Do you ever wish that people were as excited about your work as you are? Disappointed that they don’t “get” what you’ve been able to accomplish? Afraid that what you’ve done and learned will go unappreciated – or worse — unacted-upon? Remember these four simple words…

“Tell me a story.”

Stories are powerful tools. They give your work meaning beyond merely sharing the results in a report. Grant managers seeking to highlight their accomplishments should look for ways to tell performance stories – bringing grant impact to life through narratives that guide an audience through all the elements of your project and leave them with a clear sense of what should happen next.

The best performance stories contain these elements:

• Context – what were the project’s purpose, goals, objectives, and needs?
• Outcomes – what happened (both intended and unintended)?
• Achievements – how did participants benefit and how did you make progress?
• Lessons learned – was it the right approach, and if not, how did you respond?
• Research quality – what assurances do you have that the story checks out?

Of course, a story is meaningless without an audience. Before you tell your story, think about who needs to hear it and why. Keep in mind that different audiences might have different needs; a federal agency looking to achieve broad programmatic goals may not be as close to the specific work as those with whom you collaborate – and certainly not as invested as direct beneficiaries of the effort. Using logic models or other techniques that link desired outcomes to more specific project efforts and interventions can help you ensure that your performance story is reaching your audience(s).

Because context is important, no two performance stories are alike – and should not be told the same:

• Sometimes, you will tell your story in straightforward, plain language so an audience unfamiliar with their work can “find their way in.”
• Other times, you might engage in a dialog with your audience, allowing them to “choose their own adventure” as they learn more about the work.
• You might even use testimonials so that the work – and the people affected – can speak for themselves.

Keep in mind also that performance stories also do not stand alone: with each one you tell, you are not only describing your current project but also setting the scene for future work – building an “arc” that gives context to everything you have done and will continue to do.

We’d love to hear your story – and help you tell it to the people who need to hear it most.

Nicole Togno and Tim Podkul are a part of the Evidence and Insights division of Fors Marsh, a full-service consulting firm that specializes in building evidence about grant programs. www.forsmarsh.com

I jumped headfirst into the grants field, unsure of the breadth of responsibilities and expectations. My goal was to find a career that gave me purpose and variety. I wanted to feel good about the work I did, knowing in some way it gave back to my community. Similarly, I knew I needed a career that provided me continual opportunities to learn. I did not know how perfectly a career in grants administration aligned with those goals.

Starting out, I expected I would be able to neatly plan each day and complete my task list by the end of the day. As a college student, I thrived on schedules, organization, and predictability. I expected the business world and grant administration to be similar – structured and relatively predictable. After all, there is a grant lifecycle that is consistent across all projects – pre-award, award, post-award. I expected a singular, comprehensive guidance for all federal agencies and all funding sources.

As any seasoned grants professional will tell you, the grants administration profession is anything but predictable. Over time, I learned the neatly planned “to-do” list gets tossed to respond to unplanned needs and issues. There was no one comprehensive guidance. Many federal agencies had nuances in terms of compliance, monitoring, and administrative rules.

What I did find was variety and many opportunities to grow. Each day, each new grant program and new funding agency provided new problems to solve and new opportunities to expand my grants knowledge base.

Over my approximately 17 years in grants administration, even with the variety of projects and grant programs I’ve worked on, I’ve consistently focused on honing the same set of responsibilities as a grants manager. Some of those responsibilities and things a new grants manager in the profession could expect to do include:

• Administer grants and agreements.
• Negotiate terms and conditions of grants and agreements to include costs, schedules, and oversight/compliance responsibilities.
• Develop and implement grant management policies, procedures, and resources.
• Provide technical assistance to program managers, recipients, and subrecipients.
• Serve as a liaison between grantor agencies, recipients/subrecipients, external partners, and others to help interpret regulations and award documents, and resolve issues that may arise.
• Conduct risk assessments and business reviews.
• Solicit applications or proposals for funding.
• Monitor recipients/subrecipients with all terms and conditions of awards.
• Review and process payment requests, ensuring reasonability, eligibility and allocability of costs.
• Conduct final review of completed awards and process closeouts.

If you’re just starting out in grants administration, buckle up for an unpredictable adventure where you’ll get to learn federal agencies and grant programs, and delve into the Uniform Guidance. Many of your days, you may toss out your neatly planned to-do list to focus on the unexpected issue of the day.  For those days full of the unexpected, I encourage you to follow these simple steps:

• Pause.  If unexpected situations cause motivation to make quick decisions, take a pause. Take a walk. Grab a coffee.  Give yourself an opportunity to think.
• Evaluate.  Focus on the outcome. Think about resources available to you to help achieve the desired outcome.  No options are bad options. Some may be a stretch but write them all down.
• Collaborate.  Share your outcome and your options. Collaborate on the feasibility of the options. Narrow down to the best/most practical options.
• Implement. Make a final decision and commit to your choice. Implement confidently.
• Debrief. Take time to focus on the success of handling the unexpected. Evaluate your resolution of the unexpected – what went well, what could be improved next time?

If I could give one parting thought to a new grants manager, it would be to learn as much of every aspect of grants management, and to continue to seek opportunities (through training, conferences, certifications and mentorships) to further your knowledge base. The grants administration field is vast and provides a lot of variety. Find a grant program you’re passionate about and go be great!

Emily Beckham is a Program Manager at the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) and a Certified Grant Management Specialist (CGMS). In her role at NCTCOG she serves as the Title VI Coordinator and oversees activities related to contracting, procurement, risk and compliance.

In March 2023, NGMA hosted the webinar “Creating a Risk Based Monitoring System” with speakers Tiffany Kesslar and Madelaine Cleghorn, attorneys specialized in federal grants management and education law. Attendees learned about risk assessment requirements under the Uniform Grant Guidance (“UGG”) and how to develop both an internal and external (or subrecipient) risk assessment. The presenters also walked attendees through the step-by-step process of creating and conducting a risk assessment using an example from the Indiana Department of Education. Missed the webinar? View the recording HERE. (Member login required)

________________________________________________________________
Risk assessments are required at all levels of grants management. Federal awarding agencies are required to conduct a pre-award evaluation of an applicant’s risk—the results of which may impact an applicant’s eligibility for an award or prompt the awarding agency to issue specific conditions with an award. Additionally, pass-through entities (PTEs) are required to evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. However, PTEs may conduct this assessment either pre- or post-award. In addition, the UGG requires that all non-federal entities (NFEs) monitor and evaluate their own internal controls, which include a risk assessment to ensure compliance with applicable rules and progress towards program objectives. As such, at every level of the grant application and administration process, it is critical that NFEs establish a robust risk assessment framework.

The key risk assessment principles, as identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), include:
1) developing clear objectives to enable the identification of risks and risk tolerance levels; 2) identifying risks to achievement of objectives across the entity and analyzing risks as a basis for determining how the risks should be managed; 3) considering the potential for fraud; and 4) identifying and assessing changes that could significantly impact the system. See Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, United States Government Accountability Office, September 2014, at 34-43. While internal and external risk assessments include different elements, the baseline requirement is the same: are there elements within the recipient’s system that can prevent them from being successful in meeting program goals and general compliance requirements? Then the NFE conducting the risk assessment must determine whether additional action is needed to prevent those risks from occurring.

When conducting an external risk assessment for the purpose of subrecipient monitoring, PTEs should include, at a minimum, a review of the NFE’s grant systems (financial management, procurement, and inventory management) and a review of how the entity ensures the allowability of costs (or plans to review it). PTEs should also review other factors, including the amount of funding a subrecipient receives, prior monitoring or audit findings, repeat findings, staff turnover, changes in laws or regulations, new technology, financial stability, and lack of policies and procedures. Once the review is completed and a subrecipient’s level of risk is identified, then the PTE can determine how much oversight and subrecipient monitoring is required in order to ensure compliance. This could include additional reporting, desk reviews, or even in-person monitoring visits.

The goal of the internal risk assessment is to make sure there are enough controls in place to prevent any identified risks from affecting the program goals and objectives and/or ensuring corrective actions are timely taken to address any identified areas of noncompliance. In the case study presented for the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), the speakers outlined the five steps used in developing and implementing an internal risk assessment. The first step in creating a risk assessment tool for IDOE was information gathering. This step involved gathering documentation and data from IDOE, including existing policies and procedures and recent audit and monitoring reports, as well as conducting interviews with key staff who could speak to each step of IDOE’s grants administration process. Step two was the identification of the areas of risk to be evaluated. For IDOE, the areas of risk ultimately fell into five categories: operations, financial management, allowability, procurement and asset management, and compliance. Step three was the identification of additional documentation or information needed from IDOE to assess each risk factor identified in step two. Step four was the development of the scoring rubric. This scoring rubric was unique to each risk factor evaluated and factored in things such as the likelihood of the risk occurring, the potential impact, and internal IDOE priorities. Finally, step five was the scoring of the risk assessment. Using all the documentation collected and information from IDOE staff, each risk factor was evaluated using the scoring rubric developed in step four and color coded to reflect high, moderate, and low areas of risk. In one column of the completed risk assessment, the speakers also identified specific risk mitigating strategies that IDOE could use as next steps to correct the areas of high risk identified in the assessment.

Creating and conducting a risk assessment—whether internally or for subrecipient monitoring—is only half of the equation. The second half involves prioritizing highest areas of risk and taking affirmative steps to correct any areas of noncompliance. Two action items that will almost always mitigate risk for grantees or subrecipients are 1) to develop and/or update your non-federal entity’s written grants administration policies and procedures to align with current practices and applicable rules; and 2) to conduct regular trainings for staff involved with grants administration on those written policies and procedures as well as general training on requirements under the UGG. A risk-based monitoring system can be a powerful tool for NFEs to evaluate their own internal controls and/or guide subrecipient monitoring. While there are any number of ways to conduct a risk assessment, the most important step is the first one—the decision to get started!