It’s All in the Wording
The federal government is ideologically restructuring grant language as one of the frontlines to a new framework. Grant language reflects a larger shift from justice frameworks to market logic; from naming harm to maximizing productivity; and from using deficit-based language to asset-based language. These aren’t superficial edits; they are language shifts we’re seeing in real time! Here’s what you need to understand, federal funding hasn’t stopped. Programs are still moving forward and funding opportunities will continue to roll out over the summer and fall. You can still reach communities that have long been excluded from public investment.
You need to understand the new framework being used and stay clear about your outcomes. You can still fund what needs to be funded as long as you frame your outcomes around access, job creation, resilience, and regional competitiveness. Reframing your language doesn’t mean abandoning your values in defeat, it means getting your point across and work funded in an often-hostile environment. If the only door open is universalism, design your programs and proposals for everyone with intention and clarity. Redefine “everyone” in a way that still reaches those who’ve been historically left out. It’s about protecting and funding real work in a system trying to erase the language of harm. How we word situations will change our perspective. Some examples of the new wording framework are as follows:
| Old Wording Framework | New Wording Framework |
|---|---|
| Environmental justice communities | Neighborhoods facing infrastructure and public health challenges that threaten safety and quality of life |
| Communities impacted by systemic racism | Areas with limited access to good jobs, employers, and career-aligned training for working people |
| Clean energy transition for frontline communities | Energy innovation that enhances American energy independence, reliability, and domestic manufacturing |
| Affordable housing for low-income communities | Housing that expands choice, proximity to jobs, and access to opportunity for working families |
| Impoverished individuals needing help | Underserved entrepreneurs building small businesses |
| Black and Brown youth disconnected from workforce systems | Emerging workers in regions with limited access to training and career pathways |
Using deficit-based language consists of focusing on the challenges affecting a community, like lack of access to education, poverty, or homelessness. This focus reinforces harmful stereotypes and the communities you are trying to help are seen as helpless rather than resourceful. Deficit-Based Language is about problems instead of possibilities, creating a sense of hopelessness, and a hinderance to fund your project or program.
Using asset-based language can strengthen and humanize your grant proposals and uplift the voices of those directly impacted by your work. Instead of framing people by what they lack, highlight their strengths, resilience, and potential. Let community voices lead: Use direct quotes, testimonials, and community-driven data to ensure those most impacted are truly represented. Be inclusive and respectful by avoiding labels that reduce people to their challenges. Balance the needs with the progress so funders can understand the challenges, but they can also see how your community is already making strides forward. The APA’s inclusive language guide is a great reference. Examples of asset-based language is as follows:
| Deficit-Based Language | Asset-Based Language |
|---|---|
| Nonprofit is a collaborative, equity-focused applied research network that informs policies and practices designed to improve nutrition and prevent obesity. | To support families with improved nutrition and to prevent obesity, nonprofit designs policies and practices through a collaborative, equity-focused applied research network. |
| School and out-of-school time (OST) meals programs are critical resources for children, yet they are not always designed in partnership with kids, teens, and their families. When programs are designed using a “top down” approach that excludes community input and involvement, they risk decreasing kids’ access to and excitement for the meals served. | Children and families are invaluable thought partners in designing the school and out-of-school time (OST) meals programs that are specifically developed to promote their health and well-being. When families are involved at the beginning of the process and provide feedback throughout, families are more able to access and are more excited about the meals served, and a greater number of children receive healthy and nutritious meals. |
| The founding and visionary school principal Dr. Yvonne Chan, plus a team of dedicated teachers of what was then Vaughn Street Elementary, turned around the lowest-ranking school in Los Angeles Unified toward a bold new vision for education. This vision took decision-making to the community level, witnessed a dramatic turnaround in student achievement, and garnered national recognition for its success. | The students at Vaughn Street Elementary School performed better during the tenure of Dr. Yvonne Chan and a team of dedicated teachers. Community members co-created a bold new vision for education. With the support of this vision, students achieved at a level that garnered national recognition. |
| Low-income families | Families facing economic hardship |
| Disadvantaged children | Children who confront barriers to opportunity |
Please Note: All wording samples were pulled from various sources via the internet.
Tip #1: Federal Funding Changes
How to handle federal funding changes while the landscape is shifting and policies constantly are constantly changing how funding will be awarded and distributed. The Monmouth University Grant Community shouldn’t inadvertently give anyone any reason (that we can control) to take any more of our grant awards back. It’s time to double down on compliance on all our grants and take an inventory. Some of the things you can proactively do are as follows:
- Assess funding streams. Develop a contingency plan that explores other funding sources, including private and corporate grants. Don’t rely significantly on federal grants.
- Review funding priorities. Identify if you could realign your funding priorities with the administration’s focus areas. For example, workforce management and infrastructure projects are less likely to experience funding delays or reductions than other areas. You could also look for general operating funds or capital funds with less restrictions.
- Review your compliance documentation. Are you or your sub-recipients following the scope of work outlined in your proposal or award agreement? Are you following reporting requirements? Are your allocations correct? Do your organizations internal policies match the current trends from funders? One example of this is updating your current indirect cost rates, so you are in compliance with the funder. Sometimes, but not always, a huge difference in indirect cost rates can eliminate you from the competition.
Mentoring Moments
As one school year comes to a close and another school year starts to gear up, we ask ourselves what is next for the Monmouth University grant community? The answer is “mentoring moments”! According to our original needs assessment: 28% of the respondents are interested in being a grant mentor and 60% of the respondents are interested in being a grant mentee. That works out to two mentees for every one mentor, with the time factors and logistics causing a huge hindrance in the mentor/mentee relationship.
In an effort to streamline this process, the ORSP wants to hold virtual mentoring sessions with experienced principal investigators (PIs) who can answer other PIs questions. The virtual sessions will be flexible, vary on day and time, and will happen on an as needed basis. The immediate goal is to facilitate one virtual mentoring moment a quarter and possibly grow it from there.
If you like this idea and still want to be a mentor, please let me know. The Monmouth University Grant Community needs your guidance to continue growing and prospering. The concept of effective mentorship emphasizes the importance of engaging conversations that foster growth for both the mentor and the mentee. As soon as I develop the Mentoring Team, we can start organizing the event. You can contact me at lrossi@monmouth.edu or by phone at 732-923-4592. I hope everyone is as excited with this project as I am.
Conversation with NSF
I had an informative conversation with a program director from the National Science Foundation (NSF). We discussed the current funding environment at NSF and what is expected in 2026. I would like to tell you a little about what we discussed.
As a matter of Best Practices, all applicants should align all their program/project designs to the newly updated NSF Priorities to be as competitive as possible. Also note that NSF funding competition will be harder in the future due to NSF expecting (not confirmed) a 60% budget decrease in 2026.
To compensate for possible limited funding, the ORSP is recommending looking for multiple funders for (1) project and to explore funding from corporate and/or family foundations. As a general rule corporate or family foundations have less guidelines to follow but are very specific in what they will and won’t fund. The good news is the ORSP has already been recommending these types of funders in the Targeted Research that has been done already and knows where to find more funding opportunities. The ORSP has the means to meet these challenging times ahead.
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
If you aren’t sure if your program or project needs to go to the Institutional Review Board, they have a Determination of Human Subjects Research Checklist you can follow. This list contains a series of questions to answer as yes, no, or not sure to; plus, defined wording. The questions (in-part) are as follows:
- Is the activity being conducted to generalize the information or findings to other individuals?
- Does the activity pose more than minimal risk to participants?
- Does the activity involve vulnerable populations?
- Does the activity involve sensitive topics?
- Are the activity scholarly and journalistic activities including the collection and use of information, that focus directly on the specific individuals about whom the information is collection rather than attempting to build knowledge and theories that can be generalized?
- Does the activity involve secondary data sets with identifiable private information?
- Is the data collected for administrative purposes with the intention of publication?
- Does the activity involve the use of publicly available data that contains sensitive, personal, or other identifiable information?
- Does the interview or survey focus on experiences, opinions, and sensitive information about people?
- Will the research be later published, lead to poster presentations, or presented at a conference or other venue?
- Does the activity involve obtaining voluntary, prospective agreement from participants with whom you will be interacting?
- Does the activity involve associating the participants’ identities with their information in any way?
Depending on how you answer these questions will let you know if your program or project needs IRB review. You must also be able to briefly describe your proposed activity in a project abstract/summary with language that can be understood by a non-scientist and in addition should summarize the objectives of the research and the procedures to be used, with an emphasis on what will happen to the participant. This completed checklist with its answers should always be turned into the IRB to double check your review status.
If IRB/IACUC approval is needed, please submit the necessary paperwork to the IRB/IACUC office. When building your application deadline, remember that IRB approval can take two-to-three weeks in slow seasons and four-to-six weeks during busier times. Ideally you should submit for approval 45-30 days before the grant application is due.
You can contact the IRB directly at irb@momonmouth.edu for the checklist form.
Tip #2: Internal Capacity
You see a great funding opportunity that was made for a program or project like yours. What do you do?
Always assess your internal capacity! Be realistic about your and your organization’s capacity to develop a winning grant proposal before the due date. Evaluate your resources needed including how much time and effort you put into writing a grant. If it takes you 30 hours to apply for a grant and it’s only for $1,000, it may not be worth the energy. Look at what will take the most time and identify if there are ways you can streamline the process, then you can build an adequate timeline accordingly. Always a win: some funding opportunities are a recurring event. A strategic plan would be to plan out applying in two years and not one. This gives your organization ample time to fine tune your application and make it the best competitive proposal while lessening the burden on your internal infrastructure. Apply only when you are ready!