Exercises — Chapter 19: Government Grants
Work these with a real or planned project and organization in mind. Government grants are the largest source of program money for many nonprofits, schools, and local governments — and the most rule-bound — so the rubric-and-compliance discipline here repays everyone, even researchers who mainly pursue NIH/NSF.
How to use these: Part A checks recall; Part B applies the chapter to concrete government-grant decisions; Part C asks you to create at the level a real applicant must (a rubric table, a narrative outline, a compliance plan); Part M interleaves earlier chapters. Answers to selected exercises (★) are in the back matter.
Part A — Recall and Understand
A1. ★ State the chapter's threshold concept in your own words. What are the two things it says win or clear a government competitive grant?
A2. Distinguish discretionary, formula, and block grants. Which do local organizations mostly compete for directly, and how do the others still create opportunities you can pursue?
A3. Define pass-through funding and subrecipient, and explain why "watch only Grants.gov" is incomplete advice.
A4. ★ What is a NOFO, and what two of its sections "dominate everything"? Why?
A5. Explain the difference between a binary gate (eligibility, registration, format, deadline) and a rubric criterion, in terms of partial credit.
A6. What is 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance), and name three things it governs.
A7. List three post-award obligations of a federal grant, and define the period of performance and the Single Audit.
Part B — Apply
B1. ★ Write to the points. A NOFO's rubric reads: Need (15), Project Design (35), Outcomes & Evaluation (20), Capacity & Management (20), Budget (10). An applicant plans a 12-page narrative and wants to spend 5 pages on Need (it's their passion) and 2 on Project Design. Diagnose the error and propose a corrected page allocation, with reasoning.
B2. Trace the money. Lighthouse wants federal support for its reentry program. Describe the channels the money might flow through (direct vs. pass-through), how the competition and rules differ by channel, and how Lighthouse should decide where to compete first.
B3. ★ Clear the gates. You decide today to pursue a federal grant due in six weeks. List, in order, the binary gates you must clear and when you must start each, explaining why six weeks is or isn't enough.
B4. Eligibility reading. A NOFO says eligible applicants are "units of local government and federally recognized tribes." You are a nonprofit. List your real options (and non-options), and explain why inventing a workaround is dangerous.
B5. Capacity check. A small, two-year-old nonprofit is offered the chance to apply for a large direct federal grant. Using Section 19.6, advise it: should it apply now, build capacity first, or pursue a subrecipient role? Justify with the compliance realities.
Part C — Analyze and Create
C1. ★ Build the rubric table. Find a real NOFO (Grants.gov or a state agency) for a program you're eligible for. Build the Section 19.3 rubric table: criteria, point values, what reviewers look for, your evidence, and your page budget by points. This goes in your "My Proposal" document.
C2. Outline to the rubric. Using your table, outline your project narrative so its sections and headings mirror the rubric in order and language. Mark where each scored criterion's evidence will live.
C3. ★ Compliance and package plan. For your target NOFO, list every required package component (forms, budget, attachments, assurances), your registration status (SAM.gov/UEI, state systems), and the post-award obligations (reporting, match, audit) you'd be accepting. Flag the two compliance items you understand least and your plan to learn them.
C4. Budget to the rules. Draft a top-level federal budget for your project that respects 2 CFR 200: only allowable costs, the correct indirect-rate approach (negotiated or de minimis), any required match, and a basis of estimate for each line. Note any costs you excluded as unallowable and why.
C5. Decision memo. Write a one-page memo to your (real or hypothetical) leadership recommending whether to pursue a specific government grant, addressing eligibility, fit to the rubric, the binary gates, and — crucially — whether you can administer the award. Make a clear recommendation.
Part M — Mixed and Interleaved Review
M1. ★ (Ch 18 + 19) Contrast the core logic of a foundation grant and a government grant, and explain what each implies about where your effort goes and what "after the award" looks like.
M2. (Ch 15 + 19) How do SAM.gov, the UEI, and Grants.gov (Chapter 15) function as this chapter's "binary gates"? Why does the multi-week registration trap matter so much here?
M3. ★ (Ch 3 + 19) Show how the scorecard/weighting method you used to read RYCC's local RFP (Chapter 3) is exactly this chapter's central discipline — write to the points. Use a concrete example.
M4. (Ch 11–12 + 19) How do the allowable/allocable/reasonable cost standards and indirect-rate rules from the budget chapters reappear under 2 CFR 200? Why does a compliant budget also build reviewer trust?
M5. (Ch 13 + 19) For a government grant, organizational capacity must include the capacity to manage the award, not just run the program. Revise a capacity argument to address compliance, reporting, and financial management explicitly.
M6. (Ch 10 + 19) Why is the Outcomes & Evaluation criterion so important in a government rubric, and how does Chapter 10's outputs/outcomes/indicators framework let you earn its points?
🪞 Metacognitive check-in. Which felt more uncomfortable: writing to a rubric (subordinating your voice to someone else's point scheme) or facing the compliance burden? Both reactions are common and informative. Writing to the rubric can feel like a loss of authorial control — but it's actually a gift of clarity: the funder told you exactly what to write. The compliance burden can feel daunting — but it's the honest price of public money, and a capacity you can build. Notice which one you're tempted to avoid, because that's the skill your government-grant practice most needs to grow.