The latest Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance updates spell it out clearly: equity is now a top priority.
There’s no single lever for government grantmakers looking to both stay compliant and advance equity. But it starts with a positive citizen experience.
If you’re looking for real-life examples of what it means to formalize a commitment to a positive citizen experience, there’s a lot to learn from Indigenous communities.
No matter who you serve, Tribal nations provide important lessons on how to be truly equitable throughout your grantmaking process, and they show what’s at stake if you get it wrong.
A burdensome grant process can’t be equitable
Every additional, unnecessary barrier to a grant application process increases the gap between well-resourced and under-resourced communities. Breaking down these barriers requires you to understand the application experience from the applicant perspective.
These burdensome processes are particularly evident in the application process many Tribal nations go through to access federal funding. The application itself can be incredibly difficult for Tribes that don’t have the staffing capacity to dedicate someone to the work.
During an OMB research project, one Tribal member described their experience: “[The application process was] torturous. There were so many redundant questions, some of the questions were like ‘why does that matter?’ It hangs you up for days and it isn’t clear what the government wants to know.”
Under-resourced Tribes tend to be less successful securing funding than Tribes that can hire professionals to help. “You’ll see it’s the wealthiest Tribes [who have successful grants] because they can afford the grant writers. The Tribes that have lower capacity don’t have the resources to hire experts,” one Tribal member explained to OMB researchers.
Beyond the application and award phases, restrictions on administrative or indirect cost rates disadvantage low-capacity Tribes. Smaller Tribes don’t have the ability to spread costs across multiple projects or departments the way larger Tribes might.
In a GAO report on the effort to increase high-speed internet access on Tribal lands, one callout is the Mississippi Choctaw hiring a full-time grant writer to manage their E-rate application when they had difficulty applying for it on their own.
The report digs into why this is an equity issue: “The consultant confirmed that there is a steep learning curve to the process and not all Tribes would have the money or time to have a member overcome the learning curve while fulfilling other Tribal responsibilities.” Luckily, the latest Uniform Guidance updates raised the indirect cost allowance to account for expenses like this.
Takeaway: Government grantmakers must recognize how their processes can perpetuate inequality. Your role as a government grantmaker is to take time to understand the perspectives of the communities you serve and take steps to lessen their burden.
Trust should be an explicit goal
Every step of the grantmaking process shapes the relationship that community members develop with public institutions. Without setting clear intentions—and following through on them—the grant process can overlook the community’s values, cultural beliefs, and everyday experiences. When that happens, communities often lose confidence and trust in the programs meant to provide support.
To build trust, grantmakers must seek out feedback from community members and build programs collaboratively. The US Forest Service’s Strengthening Tribal Consultations and Nation-to-Nation Relationships action plan provides a great example of what it looks like for an agency to formalize their commitment to building trust.
Notably, the plan gets specific about what it will do to strengthen relationships and what the timeline looks like. It includes details like “The Forest Service will establish a procedure for responding to inquiries from Tribes, through management of the consultation email inbox at sm.fs.otrTribalcon@usda.gov.” That level of specificity is critical.
When commitments to trust are vague, you wind up with programs that don’t follow through on the promise—or worse—they work against it.
The Federal Indian Trust Responsibility was established in 1942. It lays out the Federal government’s obligation to act with responsibility and trust toward Native Tribes. This was in the same era that Indigenous children were being removed from their homes and sent to federally-run boarding schools, a racist program that devastated communities. The discrepancy between the ethos of trust and the actual policy being enacted shows the high stakes of anchoring programs clearly and explicitly to an overarching goal.
Takeaway: Government grantmakers at all levels must prioritize building relationships with the communities they work with and get specific about what that looks like in practice. It’s not enough to set the goal, you have to create a plan–with specifics–to follow through.
Grantmakers need to help close the funding gap
If there’s not enough funding to meet the needs of those who qualify for a program, people will inevitably be left out, and the outcomes will be inequitable. The onus is on grantmakers to help close the funding gap.
The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program is a great example of how a well-intentioned program can fall short. The US Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) allocated $980 million in grants as part of the program. However, NTIA received application requests totaling over $5 billion in need. So, in essence, less than 20% of projects were being funded. And in competing for funds, well-resourced Tribes tend to win out.
If grantmakers confront a funding gap, they should look for ways to help. Though they might not be able to restructure the budget on their own, they can advocate for more funding from legislative bodies or federal programs. Look for ways to be an advocate for communities who need more support.
For Indigenous communities, there is a whole network of federal, state, local, and Tribal grants they might qualify for. If there is a gap between funding and needs in your program, make an effort to connect community members to other funding opportunities they might be eligible for. Be a resource for them as much as possible in helping to find and apply for additional funding.
If you anticipate a big funding gap, it might be worth narrowing the focus of your program so that all eligible applicants receive the funding they need. That approach allows you to be more equitable and prevents people from taking the time to apply for funding only to be denied.
Takeaway: Though funding gaps will likely always be part of government grantmaking, community members should not have to bear the brunt of the shortfalls all on their own. Grantmakers must do what they can to lessen that load.
Standardize forms and reporting to ease the burden
Because government grant programs tend to be siloed, application and reporting requirements can vary widely. For communities seeking funding from multiple sources, the variations can cause confusion and duplicate work.
One federal grant officer and Tribal liaison describes the layers of variations within the funding process: “Non-Federal entities are often required to prepare agency-specific forms…timelines, workflow documents, budgets, logic models and abstracts all differ unnecessarily.”
The new OMB Uniform Guidance updates added a requirement that standardizes financial reporting. Grantmakers cannot ask for additional financial information beyond the standard data requirements. According to David Clark, OMB considered mandating standardized programmatic reporting as well. However, in the end they backed off that idea because grantmakers felt that the wide range of programs made it too difficult.
Takeaway: Even though you’re not required to standardize programmatic reporting requirements, working towards standardization can help ease the burden on grantees. Look for ways to align your requirements with other government grant programs. And be an advocate for standardization across departments and agencies as much as possible.
Technology can also help you create a more uniform applicant experience across programs. If multiple agencies and departments use the same grant management software, grantees don’t have to learn a new platform and workflow every time they apply for funding.
Choose the right grant management software for a positive citizen experience
Today, creating a positive citizen experience is no longer a separate consideration from compliance. They are more inextricably linked than ever before.
As you build your strategy and infrastructure, choose a government grantmaking software that’s designed to be equitable. And as you move forward, seek feedback from constituents to learn how it feels from their perspective. That’s the ultimate source of truth.
Laura Steele is a social impact writer and editor at Submittable focused on the world of grantmaking and corporate giving. Her work often explores the connection between technology, equity, and social good. She also writes fiction and nonfiction. You can read some of her stories and essays at laurapricesteele.com.