Glossary

The section of the US tax code that exempts charitable, educational, religious and scientific organisations from federal income tax and makes gifts to them deductible. It is the status most grant eligibility lists are written around.

The annual return a private foundation files with the IRS. It is the source of foundation giving history — who received money, how much, in what year — and it lags 12 to 18 months behind the giving it reports, so every figure drawn from one is published with its filing year attached.

A disbursement method where funds are paid to the recipient before the spending happens. Some programs mix advances and reimbursements across phases, and a record stores the arrangement the notice describes rather than the simpler of the two labels.

A cost a grant may pay for. Under federal rules it must be necessary and reasonable for the award, allocable to it, consistent with the recipient’s own policies, adequately documented, and not excluded by the programme. All five tests have to pass, not the most convenient one.

A formal change to something already issued — a revised notice before the deadline, or a revised award after it. On the notice side an amendment can move a deadline, change eligibility, or alter the amount available.

Our own coarse rating of how much work a program’s application demands — light, medium or heavy. It is a GrantTrove field, not a sector standard, and no funder publishes it.

The system an application is actually submitted through, which is frequently not the system the opportunity was found in. Registering in it takes time, and that time is the part most often left out of a plan.

The identifier for a federal assistance programme, formatted as two digits, a full stop and three more — 10.766, say. It names the programme, not the opportunity, so one listing number covers every year that programme runs.

A deficiency an auditor reports — a control that did not operate, a requirement not met, a cost that should not have been charged. It is reported to the recipient and, on a single audit, to the federal government.

The law that creates a grant programme and sets what it may fund, who is eligible, and often what the money may not be used for. A notice implements it; where the two appear to differ, the statute governs.

The largest amount a single applicant can be awarded under one program. It is not the amount of money the program holds, and a second cap — per unit, per acre, per head of livestock — may bring an individual award below it.

The smallest award a program expects to make. Many notices publish a ceiling and no floor, in which case the field reads Not stated — we do not infer a floor from programs that look similar.

A large, broadly defined grant from a federal agency to a state or other government, which then decides how to distribute it within wide statutory limits. If you are a nonprofit, the money you can apply for from one is usually a state subaward rather than the block grant itself.

The prose that explains each line of a grant budget — what the figure is, how it was calculated, and why the project needs it. It is part of an application, it is not published by the funder, and nothing in a record corresponds to it.

The stretch of time one instalment of funding covers, usually twelve months. A multi-year award is normally a chain of budget periods inside one longer period of performance, each with its own report and its own decision to continue.

A five-character identifier assigned to an entity with a federal registration, used across federal systems to identify a specific facility or location. It is issued as part of registration rather than applied for separately.

A grant to strengthen the organisation rather than to deliver programme work — planning, systems, fundraising capability, board development. It is restricted money whose restriction happens to be internal.

A grant for a building, a major renovation, or equipment — a one-off asset rather than ongoing activity. It usually carries a match requirement, a long timeline, and conditions that outlive the grant.

Money left unspent at the end of a budget period that is moved into the next one. Some awards permit it automatically and some require written approval, and the difference decides whether an underspend is a nuisance or a loss.

The portion of a match requirement that must be real money you spend, not donated goods or staff time. A program can require a match overall and still restrict how much of it may be met without cash.

A grant restricted to a narrowly defined purpose, with conditions attached to how the money is used. It is the opposite end of the spectrum from a block grant, and most competitive federal awards are categorical in effect.

The standard statements an applicant signs with a federal application — on non-discrimination, drug-free workplace, lobbying, debarment status and more. They are signed before award and they bind the organisation for the life of it.

A grant paid only if the recipient raises a stated amount from other sources, usually at a stated ratio and by a stated date. It is a fundraising tool as much as a gift: the offer is what the recipient uses to raise the rest.

The final phase of an award: last reports filed, final costs reconciled, unspent funds returned, property disposed of. It happens after the period of performance ends, and no field on an opportunity record describes it.

A public charity that pools gifts from many donors to fund work in a defined geography. It is usually the most approachable grantmaker in a region and the one most likely to publish an open application process.

A short outline of a proposed project, submitted before a full application so the funder can say whether to proceed. Where it is required it is a gate; where it is optional it is usually still worth submitting, because feedback before the work is cheaper than after.

A situation where someone involved in an award has a personal or financial interest that could improperly influence a decision. Federal recipients must have a written policy covering it, and must disclose conflicts rather than merely avoid them.

The next budget period’s money on a multi-year award, released without a new competition if progress and appropriations allow. It is not guaranteed, and the progress report is what it is decided on.

An award like a grant except that the agency expects to be substantially involved in carrying the work out — approving protocols, sitting on a steering group, collaborating directly. It is competed like a grant and run like a partnership.

A grantmaking body funded by a company. Where it is a separate foundation it files like one and its giving is visible; where it is a giving programme inside the company, there is no filing and the money is largely invisible from the outside.

The recipient’s written response to each audit finding: what will change, who owns it, and by when. It is required for every finding, it is submitted with the audit, and it is what a repeat finding is judged against.

A written method for splitting shared costs across the programmes that benefit from them — rent divided by square footage, a director’s salary divided by documented time. It belongs to the organisation, not to any opportunity, and no field on a record is one.

The portion of a project’s total cost that the recipient rather than the funder pays. Most agencies use it interchangeably with matching funds; where a notice distinguishes them, cost share is the broader budget contribution and match is the specific dollar-for-dollar rule inside it.

The requirement to pay locally prevailing wages on federally funded construction, with certified payroll submitted weekly. It raises the cost of construction work and adds an administrative burden that has to be budgeted before the application, not after.

A flat indirect cost rate an organisation with no negotiated agreement may elect instead of negotiating one. It is a property of the applicant, elected by the applicant, and no field on an opportunity record is one.

The time of day and the zone a deadline actually falls at. A date alone is not a deadline: 5:00 pm Eastern on a Friday is nine hours earlier than midnight Pacific, and portals close on the stated instant rather than on the stated day.

A government-wide bar on receiving federal awards, imposed for a fixed term after due process. A debarred entity is excluded from every federal programme at once, not merely from the one where the conduct occurred, and the exclusion is public.

A funder’s decision not to fund an application. Federal programmes usually provide reviewer comments; most foundations provide a sentence or nothing, and the difference decides how much you can learn from it.

A requirement about who the funded work must serve, or in some programs who must own or lead the applicant. It is a rule about people rather than about organisations, and the two are often confused.

A cost that can be identified with one project specifically — the salary of someone working on it, the equipment it uses, the travel it requires. It is the half of a budget that is not overhead, and it is a property of an application rather than of an opportunity.

A grant an agency awards at its own discretion, through a competition, to applicants it selects. This is the kind of grant a searchable catalogue is mostly made of, because it is the kind with an open application window and a deadline.

An account at a sponsoring charity from which a donor recommends grants. The sponsor is the legal grantmaker; the donor decides in practice. There is no application process and no published guideline, because the fund is not a programme.

The act of requesting money already awarded, usually through a federal payment system, against costs already incurred or about to be. It is how an award becomes cash, and how often you may do it decides how much working capital a grant actually requires.

The checks a funder runs on an organisation before awarding — legal status, financial health, governance, sometimes a site visit. On foundation grants it usually happens after a decision in principle and before the money moves.

Money Congress directs to a named recipient or project in an appropriations bill, outside any competition. There is no notice to answer and no deadline to meet; the route runs through a congressional office, months before the bill.

The records that show how staff time charged to an award was actually spent. Federal rules require charges to be supported by records reflecting real activity, not by a budget estimate carried forward every month.

The nine-digit Employer Identification Number the IRS assigns to a US organisation, written as 12-3456789. It is the only reliable way to tell two similarly named organisations apart, and it is stored and rendered as a figure so a column of them aligns digit for digit.

The pass a funder makes before review to remove applications that fail a stated requirement — wrong applicant type, wrong geography, missing registration, late submission. It is mechanical, and it is where most rejections happen.

The kind of organisation — or person — a program will accept an application from. It is the first filter that matters, and the one most often narrowed by a single clause deep in a notice rather than by the headline.

The assessment federal funding can trigger before ground is broken or property is acquired, under national environmental law. On construction and acquisition awards it is frequently the longest item on the schedule and it cannot be started early with award money.

The duty to track, safeguard and eventually dispose of equipment bought with award money — an inventory, a physical count at least every two years, and a disposition rule when the project ends. It attaches to the item, not to the award’s end date.

The extra oversight a private foundation must exercise when it grants to an organisation that is not a public charity — a pre-grant enquiry, a written agreement, separate accounting by the grantee, and reports until the money is spent.

The unique identifier a federal agency assigns to an award it has made. It identifies money already given to a named recipient, not an opportunity you can apply for, and it is the key federal spending records are organised around.

The standard form on which a federal recipient reports what it has spent, obligated and received on an award. It is due on a schedule set by the award, and a late one can block drawdowns on every award an organisation holds.

The federal government’s budget year, running from 1 October to 30 September. It sets the rhythm of when notices appear and when agencies are in a hurry, and it does not line up with a calendar year or with most organisations’ own fiscal years.

The last set of reports on an award — final financial figures, final performance narrative, and whatever else the terms require — normally due within 90 to 120 days of the end of the period of performance.

A tax-exempt organisation that receives and administers a grant on behalf of a project without exempt status of its own. It is an arrangement between an applicant and a sponsor, which makes it a fact about the applicant and never a field on an opportunity.

A single stated close date and time, including its time zone. Stored to the minute where the source states one, and rendered in a fixed format — never as "closing soon", which cannot be cited and quietly ages into a false statement.

Announced funding that has no open application period. It cannot be applied for today, and a record says so plainly rather than implying a window — a forecast presented like an open program sends applicants to a portal that will not take their submission.

A grant whose amount is set by a statutory formula — population, poverty rate, road miles — rather than by a competition. Recipients are named or made eligible by statute, so there is nothing to win and usually nothing to apply for beyond a plan.

Which level of government or which kind of funder is putting up the money — federal, state, local, or a private funder. It predicts the application burden and the reporting obligations more reliably than the award size does.

A grant an organisation may spend on whatever keeps it running — rent, salaries, the work itself — rather than on one defined project. It is the most useful money a nonprofit can receive and a small share of what is available.

Where an applicant must be located, or where the funded work must happen. These are two different tests, and a program can apply either or both — being based in a state is not the same as serving it.

The signed document setting out what a funder will pay, what the recipient will do, and on what conditions. It is the binding instrument, it frequently differs from the notice, and it is the version that governs.

One complete run of a programme: it opens, it closes, it reviews, it awards. A programme that runs annually has one cycle a year, and knowing where you are in it is what decides whether to prepare now or wait.

The federal government’s own portal for discretionary grant opportunities and, for most agencies, for submitting applications. It is free, authoritative for what it covers, and covers exactly one layer of the funding landscape: federal discretionary programmes.

Match value contributed as goods, space, equipment or staff time rather than money. It has to be valued by a stated method and documented, and many programs cap how much of a match it may cover.

The percentage an organisation applies to a cost base to recover costs that keep it running but cannot be charged to one project — rent, accounting, IT. It belongs to the applicant and its agreement, and no amount field on a record is one.

The sector a program will fund. The difficulty is vocabulary: two portals can describe the same slice of the economy with names that never meet, so a plain keyword search misses programs that fit.

The date a record’s fields were last confirmed against the grantmaker’s own page. It is the date the record was checked, not the date it was created and not the date the source page was edited.

A short first approach to a funder — usually one to three pages — asking whether a full proposal would be welcome. Where a funder requires one, it is a gate: no invitation, no application, and its deadline is the deadline that matters.

The window after a period of performance ends in which a recipient may pay off obligations already incurred. Federal awards commonly allow 120 days. Nothing new may be obligated in it — it is for settling, not for spending.

The rule that federal award funds may not be used to influence federal awarding decisions or legislation, and that any lobbying paid for with other money in connection with an award must be disclosed. It restricts the funds, not the organisation.

Money the recipient must contribute alongside the award, expressed as a ratio or a percentage. A program requiring no match stores "No" rather than an empty field, because "no match required" and "the notice did not say" are different facts and only one of them is safe to plan around.

The base most negotiated indirect cost rates are applied to: total direct costs minus equipment, capital expenditure, rent, tuition, participant support, and the part of each subaward over $50,000. Applying a rate to the wrong base is the most expensive arithmetic error in a grant budget.

Additional time to finish a project with no additional money. It moves the end of the period of performance so that unspent funds can still be obligated, and it usually requires a request before the award ends rather than after.

The document an agency publishes to announce a funding opportunity and set its rules: who may apply, how much, by when. It is not a field on a record — it is the document every field on a record was read from, and the record links it and dates the reading.

Money a company receives without giving up equity — grants, prizes, most tax credits, and revenue. It is the reason grant programmes matter to startups at all, and it describes a funding source rather than any property of a specific opportunity.

What a field reads when the source did not publish it. It is a distinct third state, separate from zero and from no — a program that never mentioned a match has not told you a match is unnecessary.

The document that actually awards the money and states the terms you are agreeing to — amount, period, conditions, reporting schedule. It arrives after selection and it is the binding instrument; the notice you applied against is not.

A binding commitment to spend — a signed contract, a placed order, a payroll liability incurred. Costs must be obligated inside the period of performance even if they are paid after it, which is what makes the last month of an award a scheduling problem.

The date a program begins accepting applications. It matters most on forecasted programs, where a deadline is announced before the window exists, and on short cycles where opening and closing are only weeks apart.

A private foundation that spends most of its income running its own programmes rather than making grants — a museum, a research institute, a reserve. Its assets look like a grantmaker’s and its grant budget usually does not.

An organisation that receives a federal award and passes part of it to others as subawards — most often a state agency, sometimes a university or a large nonprofit. To a subrecipient it is the funder in every practical sense, and it is the funder our record names.

The rule that a private foundation must distribute roughly five percent of the average market value of its investment assets each year, or face an excise tax. It is why a foundation’s asset figure is a rough forecast of its future giving.

Assessment of applications by people with relevant expertise, usually external to the funder, scoring against published criteria. It is how most competitive research and federal programmes decide, and it is why the criteria in a notice are worth reading closely.

The narrative and data report on what a funded project achieved against what it promised. On a multi-year award it is what the next budget period’s continuation decision is made on.

The window during which funded work may happen and costs may be charged. Spending before it opens or after it closes is normally unallowable, however clearly the work served the project.

The identifier a state or federal portal assigns to one opportunity. It is how a record can be traced back to the exact source listing rather than to a search result, and it is the field that makes a citation checkable instead of merely plausible.

Written permission a recipient must obtain before doing something the award restricts — changing scope, replacing the principal investigator, moving money between budget categories beyond a threshold, or extending the end date. Doing it first and asking later is a finding.

A tax-exempt organisation funded from one source — a family, an individual, a company — that makes grants rather than raising money. It must distribute a minimum share of its assets each year and it files a 990-PF, which is why its giving is unusually visible.

The rules a federal recipient must follow when buying goods and services with award money — documented competition above stated thresholds, written selection criteria, and a conflict-of-interest policy covering the people who decide.

Money a funded project itself earns — fees charged to participants, sales of something the award paid to produce, rent on award-funded property. Most federal awards require it to be tracked and spent on the same project, and no field on an opportunity records it.

The person at a funder who manages a portfolio of grants and can tell you, before you write anything, whether your project is in scope. On a foundation programme that conversation is worth more than any amount of research.

The total a grant program has allocated across every award it will make in one cycle. It is not an amount any single applicant can receive, and on a typical program it is ten to thirty times larger than the largest individual award.

A 501(c)(3) organisation that draws support from the general public or from many sources, rather than from one donor. It is the default classification a new charity seeks, and it carries lighter rules than a private foundation.

What counts toward a private foundation’s annual payout requirement: grants paid, reasonable administrative expenses of grantmaking, and certain asset purchases used directly for charitable purposes. Investment management costs do not count.

An amount an auditor cannot accept as properly charged — because it looks unallowable, because required documentation is missing, or because the charge appears unreasonable. Questioned is not the same as disallowed; the agency decides.

An organisation that has actually been awarded money under a program, with the amount and the year it received it. It is history rather than opportunity, and it is the best available evidence of what a funder really funds.

How long award records must be kept after closeout — generally three years from the final financial report, longer where litigation, an audit or a property disposition is unresolved. The clock starts at the report, not at the end of the work.

How long it takes to become able to submit at all — entity validation, portal accounts, authorised representative roles. On federal programmes it is measured in weeks, and it is the most common reason a viable application is never filed.

A disbursement method where the recipient spends first and is repaid against receipts. It changes the cash-flow requirement of an award more than any other field: a $500,000 reimbursement grant requires an organisation that can carry $500,000 of spending before the first payment arrives.

The dates on which reports are due across the life of an award — financial, performance, and final. It is set in the award rather than in the notice, and missing a date on one award can block payments on others.

Submitting a revised version of an application that was not funded. Some programmes formally support it and expect a response to prior reviewer comments; others treat every submission as new and limit how many times you may try.

The published standards an application is scored against, usually with weights — need, approach, capacity, evaluation, budget. Where a notice publishes them, they are the most useful paragraphs in it, and they are prose rather than data.

A funder’s published call for applications, setting out what it will fund, who may apply, how much is available and by when. It is the private and state-sector counterpart of a federal NOFO, and it is the document a grant record is built from.

The check a funder makes on an applicant’s financial stability, past performance and audit history before awarding, and the parallel check a pass-through makes on a subrecipient. It can add conditions to an award rather than block it.

An application process accepted continuously, with no fixed close date. It is stored as "Rolling" rather than as an empty deadline field, because a blank deadline reads as a missing date and rolling is a stated fact about how the program runs.

Registration in the federal System for Award Management, required before an organisation can be paid a federal award and renewed every year. It is a property of the applicant rather than of the opportunity, so no record here carries a SAM field.

The federal registration system every entity must be active in before it can receive a federal award, and the home of the assistance listings catalogue and the exclusions list. Registration is free, must be renewed annually, and takes weeks rather than days the first time.

A federal programme that sets aside a share of eleven agencies’ research budgets for small US businesses, in phases: a feasibility award, then a development award, then commercialisation with no SBIR money attached. It is the largest source of non-dilutive research capital available to a company.

A small grant to start something — test an idea, run a pilot, get a project to the point where it can be funded properly. Award sizes are typically in the thousands, and the review is usually lighter than the money is small.

An organisation-wide audit required for a year in which a non-federal entity expends federal awards above the threshold in 2 CFR 200. It is a fact about a recipient’s own fiscal year rather than about any one programme, and nothing here can compute it for you.

A funder visiting an applicant or recipient in person — before an award as part of due diligence, or during one as monitoring. On foundation programmes an invitation is usually a good sign; on federal awards it is routine oversight.

A cap on how large an applicant may be, expressed as annual revenue, headcount, or operating budget. It disqualifies more applicants quietly than any other clause, because it is rarely part of a program’s headline description.

A funder’s written instruction to halt work on a specific award while an issue is resolved. It pauses rather than ends the award, and costs incurred after it arrives are generally not reimbursable.

A federal programme like SBIR except that it requires a formal partnership between a small business and a research institution, with a minimum share of the work assigned to each. The small business must lead and hold the award.

Money a first recipient passes on to another organisation to carry out part of the funded work. The original funder’s rules travel with it, which is why a state grant can carry federal obligations.

An organisation that receives part of an award from a pass-through entity and carries out part of the programme itself. It is decided by what the organisation does, not by what the agreement is called — a subrecipient makes programmatic decisions; a contractor delivers goods on the open market.

What a pass-through entity must do to satisfy itself that its subrecipients are using federal money properly — risk assessment before the subaward, monitoring during it, and follow-up on any findings. The obligation is the pass-through’s, and it is not delegable.

Using grant funds to replace money an organisation was already spending on an activity instead of adding to it. Many programmes prohibit it outright. It is a rule about your budget, stated in prose in the notice, and it is not a field on a record.

Additional money added to an award already in progress, for extra scope, an unexpected cost, or a specific initiative the agency wants existing recipients to take up. Only current recipients can apply, which makes most supplements invisible to a public catalogue.

A temporary bar on receiving federal awards, imposed immediately on adequate evidence while a matter is investigated. It takes effect before any finding, which is what makes it different in kind from debarment.

Ending an award before its period of performance is over. It can be by the funder for cause or for convenience, by mutual agreement, or by the recipient giving notice, and each route has different consequences for costs already incurred.

The standard rules attached to an award, usually incorporated by reference rather than printed in the agreement — a funder’s general terms, plus any specific conditions added for this recipient or this project.

Everything a funded project will cost, from every source, including the award and whatever the recipient contributes. It is a property of an application rather than of an opportunity, and no amount field on an opportunity record is one.

What a program has actually been granting, as distinct from the most it is allowed to grant. A ceiling says what is permitted; a typical award says what happened. Most notices publish one or the other, rarely both.

The twelve-character identifier SAM.gov issues to an organisation registered to receive federal awards; it replaced the DUNS number in April 2022. It identifies an applicant, and this database holds no applicant records, so no field in it is a UEI.

A cost a grant will not pay for, either because the government-wide rules exclude it or because the programme’s own notice does. Lobbying, fundraising, entertainment, fines and bad debt are unallowable across almost every federal programme regardless of what the notice says.

The government-wide rulebook for federal awards — administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements in one place. Almost every federal notice cites it, and almost every argument about whether a cost is allowable is settled inside it.

The federal government’s public record of what it actually spent — awards made, to whom, under which programme, for how much. It answers the question a listing of open opportunities cannot: who has won this money before.

What the award may actually be spent on. A program can be a perfect fit on subject, geography and organisation type and still be unusable because it will not pay for the thing you need — most often salaries, rent or equipment.

How a record’s last check was performed — whether the source page was re-read in full, or compared against a stored fingerprint of its previous state. Two records with the same verification date can rest on different evidence.