Top 10 Lobbying Firm - Ranked by Bloomberg

Not Every Grant Is the Right Grant: 5 Questions to Ask Before You Apply

By Jessica Venable—Partner at Thorn Run Partners

Federal grant opportunities span nearly every policy area—from health care and behavioral health to transportation, infrastructure, agriculture, public safety, education, research, and community development. Across agencies such as HHS, DOT, USDA, DOJ, DHS, and others, organizations may encounter very different eligibility rules, funding levels, award structures, timelines, and program priorities.

That breadth creates significant opportunity. It also makes disciplined grant strategy essential.

Recent SAMHSA funding opportunities offer a useful example. Within a single agency, federal grants may support treatment, recovery, prevention, workforce development, mental health, and other priorities—often with different requirements and intended applicants. A program that appears relevant at first glance may not ultimately be the strongest fit once eligibility, competitiveness, implementation capacity, and timing are considered.

The same is true across the broader federal funding landscape. An open grant opportunity is not necessarily the right grant opportunity.

Before an organization commits staff time, leadership attention, and resources to an application, it should first determine whether the opportunity aligns with its priorities, capabilities, and competitive position—and whether a different funding pathway may be more effective.

That assessment can be just as important as the application itself.

Here are five questions organizations should consider before pursuing a federal grant.

1. Are We Actually Eligible?

This sounds basic, but eligibility should be the first screen—not an assumption.

Every federal Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) defines who may apply. Depending on the program, eligibility may be limited to certain types of state or local governments, nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, tribal entities, health care organizations, or other specific applicants.

Grants.gov recommends confirming eligibility before beginning an application, noting that organizations can otherwise spend significant time and resources pursuing funding they cannot legally receive.

Eligibility can also involve more than organizational type. A NOFO may include requirements related to geography, prior funding, organizational experience, partnerships, licensing, accreditation, or other qualifications.

The first question, therefore, is not simply, “Can we submit?”

It is: Do we clearly meet every threshold required to compete?

2. Does the Opportunity Truly Fit Our Priorities and Capabilities?

Eligibility gets an organization through the door. Fit determines whether it should walk through it.

Federal agencies generally expect applicants to demonstrate a clear connection between the program’s purpose and the work the applicant is proposing. SAMHSA, for example, advises prospective applicants to review the purpose of the funding opportunity closely, including the population of focus, required activities, performance expectations, and reporting obligations.

Organizations should ask:

  • Does this opportunity advance an existing institutional or organizational priority?
  • Do we have the operational capacity to carry out the proposed work?
  • Do we have the necessary partnerships, staffing, systems, and financial infrastructure?
  • Will pursuing this grant strengthen our broader strategy—or pull resources away from higher-priority opportunities?

A compelling funding opportunity on paper can quickly become a poor investment if the organization would need to substantially reshape its priorities simply to qualify.

3. How Competitive Are We?

Being eligible and being competitive are not the same thing.

A strong go/no-go assessment should consider how well an organization is positioned against the evaluation criteria in the NOFO and against the broader funding landscape.

That means reviewing factors such as:

  • The strength and maturity of the proposed concept
  • Organizational experience and past performance
  • Required partners or collaborators
  • Evidence supporting the proposed approach
  • Available data and measurable outcomes
  • Leadership and implementation capacity
  • The number and expected size of awards
  • The likely applicant pool

Federal agencies typically use published review criteria to evaluate applications. SAMHSA, for example, recommends studying those criteria carefully before drafting because peer reviewers score the information presented in the application against the standards established in the NOFO.

A realistic competitiveness assessment can prevent organizations from investing heavily in low-probability opportunities—and can identify areas that should be strengthened before the next opportunity arrives.

4. Are We Ready for the Timeline and Requirements?

Federal grant applications are rarely just writing exercises.

They may require registrations, budget development, letters of support, memoranda of understanding, data collection plans, organizational certifications, attachments, internal approvals, and coordination among multiple departments or outside partners.

For SAMHSA grants specifically, applicants must maintain registrations in systems including SAM.gov, Grants.gov, and eRA Commons. SAMHSA warns that registration can take six weeks or more and that incomplete registration by the deadline can prevent an application from being accepted.

Some funding opportunities also contain “screen-out” requirements. Missing a mandatory document or prerequisite can eliminate an application before reviewers ever evaluate its substance.

Organizations should therefore work backward from the deadline and ask:

Can we assemble a complete, competitive application without compromising quality—or exhausting the team in the process?

Sometimes the most strategic decision is to prepare for the next funding cycle rather than rush into the current one.

5. Is This the Best Funding Path—or Just the Most Visible One?

This is where grant strategy becomes broader than grant writing.

An organizational priority may have more than one potential route to funding. Competitive grants may be one path, but depending on the issue, organizations may also consider congressional appropriations, earmarks, agency engagement, private foundations, corporate partners, coalitions, or other funding mechanisms.

TRP’s Grants Strategy Practice approaches funding from this broader perspective: mapping the pathways available to a priority, evaluating which routes are strongest, and helping clients coordinate those efforts rather than treating each opportunity in isolation.

That can include funding landscape analysis, strategic planning, sponsor engagement, proposal development, critical review, congressional strategy, policy monitoring, and other forms of government relations support.

When those efforts are coordinated, one institutional priority may be able to move through several funding pathways at the same time.

A Strong Grant Strategy Starts Before the NOFO

The most effective grant programs are not built around chasing every available opportunity. They are built around knowing an organization’s priorities, capabilities, competitive strengths, and funding landscape well enough to recognize the right opportunity when it appears.

That preparation can help organizations make better decisions about where to invest their time, strengthen applications before deadlines become urgent, and build a more sustainable pipeline of funding opportunities over time.

At Thorn Run Partners, our Grants Strategy team works with organizations across the grant lifecycle—from funding landscape analysis and strategic planning to proposal development, agency engagement, congressional outreach, and post-award support.

 


References:

2026 Congressional Outlook: A Narrowing Window Before the Midterms

Congress is heading into the final stretch of the 119th Congress with a crowded agenda, limited floor time, and several major policy deadlines still ahead.

With Congress facing a compressed calendar ahead of the November elections, the window to advance major legislative priorities is narrowing quickly. This raises the stakes for government funding, defense legislation, expiring authorizations, and other priorities competing for attention.

Download our latest report here

September 30 Is the First Major Pressure Point

Congress must fund the government by September 30, when several other authorities also expire, including programs tied to the Farm Bill, surface transportation, the National Flood Insurance Program, SNAP, TANF, and health care.

The appropriations process remains uneven. The House Appropriations Committee has advanced all 12 FY 2027 spending bills, while Senate action has lagged, increasing the likelihood of significant year-end legislative pressure.

Political Stalemates Could Push More Into the Lame Duck

The administration’s push for the SAVE America Act, combined with ongoing discussions around a third reconciliation package, has further complicated the congressional agenda.

If those disputes remain unresolved before the election, lawmakers could return to Washington facing a substantial lame-duck workload.

That matters because traditional must-pass measures—including the NDAA and government funding legislation—could become vehicles for other bipartisan priorities that have struggled to move independently. Potential areas to watch include energy permitting, digital asset market structure, kids’ online safety, the Farm Bill, surface transportation, and water resources legislation.

Watch the Must-Pass Vehicles

Even in a polarized Congress, lawmakers continue to identify areas where bipartisan agreements remain possible.

The report highlights several work streams that could move before the end of the year, including:

  • FY 2027 government funding
  • The National Defense Authorization Act
  • The Farm Bill
  • Surface transportation reauthorization
  • Water resources legislation
  • Energy permitting reform
  • Digital asset market structure
  • Kids’ online safety
  • Shipbuilding legislation

Measures that cannot advance independently may increasingly be attached to larger year-end vehicles such as the NDAA or appropriations packages.

Conversely, areas including artificial intelligence, comprehensive data privacy, and college sports currently appear less likely to reach consensus and could slip into the next Congress.

Turnover Is Already Shaping the Next Congress

The changing composition of Congress is another factor organizations should begin planning around now.

Retirements, primary defeats, and redistricting are also accelerating turnover across both parties, including on influential committees such as Appropriations, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Banking, Finance, and HELP.

For organizations with federal priorities, that means planning should extend beyond Election Day. Committee changes, new members, and shifting policy coalitions will create both risks and opportunities heading into the 120th Congress.

The Bigger Picture: Prepare for a Crowded Lame Duck—and the Next Congress

The remainder of 2026 is likely to be defined by two competing realities.

First, lawmakers have relatively little time before the election to resolve a long list of outstanding priorities. Second, must-pass year-end legislation will create opportunities for bipartisan measures that have struggled to move on their own.

That makes the next several months especially important for organizations with federal policy priorities.

The strongest advocacy strategies will account for both timelines: what can realistically move in the 119th Congress, and which relationships and issues need to be positioned now for the 120th.

For government affairs teams, waiting until after Election Day to make that distinction may be waiting too long.

 

Pop-up-header-V1

Stay Ahead of Federal Policy

Subscribe to our TRP Tip Sheet!

Get timely analysis, firm updates, and strategic perspectives delivered straight to your inbox.