From Challenges to Opportunities: How Grant Professionals Can Help Influence the “New Normal” in Federal Financial Assistance

May 21, 2025

So, Four Months In—Where Are We?

Elon Musk has largely stepped away from federal-level activities. Agency leaders have begun to settle into their roles, and we’re finally seeing bellwether grant programs gain momentum. Meanwhile, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) appears to be losing influence, evidenced by recent efforts to limit its expansion into additional agencies.

However, state and local Committees or Councils on Government Efficiency are gaining traction—and are far more likely to leave a lasting mark on how grants are managed than DOGE ever will.

Why? Because state and local efforts are tackling real, systemic issues:

1. Transparency and ease of access
2. Agency workflow and interagency cooperation
3. The role of third-party vendors and non-governmental organizations
4. Auditing processes
5. Budgeting and expenditure practices
6. Procurement systems
7. (And to a lesser extent) healthcare costs
   

With the exception of healthcare, all of these directly or indirectly affect our work as grant professionals.

Some might argue that these issues aren’t inherently grants-related—but I would counter that they absolutely are. Here’s the current narrative, rightly or wrongly:

• Lack of accountability and measurable outcomes in grant-funded programs
  
• Abuses of administrative and indirect costs
  
• Cases of widespread fraud, waste, and abuse (e.g., PPP, UI, Shuttered Venue Grants)
  
• Duplication of services across funded organizations Basic compliance failures
  
• And perhaps most critically, questionable need

Take the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) as an example. National associations worked tirelessly to secure this funding for local governments and their partners. Yet billions remained unobligated as the deadline approached. Treasury and others had to bend over backward— adding eligible use cases, redefining obligation strategies, and creating re- obligation pathways—just to preserve access to the funds.

Even after this effort, many non-entitlement units (NEUs) struggled with compliance. Billions remain unspent three years after the funding was secured. For every success story, I can point to jurisdictions that “parked” funds in MOUs and still haven’t decided how to use them.

This is not just perception—it’s a real issue, replicated across HHS, Education, FEMA, and other COVID-era funding programs.

Perception → Politics → Process Problems

As a grants community, we have a perception problem, which has created a political problem, which we must now solve through process improvement.

We must separate the political from the process. Legal and political matters will take their course. Some terminations may have violated contract terms; others are just hard lessons about spending supplemental funds quickly and effectively.

Let’s remember: all grants are legal agreements, but not all are contractual in the strict sense. Still, they require responsibility, accountability, and clarity.

So, What Can We Do?

Start with Strategic Planning. Every organization—public or private— should have an annual grant plan. Grants should never be about “chasing dollars” or spreading resources indiscriminately. They must be aligned with your mission, vision, and strategic goals.

Grants are not typically general operational support. If your budget or organizational survival depends on them, something is broken. That’s why we’re seeing so many headlines about programs collapsing when grants are withdrawn.

Break Out of Silos. Many grants professionals believe their grants are somehow “different.” But a grant is a grant. Embracing that truth allows us to standardize, streamline, and improve efficiency.

Process Drives Equity. One major shift between administrations has been the framing of DEI or DEIA. But many of the best equity practices are simply smart process design:

• Early stakeholder engagement
• Transparent, evidence-based program design
• Capacity-building support before and during the grant Plain language, accessibility, and translation
• Streamlined applications for first-time or under-resourced applicants Centralized NOFO publication
• Reduced system overload and administrative burden

You don’t need quotas or buzzwords to build equity—you need intentional design and implementation.

Be an Advocate for Grants Reform. Use this transition period to push for:

• Capacity-building programs
• Standardized application forms  
• Consolidated grants systems
• Core policies and procedures
• Shared evaluation and outcome frameworks
  

And remember—it’s not just a federal, state, or pass-through issue.

Consultants should share resources and tools   Nonprofits should coordinate with peers
Smaller organizations should explore shared services like fiscal agents and fiduciary services

We’ve fallen into a rut. We’ve allowed loopholes and inefficiencies to divide the “haves” and “have-nots” in grants access.

Reclaim the Narrative

Recent controversies show where we’ve missed the mark:

Outrage over DOGE and Grants.gov, while ignoring improvements like the Simpler Search Function
Complaints about drawdown justifications, despite similar or stricter requirements in state/foundation funding

We must be active partners in system design—not passive critics.

Final Thought

Let’s stop shouting about what’s broken—and start fixing what’s in our control:

• Better planning
  
• Shared tools
  
• Smarter systems
  
• Process equity
  
• Transparent, mission-driven grantmaking

Grants are not paperwork - they're public impact in motion. 

To learn more about the dedicated resources we have and gain valuable insights on grants management, please visit our Center for Grant Excellence page.

If you need further assistance, please reach out to see how we can help.

Authored by: