Occasional updates on funding opportunities, planning trends, and grant strategy — written for cities and counties.
The Next Era of Federal Grant Management
By Allison D. Megrath, AICP, CNU-A, GPC
Every few years, federal grant professionals find themselves studying a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, learning a revised agency policy, or adapting to changing priority. That is simply part of working in the grants profession. Changes to the Uniform Guidance, however, are different.
Unlike a single grant program, the Uniform Guidance establishes the governmentwide framework for how most federal grants are awarded and administered. When the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposes revisions to these regulations, it is worth paying attention, not simply because the rules may change, but because they often reveal how the federal government is thinking about grants management.
After reading OMB’s proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance, I found myself less interested in the individual regulatory changes and more interested in the bigger picture. To me, this proposal isn’t simply about revising regulations. It’s about raising expectations.
Throughout the proposal, OMB returns repeatedly to themes of accountability, stewardship, measurable outcomes, and organizational responsibility. Whether discussing financial oversight, recipient monitoring, or project performance, the message is remarkably consistent: federal agencies want greater confidence that recipients can successfully manage public investments from beginning to end.
That observation resonated with me because it reflects conversations I’ve been having with clients for years. One of the first questions I ask a prospective client is rarely, “What grants do you want to pursue?” Instead, I say, “Tell me about the project.” It is a subtle difference, but an important one.
The strongest grant applications almost never begin with funding. They begin with a clearly defined community need, thoughtful planning, local commitment, and a project that would still deserve to move forward even if no grant opportunity existed. Funding should accelerate a good project. It should not create one. That philosophy has guided my work throughout my career because truly competitive projects are built around solving real problems, not around chasing available dollars. Grants come and go. Community needs remain.
The proposed Uniform Guidance reinforces that perspective. Success appears to be measured less by the ability to prepare a compelling application and more by an organization’s ability to responsibly deliver the project after the award is made. That is an important distinction.
Receiving a federal grant has never been the finish line. In many ways, it is the starting line. The real work begins when planning becomes implementation, contracts are awarded, invoices are reviewed, performance is measured, and public improvements begin taking shape. Financial management, procurement, documentation, reporting, and compliance may not generate headlines, but they determine whether a project ultimately fulfills the promise made in the application.
One proposed provision has understandably received significant attention. OMB proposes to clarify agencies’ authority to terminate certain discretionary awards if they no longer advance program goals, federal agency priorities, or the national interest, to the extent permitted by law. Th Grant Professionals Association, along with others in the grants community, has expressed concern that broader discretionary termination authority could reduce the stability traditionally associated with multi-year awards.
Reasonable professionals may disagree about where that balance should be struck. For me, however, the proposal highlights something that has always been true. Federal priorities evolve. Administrations change. Congress adjusts appropriations. Agencies revise strategic plans. Organizations cannot control those changes. What they can control is whether their projects remain firmly rooted in genuine community needs and the statutory purpose of the funding program. Projects that solve important public problems tend to remain valuable regardless of changing priorities because they continue to deliver measurable public benefit.
Readiness is about much more than having a completed application. It means having leadership committed to the project, realistic implementation plans, sound financial systems, strong procurement practices, and the organizational capacity to manage a federal investment responsibly over multiple years. Those qualities are not developed a week before an application deadline. They are built intentionally over time.
As grant professionals, we often talk about “winning" grants. I’ve become les comfortable with that phrase over the years. Federal funding is not a prize. It is a public investment made on behalf of taxpayers. Success should not be measured solely by dollars awarded, but by whether those dollars ultimately improve the communities they were intended to serve.
The proposed Uniform Guidance will almost certainly change before it becomes final. That is exactly what the public comment process is intended to accomplish. Individual provisions may be revised, clarified, and removed altogether. What I suspect will remain, however, is the broader expectation that organizations receiving federal funds demonstrate sound management, responsible stewardship, and measurable results. Frankly, I think that’s a positive direction.
The communities we serve deserve projects that are well-planned, well managed, and capable of delivering lasting public value. In my experience, the organizations that consistently succeed are not the ones chasing the next grant opportunity. They are the ones building strong projects, strengthening their internal capacity, and viewing grants not as an end goal, but as one tool for accomplishing meaningful work.
I believe that philosophy will continue to serve communities well, regardless of how the final Uniform Guidance is written.
This article reflects the author's professional observations regarding OMB’s proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200). The proposed rule remains subject to public comment and revision before any final rule is adopted.
