Program Planning and Design

Political changes can lead to changes in laws, policies, and rules. In the first few months of 2025, many federal grants and contracts have been terminated. Thousands of federal employees have been fired. The functions of complete agencies have been eliminated. There continues to be uncertainty about the future of many federal grant programs. While the legal status of these actions may still be unknown, nonprofits must decide how to move forward.

As we state in our textbook, Grantsmanship: Program Planning & Proposal Writing, the grant proposal is a logical argument for funding. The logic of the the proposal flows from the logic of your Program design. You see a problem and you think of a way to fix that problem. The solution comes logically from your understanding of the problem. If there is a break in the logic, the program plan will appear to have flaws. This is especially critical when you are writing the grant request. The funder will know if there are flaws in the logic, and it will weaken your proposal.

(or The Lack of a Program is Not the Problem) Planning programs proactively makes good sense. We plan programs that are compatible with our organizational mission, capabilities, and community needs. Sometimes, though, in real life a funding opportunity lands in our inbox and there may be pressure to apply. We will need to shift to reactive planning—not the most desirable approach.

The heart of program planning is problem analysis. Problem analysis includes the definition of the problem along with why it is happening. As you design a program, clear analysis of the problem leads logically to the outcomes (objectives) of the program. And understanding the causes of the problem gives direction for the approach (methods).

The whole purpose of community programs is to make a change for the better. How much better? That is the Outcome or the measurable result of your work. However, sometimes talking about the results or outcomes of your program can make people nervous. “How well did we do? I’m afraid to ask.”

There comes a time when a proposal needs to include a logic model. Many foundations don’t require one but an increasing number are asking applicants to go beyond objectives and show, in a descriptive chart, the route you plan to take to get to the destination.

The concept probably predates Rakesh Sondhi’s Total Strategy but a VMOST analysis is still a useful way of figuring out what your organization wants to accomplish and how it plans to go about it. Assumptions are sand traps when it comes to planning and submitting proposals. Instead of assuming “everybody knows” why we do what we do and how we do it, this is a useful framework for thinking through the hierarchy of intentions and actions for your organization.

More and more nonprofits are discovering the benefits of collaborating with other organizations (other nonprofits or for-profit businesses) to get things done. These collaborations might be formal partnerships, joint applications, mergers or other arrangements. Whatever their structure, they often deepen and expand the impact of a program or initiative.

Hardly anybody remembers John Venn, a British mathematician from the late 1800s. But everybody has heard of Venn diagrams, maybe used them in charts to explain how one group of characteristics “overlaps” another, and to name and define the stuff in the place where the groups overlap. Circle A represents tall people, circle B represents athletes. When we overlap the circles we’ve got tall people who aren’t athletes, and athletes who aren’t tall—but in the overlap, we’ve got tall athletes.

How much impact should you promise in your proposal? Let’s say you’re addressing homelessness, or addiction, or any one of a number of stubborn social problems. You’re a $4 million-a-year agency in a major city. Should you be claiming to “solve the problem” with a few large grants? Probably not.