A Funder Research Workflow That Actually Works

Stop chasing every RFP

Most grant writers we work with spend 60-80 percent of their time on applications they have no realistic chance of winning. They find an RFP, see a fit on paper, write the application, and lose. The problem is not the writing; it is the research. They are applying to funders whose priorities match superficially but whose giving patterns do not.

The workflow below is the one we use with our clients. It is a three-stage process: Find, Fit, Prioritize. The goal is to apply to fewer funders, with higher quality, and win more often.

Stage 1: Find (broad search)

Start with the broad universe of funders whose stated priorities overlap with your work. Use these sources:

- **IRS Form 990 search** at ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (free) — search for funders whose mission statement contains your keywords ("youth," "education," "housing," etc.). Filter to funders that gave away at least $500,000 last year (smaller funders rarely accept unsolicited applications).

- **Candid Foundation Directory** (paid) — the gold standard. Filter by geographic focus, program area, giving size, and recipient type. Candid also shows you actual past grants, which is critical for Fit stage.

- **Grants.gov** (free) — federal grant opportunities. Search by CFDA number, keyword, or agency.

- **Your state's grantmaking association** — many states publish a directory of in-state funders.

The output of stage 1 is a list of 30-50 funders whose stated priorities match your work. Do not apply to any of them yet.

Stage 2: Fit (narrow by giving pattern)

For each funder from stage 1, look at their actual giving pattern — not their stated priorities, but what they actually funded in the last 12-24 months. Sources:

- **Form 990 Schedule I** (grants paid during the year) — available on ProPublica for free.

- **Candid's grants database** — shows every grant above $5,000 from most major funders.

- **The funder's annual report** — usually available on their website.

For each funder, ask:

- Have they funded organizations of your size (budget, staff) in the last 24 months?

- Have they funded organizations in your geography?

- Have they funded your specific program area (not just adjacent areas)?

- What is their average grant size, and does it match your ask?

- Do they accept unsolicited applications, or are they invitation-only?

If you cannot answer yes to at least three of those five questions, drop the funder from your list. The output of stage 2 is a list of 10-15 funders whose giving pattern actually matches your organization.

Stage 3: Prioritize (capacity and timing)

For each funder from stage 2, ask:

- **Capacity**: Do you have the bandwidth to write a strong application by the deadline? A strong application takes 40-80 hours. If you are already writing two applications with overlapping deadlines, do not add a third.

- **Relationship**: Have you (or anyone at your org) had any contact with this funder in the last 12 months? A cold application to a funder who does not know you has a 5-10 percent win rate. A warm application to a funder you have met with has a 30-50 percent win rate.

- **Timing**: When is the deadline, and what else is on your calendar for the 4 weeks leading up to it?

- **ROI**: What is the ask amount, and what is your realistic win probability? A $50,000 application with a 30 percent win probability has an expected value of $15,000. A $200,000 application with a 5 percent win probability has an expected value of $10,000. The first is a better bet.

Prioritize the top 3-5 funders from stage 3. Apply to those. Do not apply to the others — even if they fit, applying poorly is worse than not applying.

GFR's research module

GFR ships a research module that automates stages 1 and 2 — it pulls funders from Candid (via API), shows their giving patterns, and lets you tag funders with fit scores (Strong / Possible / Weak). Stage 3 (prioritization) is a judgment call we cannot automate; the module gives you the data, you make the call.

The result: our clients apply to 60 percent fewer funders and win 2x more often. The math is simple — fewer applications, higher quality per application, higher win rate per application.