How Many Grants Should Your Nonprofit Apply For? The Answer Might Surprise You.
- Sep 26, 2024
- 10 min read
Updated: Mar 4
More applications don't mean more funding. For small nonprofits, chasing volume is often what leads to burnout—and declined proposals.
Most organizations are better off pursuing 5–15 grants a year, done well, than drowning in a pipeline they can't manage. Here's how to find your number.
Introduction: The Question Every Small Nonprofit Leader Asks (and Why the Answer Matters More Than You Think)
"How many grants should we apply for this year?"
If you're leading a small nonprofit, you've probably asked this question—or had a board member ask you—more times than you can count.
Maybe you're asking because you're trying to set realistic development goals. Maybe your board is pushing for more grant activity. Maybe you're wondering if you're doing enough compared to other organizations your size.
Or maybe you're drowning in grant applications and desperately wondering if there's a better way.
Here's the uncomfortable truth that most grant advice won't tell you:
More applications does not equal more funding.
In fact, for small nonprofits operating with limited staff and tight budgets, high grant volume is often the fastest path to burnout, declined proposals, damaged funder relationships, and organizational chaos.
The question "how many grants should we apply for?" seems straightforward, but it's actually one of the most misunderstood questions in nonprofit development.
The answer depends far less on what other organizations do or what ambitious revenue goals might suggest, and far more on your actual organizational capacity, strategic focus, and ability to follow through with excellence.
This post provides a realistic, capacity-based framework for determining your optimal grant portfolio—one that maximizes funding while protecting your team, your programs, and your sustainability.
Background: Why This Question Is So Fraught (and Why Most Guidance Doesn't Fit Small Nonprofits)
The Dangerous Assumptions Underlying Most Grant Advice
When you search for guidance on how many grants to pursue, much of what you'll find assumes a set of conditions that simply don't exist in most small nonprofits:
Dedicated development staff. The advice assumes you have a grants manager, development coordinator, or at minimum a full-time development director whose sole job is fundraising. Many articles casually reference "your grants team" as if that's universal.
Substantial operating budgets. Recommendations often come from organizations running $5M, $10M, or $50M budgets where grants represent one component of a diversified revenue strategy.
Specialized roles and division of labor. The guidance presumes someone writes grants, someone else manages data, another person handles reporting, and a development director oversees strategy. Each person has a clearly defined lane.
Established systems and infrastructure. There's an assumption of grants management software, CRM systems, dedicated financial tracking for restricted funds, and formalized processes.
Flexibility and margin. The advice often assumes you can test strategies, absorb failures, pivot quickly, and experiment without existential risk.
How Small Nonprofits Actually Operate
The reality for most small nonprofits looks completely different:
You don't have a development department—you have an executive director who handles grants along with ten other responsibilities, or maybe a program director who writes grants on top of running programs, or a part-time development person stretched impossibly thin.
Your grants aren't supplemental funding—they often represent 40-60% of your operating budget, making each application strategically critical rather than speculative.
There's no division of labor—the same person (often the ED) identifies opportunities, gathers program data, writes narratives, develops budgets, coordinates with board members for letters of support, submits applications, manages funder communication, and writes reports. Every grant touches multiple roles because you're wearing all the hats.
Systems are minimal or nonexistent—you might track deadlines in a spreadsheet or even just email reminders. Grant files live in folders with inconsistent naming conventions. Reporting deadlines sometimes catch you by surprise.
There's zero margin for error—missing a renewal deadline or submitting a weak report doesn't just mean losing one funding stream; it can jeopardize 15-20% of your annual budget and create a genuine organizational crisis.
What the Research Actually Says
Organizations like the Grant Professionals Association, National Council of Nonprofits, and Nonprofit Finance Fund have studied what actually drives grant success. Their research consistently emphasizes strategic selectivity over volume, especially for organizations with limited staff capacity.
A landmark study by the Bridgespan Group found that high-performing small nonprofits don't win more grants than their peers—they win a higher percentage of the grants they apply for. The difference isn't effort or ambition; it's focus and execution quality.
Similarly, research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy shows that foundation program officers consistently rate "organizational capacity" and "quality of past performance" as more influential than proposal writing quality when making funding decisions. This means your track record with existing funders—built through excellent reporting and relationship management—matters more than constantly chasing new opportunities.
The message is clear: For small nonprofits, the path to grant success isn't applying to more opportunities. It's applying strategically to the right opportunities and executing exceptionally well.
But the leading narrative in nonprofit circles often still treats grant volume as a proxy for development sophistication. Board members ask "how many grants did we submit this quarter?" as if more is inherently better. Strategic plans set targets like "pursue 25 new grant opportunities annually" without any analysis of whether that's remotely feasible or, well, strategic.
This volume-focused mindset creates tremendous pressure on small nonprofit leaders who are already stretched beyond capacity.
A Realistic, Capacity-Based Framework for Determining Your Grant Portfolio
The Realistic Range for Most Small Nonprofits
For most nonprofits operating under $1M in annual revenue, a realistic and sustainable annual grant portfolio is typically 5–15 total grants (including both renewals and new applications).
Let's be clear about what this means:
This includes all grant activity: new applications, renewals, and any amendments or continuation applications for multi-year awards
For many small organizations, the realistic number is closer to 5-10 grants annually, particularly if you lack dedicated development staff
Organizations on the higher end (12-15 grants) typically have either fractional grant support, a very part-time development coordinator, or an exceptionally well-organized ED with strong systems
This range typically shocks nonprofit leaders when they first hear it.
You might be thinking: "That seems impossibly low. We have a $500K budget—how can we possibly fund that with only 8 grants?"
The answer is by pursuing the right grants strategically: a mix of larger multi-year awards, reliable renewals, and carefully selected new opportunities that genuinely align with your work.
But the Right Number Depends on Several Critical Factors
The specific number that's right for your organization depends on honestly assessing these key variables:
1. Grant Complexity and Funder Type
Not all grants are created equal. The effort required varies dramatically:
Low complexity (5-10 hours per application):
Local community foundation grants ($5K-$25K)
Corporate giving programs with simple applications
Small family foundation grants
Renewal applications to longtime funders who know you well
Grants requiring only a 2-3 page letter proposal
Medium complexity (15-30 hours per application):
Regional or state foundation grants ($25K-$100K)
First-time applications to institutional funders
Grants requiring full proposals with detailed budgets, logic models, and evaluation plans
Multi-year funding requests
Applications requiring collaboration or partnership letters
High complexity (40-80+ hours per application):
Federal grants (SAMHSA, DOJ, DOE, etc.)
Large foundation grants ($100K+) with extensive application requirements
Capacity-building or organizational development grants
Applications requiring significant data analysis or evaluation design
Grants with mandatory pre-application consultations, letters of intent, and multi-stage processes
Practical example: You could potentially manage 12 low-complexity local grants in the time it would take to complete 2-3 federal applications. A portfolio of 10 grants might mean 8 renewals and 2 new medium-complexity applications—or it might mean 5 renewals, 3 medium-complexity applications, and 2 low-complexity opportunities. The mix matters enormously.
Strategic implication: When calculating your capacity, weight grants by complexity, not just count. A federal grant "counts" as 3-4 applications in terms of staff time and organizational energy.
2. Reporting Requirements and Ongoing Management Burden
Every grant you win creates ongoing obligations that consume future capacity. Before adding grants to your portfolio, honestly assess the reporting burden:
Minimal reporting burden:
Annual reports only, due 30+ days after grant period ends
Simple narrative and financial summary (2-5 pages)
Metrics you already collect for other purposes
Flexible format and timeline
Moderate reporting burden:
Quarterly or semi-annual reports
Standardized templates with specific data requirements
Site visits or check-in calls
Photo/story documentation
Budget vs. actual tracking
Heavy reporting burden:
Monthly reporting requirements
Detailed participant-level data collection
Pre/post assessments or evaluation components
Complex financial tracking or time allocation documentation
Multiple interim and final reports
Mandatory attendance at funder convenings or trainings
The hidden cost: Organizations frequently underestimate how reporting requirements for existing grants reduce capacity for new applications. If you're spending 10-15 hours per month on grant reporting, that's 120-180 hours annually that isn't available for writing new proposals.
Critical question to ask before applying: "If we win this grant, can we fulfill the reporting requirements without compromising our existing grant obligations or program quality?"
Sometimes the most strategic decision is declining to pursue a grant whose reporting burden exceeds your capacity—even if you'd likely win it.
3. Staff Time and Who's Actually Doing the Work
Be brutally honest about available capacity:
If the ED is handling grants while also managing programs, fundraising, board relations, HR, and operations:
Realistic capacity: 5-8 grants annually (heavily weighted toward renewals)
This assumes grants consume roughly 10-15% of the ED's time
Any more creates unsustainable pressure and quality suffers
If you have a part-time development person (10-20 hours/week) who also handles donor relations, events, and communications:
Realistic capacity: 8-12 grants annually
This assumes grants are roughly 50% of their role
Quality remains high because there's dedicated focus
If you have fractional grant support or a dedicated grants coordinator (even part-time):
Realistic capacity: 10-15 grants annually
Systems and specialization create efficiency
Quality and consistency improve markedly
The multiplication factor: Also consider who else grants touch.
Does your finance person spend hours pulling financial data for each application?
Does your program director need to provide detailed metrics?
Do board members need to review and sign off?
The hidden staff time across your organization multiplies quickly.
Honest self-assessment questions:
How many hours weekly can realistically be dedicated to grants?
Is that person already at capacity with other responsibilities?
What would need to be dropped or delegated to make room for more grants?
At what point does adding grants compromise quality of existing work?
4. The Strategic Value of Renewal Cycles
Here's one of the most important insights about grant portfolio management: Renewals almost always deliver better ROI than new applications.
Why renewals are more valuable:
Higher success rates: You typically know a renewal is likely before you apply, based on your relationship and performance
Less time required: You're updating rather than creating from scratch; the funder already knows your organization
Larger awards over time: Funders often increase support to organizations they trust
Relationship deepening: Multi-year relationships lead to increased flexibility, capacity funding, and introductions to other funders
Revenue predictability: Renewals create the stable funding base that allows you to plan strategically
The capacity equation: If you have 6 strong renewals annually, you might only have bandwidth for 2-4 new applications—and that's fine. In fact, it's excellent. Those 6 renewals likely represent more total revenue with far less organizational effort than chasing 10-12 new, speculative opportunities.
Strategic shift: Instead of constantly hunting for new funders, focus on stewarding existing funders so well that renewals become nearly automatic. Then you can be highly selective about which new opportunities merit the significant investment required.
Red flag: If you're losing funders as fast as you're gaining them—achieving 12 applications annually but only 2-3 are renewals—your real problem isn't application volume. It's retention, which points to issues with program delivery, reporting quality, or relationship management.
5. Portfolio Quality Over Quantity
A smaller, well-managed grant portfolio almost always outperforms a large, chaotic one.
What "well-managed" means:
Applications are submitted early, with time for review and refinement
You have strong relationships with program officers and understand funder priorities deeply
Proposals are tailored specifically to each funder rather than being generic
Your win rate is 40%+ because you're applying strategically to aligned opportunities
Reporting is timely, thorough, and positions you well for renewal
You track all deadlines, communications, and relationship touches systematically
Funders describe you as reliable, responsive, and professional
What a chaotic portfolio looks like:
Applications are rushed, submitted at the last minute or slightly late
You're applying to funders you know little about, hoping something sticks
Proposals are largely copy-paste with minimal customization
Win rate is below 20% because you're casting a wide net
Reports are late or thin, creating anxiety about renewal
Deadlines are tracked inconsistently; things occasionally fall through cracks
Funders see you as overwhelmed and question your organizational capacity
The math of quality:
Let's compare two scenarios:
Scenario A (high volume, low quality):
20 applications submitted
15% success rate = 3 awards
Average grant size: $15K (smaller because these were mostly speculative, poor-fit applications)
Total revenue: $45K
Staff time invested: ~300 hours (15 hours per application average)
Revenue per hour: $150
Scenario B (strategic volume, high quality):
8 applications submitted (5 renewals, 3 new)
75% success rate = 6 awards (all 5 renewals + 1 new)
Average grant size: $25K (larger because funders trust you and you're pursuing better-aligned opportunities)
Total revenue: $150K
Staff time invested: ~120 hours (15 hours per application, but renewals take less time)
Revenue per hour: $1,250
This isn't hypothetical. These patterns play out consistently across small nonprofits.
The Hidden Variables That Also Affect Capacity
Beyond the major factors above, several other variables influence your optimal grant number:
Organizational stage: Brand new nonprofits typically need to start small (3-5 grants) while building systems and track record. More established organizations can handle larger portfolios.
Mission complexity: Organizations with straightforward missions (food pantry, literacy tutoring) can often apply to more grants than those with complex, nuanced missions that require extensive explanation.
Geographic scope: Local organizations can often pursue more grants efficiently because funders and application processes are familiar. National organizations may face more varied and complex applications.
Fiscal health: Financially stable organizations can be more selective; those facing cash flow crises may feel pressure to apply more broadly (though this often backfires).
Available matching funds or in-kind: Grants requiring substantial match consume capacity differently than those without match requirements.
Conclusion: The Goal Isn't More Grants—It's Building a Pipeline You Can Actually Maintain
The question "how many grants should we apply for?" deserves a much more thoughtful answer than "as many as possible" or even "whatever we need to hit our revenue target."
The real goal isn't to apply for more grants. It's to build a grant portfolio you can maintain with excellence while protecting your team, delivering quality programs, and sustaining your mission long-term.
For most small nonprofits, this means:
Fewer total applications than conventional wisdom suggests (5-15 annually for most small organizations)
Heavy emphasis on renewals (these should represent 50-70% of your annual grant activity)
Extreme selectivity about new opportunities (pursue only those with strong alignment and realistic success probability)
Honest capacity assessment (what can your actual humans actually accomplish while still doing their other critical work?)
Quality over quantity in every aspect (better to submit 6 excellent applications than 15 rushed ones)
This approach requires courage. You'll have board members who push for more activity. You'll see grant opportunities you have to decline because they don't fit. You'll feel the anxiety of focus—putting your eggs in fewer, better baskets.
But organizations that make this shift consistently report that it's transformational.
They're raising the same or more revenue with significantly less effort and stress. They're winning more. Their funder relationships are stronger. Their programs are better. Their teams are healthier.
Your community needs you to be here for the long haul—not burning bright for two years before flaming out in exhaustion.
Building a sustainable grant portfolio isn't about doing less because you're lazy or unambitious. It's about being strategic, honest about capacity, and committed to excellence in execution.
It's choosing the marathon over the sprint.
Ready to Right-Size Your Grant Portfolio?
Recommended posts:
When to Outsource Grant Writing (and When Not To) for Small Nonprofits: Learn the signs it's time to bring in outside support, and when to hold off.
What Is a Fractional Grant Writer (and Is It Right for Your Small Nonprofit?): Understand the ongoing support model designed specifically for organizations your size.
Grant Writing for Small Nonprofits: What Actually Works: Practical, right-sized strategies for building sustainable grant funding when you're operating lean.
