Top 10 Lobbying Firm - Ranked by Bloomberg
Contact
Insights

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

August 31, 2026

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:

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.