Posted on Leave a comment

Interest rates are up and venture capitalists (VCs) are hurting, so companies are suddenly interested in government grants

Unless you’ve been completed sheltered from the larger financial and information ecosystems, you’ll know that interest rates have gone from “zero or near zero” during 2009 – 2021 to “much higher than that” (at the time of this writing, even the federal discount window rate is 4.75%). Consequently, the value of tech companies has been falling, the value of bank stocks has been falling (the market value of those banks’ bonds have dropped dangerously), and accessing capital has gotten dearer for almost everyone—including venture capitalists (VCs) and the limited partners (LPs) they raise money from.* That may seem like a point distant from the world of grants, but it’s not: since at least 2009, various parts of the federal government, most notably the Department of Energy and USDA, have vastly expanded the number of grants available not only for technology research and development (classic R&D), but for companies that are scaling and for manufacturing infrastructure.

Those grants, however, were less attractive than VC money for much of the 2010s, because VC money was so available: zero or near-zero interest rates meant anyone seeking real investment returns couldn’t get them from bank deposits, Treasury Bills (“t-bills”), or similar sources, so VC investing seemed like the best alternative to the stock market, as returns weren’t impressive from most other sectors. VCs took all that money and reinvested it in a huge range of startups—including ones related to solar, batteries, wind power, and more. Federal grants could still be attractive in the low-interest-rate 2010s environment—the linked post is from 2016—since those grants were non-dilutive and could fund some projects much earlier than VCs typically would. So grants had their place, but, at the same time, VCs also move a lot faster than the feds—I’ve seen claims that VCs sometimes make a fund / no-fund decision for early-stage startups within one to two weeks of first contact—and so a lot of companies preferred the VC route over the grant route. For much of the 2010s, too, it was obvious that solar, wind, and batteries were becoming and were going to be a big deal, which has by now become conventional wisdom.**

Things have changed in the funding environment: VCs are now having problems raising new funds, and some of their LPs are said to be balking at existing fund commitments. Tech stock values have dropped, and with them a lot of the angel investor funding that seeded the startup and scaling ecosystems. So the startups that two or three years ago would’ve gone for VC funding are now likely to be looking closer at grant funding. The total amount of grant funding available in some sectors has increased too, thanks to the recently passed Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Many of us—including me—have forgotten how much interest rates affect the macroeconomic environment, and few of us expected a global pandemic to allow an economic boom to continue, with only a few months of interruption. Supply chain problems persisted throughout the pandemic and arguably to this day, but the overall picture has been surprisingly rosy. We’ll see what happens if interest rates keep rising, we end up in a genuine bank crisis, and/or a recession.

Nonprofits aren’t immune to variations on the phenomena above: they’re probably seeing donations fall, along with the stock market and the larger set of economic jitters in most areas (except, interestingly, housing, which remains expensive: for decades, we’ve not been building enough, which means that there are substantial-real world shortages, and those legally mandated shortages affect everyone). But smart nonprofits have always cultivated both grants and donations; for R & D startups of the sort that might pursue Small Business Innovation and Research (SBIR) or similar grants, the calculations about grants versus VC money have always been different.


* “LPs” tend to be pension funds, university endowments, ultra-wealthy family offices, etc. These organizations have been reaping a disproportionate share of tech startup gains over the last fifteen years, and tech companies have been going public later than ever due to regulatory restrictions like Sarbanes-Oxley (“SarBox”), thus restricting the ability of average investors to make money in tech funds. A lot of well-intentioned rules and laws have perverse incentives built into them!

** Today, the biggest problem isn’t the raw cost of solar panels, batteries, or wind turbines—the biggest problem has instead become grid interconnect projects. That’s the bottleneck. “Environmental” laws like the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) are holding up projects that are good for the environment! NEPA is a law that really protects the status quo, at the expense of doing things better than the status quo, and that is bad. As is so often the case, the law does the opposite of its name.

Posted on Leave a comment

Writers for the HUD “Community Development Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages” (ICDBG) program

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced the “Community Development Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages” (ICDBG) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on June 22, and the program is interesting to grant writers who work with Indian Tribes and/or Alaskan Native Villages in part because of how much money is available: $75 million for 80 grants of up to five million each. That’s enough to fund a substantial eligible project, including affordable housing.

Like its cousin, the basic “Community Development Block Grant Program” (CDBG), ICDBG grants can be used for a wide array of affordable housing, economic development, and community development projects provided that the project concept meets one or more of the CDBG statutory “National Objectives”. For example, conforming to one CDBG National Objective may be demonstrated through a “low-moderate income” benefit test, which is a finding that the use of CDBG funds benefits at least 51% low- to moderate-income program beneficiaries. This “purpose” is often used to justify CDBG applications, because it’s fairly easy to demonstrate—unlike some of the others. “Easy to demonstrate” is attractive for grant writers working on “Community Development Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages” applications.

Overall, Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages should consider applying for this grant, as strong applications have a very good shot at being funded, due to the number of grants available relative to the number of Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages. Interestingly, applicants can also seek “Imminent Threat Grants,” although the ICDBG NOFA is vague about what that might entail. Nonetheless, if your Tribe or Alaskan Native Village has anything going on that could qualify as imminent threat, you should apply. One novel approach, particularly for Alaskan Native Villages that are potentially threatened by rising sea levels, might be to claim “climate change” as an “imminent threat.”

Because of the importance of developing a strong application, contact us to learn more about how we can write your entire ICDBG proposal or edit your draft for a reasonable flat fee. As grant writers, we can not only make sure you have a strong application, but that your application process is easy. If you look at Adobe pages 38 – 40 of the NOFO, for example, you’ll see that a considerable amount of narrative material is required, including a needs assessment, an extensive description of the applicant’s ability, and a description of how the project will provide appropriate benefits.

The “Community Development Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages” (ICDBG) also doesn’t require any matching or cost sharing. Health facilities can be constructed, as can correctional facilities or land acquisitions.

Overall, the virtues of ICDBG are notable for not only grant writers but also for Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages.

HUD ICDBG writers

Posted on Leave a comment

Grant writers and the USDA’s “Rural Energy for America Program” (REAP)

The Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) “Rural Energy for America Program” (REAP) is unusual because of the size of the program (which grant writers will note): it has $1 billion dollars available for up to 9,000 grants—but with an award ceiling of just one million. One million? That’s for grants only, however, and loan guarantees go much higher. In other words, a lot of organizations are going to apply for REAP funding and and many will be funded. Still, the “Rural Energy for America Program” (REAP) is doling funding out over six quarters, rather than all at once. I’m not wholly sure why USDA chose this structure, but it seemingly has. There’s no formal deadline, because the Dept. of Agriculture will accept REAP applications throughout the year, but that can leave applicants in the dangerous position of deciding that they’ll do their application “next month” forever. The “we’ll do it next month” thing is one of the essential challenges with open application of the “first come, first served” variety. Applicants who see a Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO,” which is USDA-speak for RFP) like this can face a dilemma: if you apply early, the project concept may not be “cooked,” but if you wait too long, the funding pool may become exhausted.

If you’re thinking about applying to the “Rural Energy for America Program” (REAP), call us at 800.540.8906 ext. 1, or contact us: we’re grant writers, and it’s our job to help make your USDA REAP proposal preparation process simple. Few small businesses or agricultural producers are familiar with the grant-seeking and grant-making processes, but we sure are, and we’ve worked on a variety of USDA clean energy and rural-focused projects. One favorite recent project in the agricultural-services sector involved a hog-processing plant in the Midwest; our client knew a huge amount about slaughtering hogs and selling ham but nothing about grants. We learned a lot about hogs, and our client learned a bit about grants, as we helped them submit a technically correct and compelling proposal with a minimum of fuss and bother on their part. To stretch the hog analogy a bit, Seliger + Associates is the fully cooked ham of grant writers: just heat ‘n serve—or, I should say, just hire ‘n submit.

In terms of REAP, one slight downside to the program is cost sharing: applicants need to contribute at least half of the total project budget. As we’ve written about before, however, matching funds for grants are often not all that hard to find. The actual eligible REAP activities are variable: they include doing “energy audits” (which is a classic “process” activity that is close to free or “walkin’ around” money), but also the installation of actual energy improvements and energy efficiency systems. That last one is probably where the bulk of the money is.

Eligible applicants must be either “agricultural producers” or, alternatively, “rural small businesses.” The relevant federal regs at “§ 4280.112 Applicant eligibility” also cite site control as being important. So REAP is a very specific and very targeted funding program (wise grant writers check eligibility requirements carefully), but a lot of farms, other agricultural producers, and rural small businesses are looking into solar, batteries, and related systems anyway. Geothermal is probably not quite at the stage where smaller organizations can deploy it, and ditto for wind, so I’d guess solar is likely to be the main beneficiary of REAP right now.

Another peculiarity of the USDA’s “Rural Energy for America Program” (REAP) program is that applicants need to get the application package itself “by contacting the RD Energy Coordinator” for the applicant’s home state. That’s an unusual choice; normal federal grant applications make the application package readily available on grants.gov or elsewhere. Still, with $25 million maximum loan guarantees and $1 million maximum grant requests, dealing with unusual structures will be worthwhile for many applicants.

Posted on Leave a comment

Grant writers for OJJDP’s FY ’23 “Mentoring for Youth Affected by Opioid and Other Substance Misuse”

Fifteen grants are available for the OJJDP’s* FY ’23 “Mentoring for Youth Affected by Opioid and Other Substance Misuse” program, which was released Mar. 17, 2023; both grant writers and potential applicants will note that, with $16.5 million available and an award ceiling of $2 million, the “Mentoring for Youth Affected by Opioid and Other Substance Misuse” is an attractive program. The “mentoring” part is unusual, too, because mentoring was in vogue in the ’90s and early ’00s, but over time it fell out of favor—likely because mentoring programs are hard to run (we’ve heard lots of stories from clients about just how hard, due to background checks, litigation risk, etc.).

If you and your organization are getting ready for the OJJDP FY ’23 “Mentoring for Youth Affected by Opioid and Other Substance Misuse” application process, contact us, or email us at seliger@seliger.com; Seliger + Associates has written dozens of funded mentoring grants.

Still, despite the fact that lots of programs and efforts from a variety of federal agencies have targeted opioid use disorder (OUD), and yet OUD remains a persistent challenge. The DEA, for example, recently ended the “waivered prescriber” requirement for most kinds of medication-assisted treatment (MAT), in an effort to expand access to MAT. MAT on its own hasn’t worked. Efforts like Twelve-Step programs haven’t worked. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and other “evidence-based practices” (EBPs) haven’t worked. Marketing and outreach campaigns haven’t worked. Community education hasn’t worked. Each of these may work for some people, but by “haven’t worked” I mean that they’ve not substantially ameliorated the opioid epidemic. They’ve not substantially ameliorated the p2p meth epidemic, which is what OJJDP is likely referring to in the “Other Substance Misuse” part of the “Mentoring for Youth Affected by Opioid and Other Substance Misuse” program. Grant writers should know the difference between what’s being stated explicitly and what’s being implied in an RFP.

So the OJJDP program that’s seeking to provide funding for mentoring is reasonable, given how much else has been and is being tried to reduce OUD, which has proven intransigent in the face of numerous public policy and grant efforts. Of those 15 available “Mentoring for Youth Affected by Opioid and Other Substance Misuse” grants, 10 are for “project sites”—which means “normal nonprofits” and five are for statewide or regional projects. For the first category, OJJDP wants applicants to already have at least three years of mentoring program experience. What “mentoring program experience” means is, however, somewhat left to the applicant, and organizations that want to apply but are weak on this area should let us help them apply some grant writing magic to their challenges.

The project’s goals and objectives are typical, and what you’d expect. Curiously, the RFP doesn’t give any guidance around the expected total cost per participant (unless I missed that line in the preliminary read). Though I don’t think OJJDP says as much, I’d guess that having some linkage to MAT, even if only for the families of targeted youth, will likely be helpful for successful applicants.

Why are mentoring programs hard to run? Recruiting mentors, background-checking mentors, and retaining mentors—they’re all hard. It’s also not possible to make sure that every single mentor is volunteering for what might be construed as the “right” reasons. And if one bad mentor isn’t screened out, then that can lead to disaster for the entire program and even agency. Some organizations solve this problem by only allowing mentor-mentee contact in specific places and times, but that can wind up not feeling much like an actual mentoring program. But it is a solution.

If you’re working on that OJJDP application, contact us to further discuss your organization and how we can help.


“OJJDP” standing for the old-school acronym: “Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.” It’s been a while since I’ve heard about Juvenile Justice, outside of anachronistic government sub-agencies. OJJDP is in turn part of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Posted on Leave a comment

The Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) “Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant” program and grant writers

The huge bolus of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding is beginning to hit grants.gov—which means the grant money will soon hit the street as companies apply soon. That’s the dynamic we’re seeing with the $700 million available for the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) “Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant” program,* which has no award ceiling in grants.gov (although the NOFO itself says $15 million is the maximum; this reinforces the valuable “always read the NOFO” lesson) and no guidance as to the number of grants that might be available. Grant writers should be cognizant of the “Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant” program, and the other large BIL funding opportunities that are likely to follow, because they have so much money available. This FY ’23 NOFO has a deadline of May 30, but the program may be renewed in future years.

We can help: contact Seliger + Associates today to find out how we can make your “Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant” program, if not easy, then at the very least easier than it would be otherwise. We’ve not yet looked in depth at this particular Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), but, from what we have seen (starting with the amount of money available), it looks unusual. A variety of infrastructure can be installed—among them, classic electric chargers, but also hydrogen infrastructure, or propane infrastructure, or even “natural” gas (sometimes called by its more honest, but less marketable, name: “methane”). I’d guess that most funded projects will focus on electric charging infrastructure, but there could be some dark-horse candidates for hydrogen (like mining equipment).

I’d also guess that successful applicants will get the city, county, and state bureaucracies on their side, so as to avoid interminal environmental and other reviews. I haven’t found specific language in the “Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant” NOFO pertaining to that yet, but, even if that language isn’t in there, reviewers will probably want to know that the infrastructure is going to be built. In much of the United States, we’ve defaulted to status-quo bias in the physical world. Smart applicants will likely have these challenges settled before they apply.

Over the years, we’ve written numerous scientific and technical proposals, and we often complement engineering firms and other organizations devoted to planning and executing the physical construction of charging infrastructure. We’re specialists in making sure that grant proposals are compelling, narratively cohesive, and tell an important story. We’re experts at making sure the most important thing is at the front, and then proposals proceed to the details; many amateur grant writers mistakenly start with details and then wait until the end to attempt a coherent, broad picture. Readers are often confused by that, and want the opposite—the broad picture first, followed by details.

The Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) “Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant” program is unusual in that it’s a “Cost Reimbursement Grant”—so some funding that your state, planning organization, local government, Indian Tribe, or consortium has already spent can still be eligible under this grant program.

Let us make sure your “Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant” program narrative makes sense. You do what you’re great at, and let us grant writers write the proposal. Contact us today to make your proposal process (relatively) easy.


The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the DOT sub-agency charged with administering the competition.

Posted on Leave a comment

Grant writers for the ACF’s “Runaway and Homeless Youth – Prevention Demonstration Program” (RHY-PDP)

The FY 2023 “Runaway and Homeless Youth – Prevention Demonstration Program” (RHY-PDP) has several notable elements that should interest grant writers as well as potential nonprofit applicants: $2 million is available for ten grants of up to $200,000 annually for some number of years. The FY ’23 “Runaway and Homeless Youth – Prevention Demonstration Program” (RHY-PDP) application was due in June 20, but, if you’re thinking of applying in the future, now is the time to act.

Does your organization have a plan for getting the “Runaway and Homeless Youth – Prevention Demonstration Program” (RHY-PDP) application done? Let’s talk: call us at 800.540.8906 ext. 1, or email us at seliger@seliger.com, to get a fast, free fee quote to write your RHY-PDP proposal or edit your draft for a reasonable flat fee. Grant writers with long-term, proven track records are useful, valuable resources for any organization looking to submit a complete and technically correct RHY-PDP application.

The RHY-PDP program offers funding that will help precariously housed runaway and homeless youth find and maintain long-term housing solutions, while assisting those recently homeless with finding long-term and stable housing. Like many coordination programs, RHY-PDP appears not to offer much funding for the direct provision of housing—in other words, it doesn’t appear to offer funding for the most-needed services—but it still offers useful money for organizations looking to bolster their overall homelessness services portfolio. Many organizations will quietly reassign staff persons to different grants depending on which grants the organization has at a given time. RHY-PDP can be part of that effort. There are only 10 grants available: that may dissuade some nonprofits from competing, but it shouldn’t, because all of the usual suspects may also be dissuaded. Victory goes to those who try.

Continue reading Grant writers for the ACF’s “Runaway and Homeless Youth – Prevention Demonstration Program” (RHY-PDP)

Posted on Leave a comment

Curious instructions in the DOL’s “Nursing Expansion Grant Program” FOA

The Department of Labor’s (DOL) “Nursing Expansion Grant Program” funding Opportunity Announcement (or “FOA,” which is DOL-speak for “RFP”) has a peculiar instruction, which we, as grant writers, noticed right away: “NOTE: Full points will not be given for simply repeating the requirements stated below or elsewhere in the Announcement.” This is a humorous instruction because many FOAs tell applicants what to do, and the applicant’s main duty is to tell the funder that the applicant will in fact do whatever it is that the funder wants the applicant to do, and which the funder has specified already. “We are going to tell you what to do and how to do it,” the funder seems to be saying, “but we want you to tell us what you’re going to do and how you’re going to do it.” The DOL, for the “Nursing Expansion Grant Program” application, says:

For example, if the applicant is asked, “Describe in detail how strategies to expand diversity, equity, inclusion and access to recruit participants will be implemented,” applications will not score the full points (and zero points may be received) for simply stating, “We will implement strategies to expand diversity, equity, inclusion, and access in our participant recruitment.” To receive full points, the applicant must describe, in their own words, the process or procedures their institution will use and what evidence is available to show those processes are effective for meeting the stated requirement.

The word “diversity” occurs 12 times in the “Nursing Expansion Grant Program” FOA, so there are a lot of places where applicants can pick up some diversity lingo for their applications. And, to the DOL’s credit, the strategies to be used “to expand diversity, equity, inclusion, and access in our participant recruitment” are pretty standard for an experienced grant writer: hire diversity consultants; provide diversity training; favor candidates from particular demographic groups in employment, while simultaneously complying with laws that forbid discrimination; subject all recruitment materials to review by diversity consultants who are experts in all facets of diversity and the implementation of diversity; and so on. Are diversity consultants particularly qualified to judge the success or failure of diversity efforts? Maybe. Does hiring diversity consultants improve actual, real-world diversity on the ground? Maybe, maybe not. But the DOL wants diversity and therefore applicants are obliged to promise that they’ll focus on diversity, albeit without appearing to quote the DOL’s instructions that describe what the DOL wants.

The FOA questions have the air of an Inquisitor during the Inquisition: “We are asking the question, and we know the answer, but you must supply the answer we are looking for.” If the DOL knows the answer, why not just tell the applicant what the specific expectations are?

I don’t want to pick on diversity too much here, because the DOL also offers instructions like “Clearly identify the training strategy(ies) that will be deployed to train participants enrolled in the Nurse Education Professional Track or the Nursing Career Pathways Track, as described in Section I.E. Program Design and Allowable Activities,” as if humans don’t have millennia of experience in “training strategies,” almost all of which reduce to some combination of direct instruction and hands-on practice. How do you ascertain someone’s blood pressure? We’re going to show you how, then you’re going to do it, then we’re going to give you feedback, then you’re going to teach someone else to do it.

Who knows: maybe some applicant to the “Nursing Expansion Grant Program” will reinvent the entirety of human education and knowledge transmission, but I’d personally bet against that, and I’m guessing that the same strategies will be used that anyone who’s ever participated in K – 16 education will be familiar with. There’re only so many ways to slice a salami and all that.

Some applicants could use online modules as part of their education effort (someone is probably vending those for nursing education), and those online modules might be appropriate for highly motivated trainees, but we’ve seen through the course of the COVID-19 pandemic that, in most cases, online modules don’t effectively replace in-person learning for most people.

I’m (obviously) a grant writer, but I also occasionally teach writing and related subjects for undergraduate college students and have seen the results of online “education” firsthand. Non-traditional nursing students may be more motivated than typical undergrad cohorts, but much of nursing is a hands-on discipline that needs in-person training, and thus it’s not likely to be highly efficacious online—and that’s particularly true given online education’s existing drawbacks.

Continue reading Curious instructions in the DOL’s “Nursing Expansion Grant Program” FOA

Posted on Leave a comment

Grant writers: SAMHSA’s “Services Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women” (PPW) program

Grant writers may have seen the NOFO for SAMHSA’s FY ’23″Services Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women” (PPW) program, which has $11.5 million available for 22 grants of up to $525,000 per year for five years—implying a lifetime total availability $57.5 million. Smart nonprofit and public agencies will look closely at SAMHSA’s PPW program, given the large amount of funding at stake and the clear need for more residential treatment beds. We can help: call us at 800.540.8906 ext. 1 or contact us to get a fast, free fee quote that will help your nonprofit or public agency write a winning proposal. SAMHSA’s 83-page FY ’23 PPW NOFO likely contains many gotchas and other surprises that we’ll ferret out—leaving you free to run your organization.

The PPW program offers funding for pregnant and/or postpartum women to get help with substance-use disorders (SUDs), along with housing and wraparound supportive services that will help aid recovery. Basically, SAMHSA’s “Services Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women” (PPW) looks to provide not only treatment and amelioration of SUD, but also all the wraparound supportive services that a pregnant or postpartum woman might need to remain sober and take care of her child, or children. The goal of the program should remind you of the goal for the HRSA Healthy Start Initiative (HSI) grant program: both programs fund similar activities, even if the funding agency differs and PPW is for residential, not outpatient, services.

SAMHSA’s PPW program wants to lower the total level of infant mortality, and the total level of maternal mortality. It has a bit of the old “Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood” RFP feel too, in that PPW seeks to, wherever possible, promote family stability and family unification. I’m reminded of the way that there are various essays and research reports out there observing that female college graduates are overwhelmingly married when they have kids, as was true in the 1960s; among the non-graduates, however, marriage rates have cratered. Here’s one report along those lines, although one could dig up many others. As it says: “Marriage used to be a classless phenomenon. But, not anymore: in 2008, marriage rates amongst college-educated 30-year-olds surpassed those without a degree for the first time.” More educated women tend to have kids with a spouse, and less educated women tend to have kids without a spouse, and in an unstable households. I’ve seen calls that educated women (and men) should “preach what they practice”—that is, speak up about the need to get married prior to having kids, and to avoid having kids in the midst of turbulent, uncommitted relationships. Child support doesn’t replace fathers, in this view.

The above paragraph has some ideas in it that need to be approached delicately and tastefully in a proposal, and experienced grant writers will understand how to do this. Nonetheless, intact families are part of what SAMHSA is dancing around in its NOFO. The NOFO emphasizes that “Services Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women” (PPW) applicants need to offer in-patient services in facilities, usually one or more single-family houses, overseen by round-the-clock staff supervision. Applicants should probably have a psychiatrist on staff or via contract at least part of the time. The challenge with the PPW NOFO will likely include having a facility that is zoned correctly and that the applicant can use. Well, that, and getting staff for what might be a challenging patient population.

There are a number of straightforward required activities: treatment includes the typical assessment process, which will lead to some form of “Individual Improvement Plan” (IIP) or the like, which will tailor SUD treatment for the individual’s needs. The applicant will come up with appropriate instruments to be deployed. Treatment will include medications—thus the the psychiatrist, physicians assistants (PAs), and other waivered providers with prescribing power—and the overall goal is to manage the SUD to the extent possible. Overall, this is an intriguing NOFO for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), as well as other substance abuse providers.

Contact us for more information. Let us make your grant seeking experience easier.

Posted on Leave a comment

SAMHSA’s “Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals” (GBHI) and grant writers

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) “Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals” (GBHI) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFO) should appeal to grant writers and grant applicants because the program is offering funding for activities that many homelessness services organizations are already doing—most notably, providing funding for various kinds of substance use disorder (SUD) / opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, and, in particular, medication assisted treatment (MAT). MAT is also now easier to administer, because the “waivered prescriber” requirement has been waived. In the FY ’23 GBHI NOFO, there’s $75 million available over five years for up to thirty-two awards, and grants go for five years, with half a million per year—overall, it’s a desirable grant program. If your nonprofit organization wants to apply for SAMHSA’s “Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals” program, call us at 800.540.8906 ext. 1, or email us at seliger@seliger.com, for a FREE quote on writing this SAMHSA application, or any other proposal.

The SAMHSA NOFO notes that GBHI applicants should provide a fairly typical suit of services for homeless individuals, including SUD/OUD treatment (likely via MAT, as noted above) and assistance to overcome chronic or episodic homelessness. Nonprofits are eligible. The program should probably include peer workers (often called “community health workers” or similar—”CHWs” is a fine acronym) who are going to liaise with the target population of focus.

The trick for all these programs is outside the ability of applicants to affect: getting enough housing built at all, for anyone and everyone, which is a point we’ve made in “‘Homelessness is a Housing Problem’: When cities build more housing, homelessness goes down.” Building housing for anyone is hard, which means building it for the homelessness (or whatever euphemism one may choose) is even harder. Fortunately, the SAMHSA GBHI program wants to offer help with finding or showing permanent housing through “collaboration,” including with public housing authorities (PHAs). So applicants that are, or can get, a homelessness services provider to help will be aided, even if most of the target population doesn’t wind up with a permanent living situation. Finally, typical case management services are required; for case management, applicant should probably propose an approach in which CHWs will provide warm handoffs to case management professionals. Treatment of substance-use disorder and mental illness itself is also an eligible cost, which will be appealing to healthcare organizations.

Distributing naloxone, opioid test strips, and similar harm reduction supplies are eligible activities. SAMHSA also specifically tells applicants that they need something like a “Participant Advisory Council” (PAC) to offer oversight, but SAMHSA has adopted another term: a “steering committee.” Whatever the name, the purpose is the same, and should be familiar to veteran grant writers. Beyond that, various kinds of other activities are optional, including HIV prevention, and training staff in evidence-based practices (EBPs) like Motivational Interviewing (MI) or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). How many of these activities really make it from the proposal world to the actual world? Probably not all of them, but some. SAMHSA also has an EBP warehouse that applicants can choose from, but most EBPs are essentially different routes up the same mountain.

Regardless of the route, the journey is arduous; the number of interventions that it takes to get a homeless person with SUD sober and off the street can number in the dozens, if not hundreds. Outsiders often don’t realize this. If you don’t work in the homelessness-services field, ask someone who works in emergency rooms what the population of focus for the “Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals” (GBHI) program is like. The organizations operating GBHI programs are doing tough work. Grant writers should be able to evoke that work, without being melodramatic about it.

Want that GBHI grant? Contact us, so we can help make it happen. We’re here to help, and to make your life easier.

Posted on 1 Comment

Depressing NAEP math and reading assessments provide grant-writing opportunities for nimble nonprofits

Despite the media’s fascination with irrelevancies like the Kardashians and moment-by-moment interpersonal political drama, many outlets at least partially covered the disastrous recent National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Report on the 2022 4th and 8th Grade Math and Reading Assessments.* The Report says:

Between January and March 2022, the NAEP mathematics and reading assessments were administered to representative samples of United States fourth- and eighth-grade students. [. . . ] Student academic achievement during the COVID-19 pandemic is compared to pre-pandemic performance on the 2019 NAEP assessments as well as to previous assessments dating back to 1990.

In 2022, the Report finds (the next six bullets come from the Report):

Mathematics

  • The average fourth-grade mathematics score decreased by five points and was lower than all previous assessment years going back to 2005; the average score was one point higher compared to 2003.
  • The average eighth-grade mathematics score decreased by eight points compared to 2019 and was lower than all previous assessment years going back to 2003.
  • Fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics scores declined for most states/jurisdictions as well as for most participating urban districts compared to 2019.

Reading

  • The average reading score at both fourth and eighth grade decreased by three points compared to 2019.
  • At fourth grade, the average reading score was lower than all previous assessment years going back to 2005 and was not significantly different in comparison to 1992.
  • At eighth grade, the average reading score was lower compared to all previous assessment years going back to 1998 and was not significantly different compared to 1992.
  • Fourth- and eighth-grade reading scores declined for most states/jurisdictions compared to 2019.

Take a few minutes to read these bullet points again. It’s widely recognized that, if a student can’t read at grade level in 3rd grade, the likelihood that they will not graduate from high school (and may become functionally illiterate adults) goes way up. America’s increasingly information-based economy demands workers with at least an understanding of high-school-level math. No one is going to become a coder without algebra skills. On the other hand, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that many fast-growing jobs require few reading and math skills—some of those jobs being cooks, for example. And the fields with the most new jobs include “Home health and personal care aides” and ” Waiters and waitresses.” These sorts of jobs, however, usually don’t pay living wages (or barely pay them) and have very little career ladder potential.

Still, although the COVID-era learning losses are bad, they also imply opportunities for nonprofits interested in after-school and tutoring efforts. While there’s already lots of federal, state, local, and foundation funding for educational enrichment programming, there’ll likely be much grant funds for this purpose soon, as reality sinks in.

So, if your nonprofit works with at-risk youth** or wants to, the coming months will be a great time to seek funding for after school and/or tutoring programs. For example, the state of Arizona just announced a second year of funding for the OnTrack Summer Camp, which provides educational enrichment for over 70,000 school-age kids. The OnTrack Summer Camp website states: “With over $100 million from the American Rescue Plan Act ready to fund engaging Summer Camp experiences, school leaders, educators, and youth service providers like you can apply for AZ OnTrack funding so parents in your community have a trusted place to send their students for up to 8 weeks of educational opportunities.” Translated into English, this means Arizona nonprofits can apply for grants to provide these services.

These kind of RFP opportunities will be popping up all over America soon, not just Arizona. Some of the money will come from long-standing federal pass-through to states programs like 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Program and the Title I Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Program, while other funding will come from COVID-era programs like ARP. Expect some new programs, too. Make sure your agency gets on the mailing/email lists for your state department of education, municipality, and school district—and start knocking on community foundation doors. The last time there was a flood of money into educational support programs was during the Clinton era, and the early days of the George W. Bush Administrations, which overlap almost perfectly with the 30 year timeframe of educational stagnation highlighted by the NAEP report.


* The “media” is also a machine for responding to reader incentives, so if articles about banal interpersonal dramas do well, the media produces more of them. Look in the mirror, and see if that the enemy is there. This is also true of voting, by the way.

** The current politically correct phrase for “at-risk youth” is now “opportunity youth,” if you like that euphemism better.