most, and this importance is only growing. ABOUT FIELDING JEZREEL FEDERAL GRANTS ACCELERATOR SUBSCRIBE TO QUICK TIPS

This administration’s priorities are being enforced through priority points, eligibility gates, selection discretion, and post-award compliance. Applicants who treat these as “context” instead of design constraints will lose winnable grants. The most consistent signals cut across workforce, education, housing, public health, and humanities funding. We reviewed a half dozen or so federal funding opportunities released in January and identified common themes across them. While federal grants have always been a game where you may have had to add a program component to get priority points, those points are more and more important to consider in advance. If you can’t get at least some priority points, and there are many to be had (6+), the opportunity is often not worth pursuing because you can’t be competitive without them. Priority points used to be fairly straightforward: serve a specific population, add the right advisory board, bring on a particular type of partner, etc. Current priorities are potentially more challenging. I recommend starting now to identify which of these are likely to appear in the forecasted opportunity you are waiting to open. Priority 1: Faith-based and nontraditional institutional participation The administration is deliberately expanding the role of faith-based, private, and charter institutions in federally funded programs. Where it shows up - DOL (YouthBuild): Priority points for private, faith-based, and public charter school applicants or partners. - CDC (Drug-Free Communities): Religious/fraternal organizations are a required coalition sector. - HUD (CoC, ROSS): Faith-based entities explicitly named as allowable and valued partners. - DOJ (OVC): Priority consideration tied to Executive Order alignment on religious liberty. How to respond - Name faith-based or religious partners explicitly. Do not bury them in partner lists. - If eligible, position the applicant itself as faith-based or values-driven. - Avoid defensive language. Treat participation as an asset, not a risk. Priority 2: AI literacy and AI-aligned skills AI is being treated as a foundational skill , not a niche innovation. Where it shows up - DOL (YouthBuild): Priority point for integrating AI literacy into participant skill development. - EPA (Environmental Education): AI literacy named as an educational priority, tied to eligibility. - NSF (TCUP): AI, advanced computing, and related fields framed as high-priority STEM areas. How to respond - Be concrete. Specify AI skills, use cases, delivery methods, and assessment. - Tie AI to workforce readiness, environmental problem-solving, or institutional capacity. - Avoid buzzwords. Reviewers are looking for operational detail. Priority 3: Industrial base and national capacity (not just jobs) Workforce programs are being used to strengthen strategic industries (according to this administration), not just to improve employability. Where it shows up - DOL (YouthBuild): Priority point for shipbuilding and related trades. How to respond - Name the industry explicitly (e.g., shipbuilding, advanced manufacturing). - Connect training to national or regional capacity needs. Show employer alignment and real pathways, not just credentials. Priority 4: Rural and place-based prioritization Geography matters again. Rural areas are being elevated through selection discretion. Where it shows up - CDC (DFC / ONDCP): Rural prioritization used as waiver authority and tie-breaker. - HUD (CoC): Indirect advantages through system design and geographic coverage. How to respond - Explicitly label rural status and constraints. - Frame rural service as requiring tailored strategies, not scaled-down urban models. Priority 5: Deregulation and “removing barriers” Housing and community development programs are rewarding applicants who reduce friction in development and service delivery. Where it shows up - HUD (Choice Neighborhoods Implementation): Scored points for reducing regulatory barriers. How to respond - Identify specific regulatory or administrative barriers. - Explain how your plan shortens timelines, lowers costs, or accelerates outcomes. Priority 6: Systems integration over standalone programs Siloed programs are disfavored. Integrated systems are rewarded. Where it shows up - HUD (CoC): Points for healthcare, housing, and workforce integration. - CDC (DFC): Coalition governance and cross-sector coordination are mandatory. - DOL (YouthBuild): Strong emphasis on employer, education, and workforce alignment. How to respond - Show how systems talk to each other. - Use MOUs, data-sharing plans, and joint outcomes. - Avoid “referral-only” partnerships with no operational depth. Priority 7: Civics, American history, and Western civilization In humanities funding, content focus is ideological and explicit. Where it shows up - NEH (Endowments for Advancing the Humanities): Core purpose and dominant review criteria. How to respond - Name these fields directly. Do not substitute adjacent language. - Anchor proposals in long-term institutional capacity, not programming alone. Priority 8: Executive Order and policy alignment Alignment with administration policy is now a selection and compliance factor , even when not scored. Examples of where it shows up - DOJ (OVC): Priority consideration language. - HUD (ROSS, Choice): Post-award compliance and funding conditions. - CDC (DFC): Policy alignment reviewed during selection. How to respond - Do not ignore EO language. Acknowledge alignment explicitly. - Avoid framing that conflicts with stated federal policy positions. - Treat compliance as part of competitiveness, not an afterthought ABOUT FIELDING JEZREEL FEDERAL GRANTS ACCELERATOR SUBSCRIBE TO QUICK TIPS

We throw the word "hope" around a lot in the nonprofit sector. It shows up in mission statements, in grant narratives, in the remarks we make at galas when we want the room to feel something. And that's not wrong. But somewhere along the way, hope got demoted. It became a feeling we invoke instead of a force we build. That distinction matters more than most organizations realize. Hope Is Not a Feeling. It's a Plan. Psychologist Charles Snyder spent decades studying hope not as an emotion, but as a cognitive system. His research identified three components that work together: a goal worth pursuing, the pathways to get there, and the agency - the belief that you can actually do it. Remove any one of those three elements and hope collapses. You don't just feel less hopeful. You stop moving. I've watched talented, mission-driven organizations stall out - not because they lacked passion or purpose, but because one of those three elements was missing. They had vision but no roadmap. Or a roadmap and no capacity to execute. Or capacity that had lost faith that any of it would work. Hope, as an operating system, had broken down. Sound familiar? Why the MAPP Has Three Pillars This is why I built the Mission Advancement Partnership Plan (MAPP) around three pillars: People, Money, and Mission. Not because three is a magic number - though it does tend to stick - but because those three elements mirror exactly what Snyder identified. They are the organizational expression of hope in practice. People are your agency. The staff, leaders, and board members who believe in what's possible and have the skills to pursue it. Money is your pathway. The funding sources, resources, and strategy that make the route from here to there real and navigable, even with detours. Mission is your goal. The clear, compelling reason all of it is worth doing. When the Three Align, Everything Changes When all three are aligned, something shifts. Organizations stop reacting and start advancing. Donors respond to clarity and confidence. Teams find their footing. Executive Directors sleep a little better. The mission stops feeling fragile and starts feeling inevitable. When even one is out of alignment, the whole system strains. You can feel it. The fundraising that never quite gains traction. The staff turnover that keeps resetting the clock. The strategic plan that made perfect sense on paper but never quite came alive. Hope isn't a closing line in your annual appeal. It is the architecture of your organization's future. And like any structure worth building, it requires intention, alignment, and the willingness to look honestly at what's holding it up, and what isn't. So Here's Your Challenge Look at your organization right now through those three lenses. Where are your People ? Is your team built, coached, and positioned to win? Where is your Money ? Do you have a real strategy, or a wish list? And your Mission - is it driving every decision, or has it become wallpaper? You don't have to answer all three perfectly. You just have to be honest about where the gap is. That's where the work begins. And the work is where hope lives. Gerianne Puskas, MBA, CFRE, CNPM is the Founder & President of Mission Advancement Group, LLC. She helps nonprofit organizations align People, Money, and Mission to advance their purpose and build lasting impact through fractional and strategic work. Take the free Hope Compass Check to find out where your organization stands on all three pillars: https://hope-compass.scoreapp.com.