53 matching grants
USDA AFRI Competitive Grants - Nanotechnology for Agriculture and Wildfire Management
USDA AFRI Competitive Grants - Nanotechnology for Agriculture and Wildfire Management is sponsored by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Supports integrated research on autonomous tech for forest health, wildfire detection/suppression. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat January 1, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates $50,000 - $1M+ Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Universities, nonprofits, consortia If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with USDA AFRI Competitive Grants - Nanotechnology for Agriculture and Wildfire Management.
Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Program
Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Program is sponsored by U.S. Department of Education. Supports innovative education practices, including development of AI-integrated curricula and teacher training for postsecondary institutions to address technology-driven workforce demands. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat January 1, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates $50,000 - $12,000,000 Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Institutions of higher education, nonprofits, state/local governments If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Program.
Transformative Climate Communities Implementation Grants
Transformative Climate Communities Implementation Grants is sponsored by California Strategic Growth Council. Funding for planning, development, and implementation of parks, green infrastructure, workforce development, and community-led projects addressing climate impacts. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat January 1, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates Varies up to $137M total Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Nonprofits, local governments, multi-partner efforts in California disadvantaged communities If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with Transformative Climate Communities Implementation Grants.
NSF 25-519: Engineering Design (ED)
NSF 25-519: Engineering Design (ED) is sponsored by National Science Foundation. Supports fundamental research in engineering design methods, tools, and processes, including biomimetic and bio-inspired design systems for industrial applications. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat January 16, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates $200,000 - $1,500,000 Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Universities, colleges, nonprofits with 501(c)(3) status If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with NSF 25-519: Engineering Design (ED).
Grants to Organizations
Grants to Organizations is sponsored by Graham Foundation. Supports innovative projects in the fields of architecture, design, and the built environment, including educational initiatives advancing design thinking and pedagogy. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat February 25, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates $10,000 - $100,000 Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Nonprofit organizations, tax-exempt organizations, and public entities in the US with projects aligning to design and architecture If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with Grants to Organizations.
Lead Hazard Reduction Capacity Building Grant Program
Lead Hazard Reduction Capacity Building Grant Program is sponsored by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Grants to build capacity for identifying and controlling lead hazards in housing, integrating into housing repair and weatherization programs for healthier built environments. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat February 26, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates $1,000,000 - $2,500,000 Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: States, tribes, local governments; nonprofits may partner If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with Lead Hazard Reduction Capacity Building Grant Program.
NSF 25-558: Environmental Sustainability
NSF 25-558: Environmental Sustainability is sponsored by National Science Foundation. Funds research on sustainable engineering designs, with emphasis on biomimetic approaches mimicking natural systems for industrial efficiency. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat February 28, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates $300,000 - $1,200,000 Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Academic institutions, nonprofits If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with NSF 25-558: Environmental Sustainability.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Funding Opportunity Announcement
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Funding Opportunity Announcement is sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office. Focuses on hydrogen production, storage, and applications in aerospace, suitable for developing safe hydrogen systems for ultra-high altitude aerostats. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat February 28, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: For-profits, nonprofits, universities, state/local governments If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Funding Opportunity Announcement.
SCDRP Grants
SCDRP Grants is sponsored by Southeast Climate Division Regional Program. Funding for projects focused on built environment, climate and environment, housing, transportation, and related areas improving community resilience. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat March 3, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates Varies Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Nonprofits, government entities in Southeast US selecting one focus area like built environment If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with SCDRP Grants.
Livability Initiatives
Livability Initiatives is sponsored by AARP. Funding for community livability improvements such as crosswalks, benches, bike lanes, housing designs, and public space enhancements that overcome policy barriers and foster collaborations. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit. For planning purposes, treat March 4, 2026 as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability. Current published award information indicates Varies Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration. Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Nonprofits partnering with communities for livable community projects If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk. A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with Livability Initiatives.
Not sure which grants to apply for?
Use our free grant finder to search active federal funding opportunities by agency, eligibility, and deadline.
Nonprofits Grant Writing Guides
Federal Grants for Nonprofits in 2026: The Complete Guide
A comprehensive guide to finding and winning federal grants for nonprofit organizations in 2026, covering EPA, USDA, HUD, and other agency programs.
Read articleEnvironmental Justice Grants for Community Organizations in 2026
How community organizations can access EPA environmental justice grants, community change grants, and other federal funding for environmental equity in 2026.
Read articleHow to Find Grants for Your Nonprofit: Free Tools and Databases
Practical guide to finding nonprofit grants using Grants.gov, SAM.gov, Candid, state databases, and federal portals, plus tips for building a pipeline.
Read articleGrant Writing for Nonprofits: The Complete Playbook
Comprehensive nonprofit grant writing guide covering federal and foundation proposals, budgets, logic models, letters of support, and evaluation plans.
Read articleFirst-Time Federal Grant Tips for Small Nonprofits
Practical advice for small nonprofit leaders applying for their first federal grant, covering registration, budgeting, and common mistakes to avoid.
Read articleEPA Environmental Justice Grants in 2026: What Nonprofits Need to Know
Federal EJ funding has shifted dramatically. Here is what community organizations need to understand about EPA grants in 2026 and how to adapt.
Read article