Writing a Sustainability Plan

A sustainability plan is the section of a grant proposal that answers what survives after the money stops. Funders ask it to price the risk that their investment strands. The strongest answers name a durable asset, its annual cost, and the specific budget, revenue stream, or partner that absorbs that cost.

Key takeaways

• Sustainability is a risk question, not a fundraising promise.
• “We will seek additional grants” restates the problem as the answer.
• Sustaining the outcome sometimes means ending the project.
• Institutionalization into an existing budget is the strongest evidence.
• Sustainability language written into a proposal becomes a reporting obligation.

What is a sustainability plan in a grant proposal?

A sustainability plan is the proposal section describing what continues after the grant period ends, who pays for it, and how the applicant knows that is realistic. It appears under several names — continuation plan, institutionalization plan, or plan for continued support — and in federal competitions it is frequently a scored selection criterion rather than a courtesy question.

The section belongs to the closing argument of a grant proposal: the need is real, the design addresses it, the applicant can execute, and the effect outlasts the funding. Department of Education selection criteria make the expectation explicit, directing reviewers to weigh “the potential for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or organization at the end of Federal funding” (34 CFR 75.210). The Office of Justice Programs instructs applicants to “describe a plan for continuing your project beyond the grant period” and adds a blunt framing: “Do not anticipate that the grant income will be the sole support for your project” (OJP).

Sustainability plans are also the section most often written as wishful thinking, because the writing happens under deadline pressure at the end of drafting and because the honest answer is frequently uncomfortable. The corrective is to treat the sustainability plan as an operational document that someone will be held to, rather than a closing flourish.

What are funders actually asking for in a sustainability plan?

Funders asking about sustainability are asking how likely it is that their money produces a temporary effect that disappears — a stranded investment. The question is about risk, not about optimism. An applicant who answers with fundraising confidence has answered a question nobody asked.

The empirical record explains the concern. A synthesis of nineteen studies of health-related program sustainability found that one to six years after adoption, roughly 40 to 60 percent of programs reported continuing in the community to some extent, and that most studies measured continuation of activities rather than continuation of benefits (Scheirer, American Journal of Evaluation, 2005). A later systematic review of 125 empirical studies found that partial sustainability was far more common than continued implementation of a full intervention, and that fewer than half of programs continued at high fidelity (Shelton, Cooper and Wiltsey Stirman, Annual Review of Public Health, 2018).

Funders read those base rates through their own portfolios. A sustainability plan is credible to the degree that it acknowledges the base rate and names the specific mechanism that makes this project an exception. Scheirer’s cross-study analysis identified five factors consistently associated with greater sustainability: the program can be modified over time, a champion is present, the program fits the host organization’s mission and procedures, benefits are readily perceived by staff and clients, and stakeholders in other organizations provide support (Scheirer, 2005). Each of those is something a proposal can assert and evidence.

What counts as sustainability besides another grant?

Sustainability counts as any mechanism by which the project’s effect persists without the original grant. Seven mechanisms appear across federal, foundation, and research funders, and most credible plans combine two or three rather than relying on one.

1. Institutionalization into an existing budget. A school district, county agency, hospital, or university absorbs the positions and costs into its recurring budget. This is the strongest available evidence because it converts a discretionary expense into a line item.
2. Policy or system change. The project secures a rule, statute, reimbursement code, or standard practice that persists independent of the organization that won it.
3. Earned revenue or reimbursement. Services become billable — through Medicaid, an accountable care organization, contracts, or fees. Rural health programs commonly pair reimbursement with partner in-kind support for exactly this reason (Rural Health Information Hub).
4. Cost reduction produced by the project itself. The intervention lowers a cost the host organization already pays, so continuing it is cheaper than stopping. Demonstrating that requires the kind of measurement described in writing an evaluation plan.
5. Partner absorption. Responsibilities distribute to coalition members who already have the staff, space, or transport. Formal agreements make this real; verbal enthusiasm does not.
6. Persistent capacity. Trained staff, curricula, data systems, and relationships remain in the community even at reduced program scope. Capacity built among existing staff during implementation creates long-term assets “even if programs or collaborations are ultimately reduced in scope or discontinued” (HRSA Office of Rural Health Policy primer, via RHIhub).
7. Revenue diversification. More funders, more types of funder, less concentration. Genuine, but the slowest and least controllable of the seven.

The public health sustainability literature organizes these into a validated framework of eight domains — environmental support, funding stability, partnerships, organizational capacity, program evaluation, program adaptation, communications, and strategic planning — measured by a 40-item instrument with good internal consistency (Luke et al., Preventing Chronic Disease, 2014; framework in Schell et al., Implementation Science, 2013). A proposal that maps its plan to named domains reads as considered rather than improvised.

Why is “we will seek additional funding” the weakest possible answer?

“We will seek additional funding” is the weakest answer because it restates the funder’s question as the applicant’s plan. The funder is asking how the risk of discontinuation will be reduced; the sentence answers that the applicant will look for another funder with the same risk. Nothing in it is verifiable, falsifiable, or specific.

The HRSA-sponsored rural sustainability primer states the underlying error directly: “It is a mistake to assume that some future grant or benefactor will show up at your door in 3 years and want to continue funding your program, even if you do provide an effective program or collaboration. It seldom happens that way” (Rural Health Information Hub).

Grantmaking practice reinforces the point. Analysis of the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s Grantee Perception Report dataset covering the decade before 2020 found that 21 percent of grants were general operating support and 12 percent were multiyear general operating support (CEP). CEP’s study of the practice found that a majority of foundation CEOs report providing some multiyear general operating support, but only 11 percent of those doing so extend it to more than half of their grantees (CEP, New Attitudes, Old Practices). An applicant planning to replace a restricted project grant with flexible multiyear support is planning against the base rate.

Pursuing more grant funding is a legitimate component of a plan. It becomes credible when it names funders, amounts, dates, and current status — invited, declined, in cultivation — and when it is not the only component.

Should a sustainability plan sustain the project or the outcomes?

A sustainability plan should sustain whatever the funder is buying, which is often the outcome rather than the project. Distinguishing the two is the single largest quality difference between sustainability sections, and stating the distinction explicitly signals that the applicant understands what the grant is for.

Some projects should end on schedule. A demonstration that establishes an effect, a planning grant that produces an adopted plan, a capital project that finishes a building, and an advocacy campaign that secures a rule change all complete their purpose within the period of performance. For those, the sustainability question is what persists — the evidence, the plan, the asset, the rule — not how the project staff stay employed.

The research literature treats this as an open question rather than a settled one. Scheirer and Dearing argue that sustaining a program inside an ongoing organization “could become a hollow shell of activities perpetuated for their own sakes, especially if benefits for clients are not achieved,” and note the argument that capacity building and innovation may be the more important outcomes to sustain (American Journal of Public Health, 2011). An applicant who writes that a project should conclude, and names what it leaves behind, is on defensible ground.

The failure mode runs the other way too. A direct-service program that produces benefits only while it operates cannot claim outcome persistence, and a plan asserting that participants will “carry the skills forward” without a measurement or a continuation mechanism reads as evasion.

How do federal and foundation sustainability expectations differ?

Federal and foundation funders ask about sustainability for different reasons and accept different evidence. Federal agencies score institutionalization against a published criterion; foundations assess organizational financial health through a program officer’s judgment. Capital awards raise a third set of expectations distinct from both.

The table below shows how the sustainability question changes across funder types.

Dimension	Federal funder	Foundation funder
What is assessed	Institutionalization into ongoing agency practice	Organizational financial health and revenue mix
Where it appears	Named, scored selection criterion	Narrative question or budget attachment
Evidence expected	Commitment from the absorbing entity	Other funders at the table; reserves
Consequence of vagueness	Points lost on a scored criterion	Unstated doubt, no feedback
Post-award effect	Reportable commitment	Renewal conversation

Capital and construction awards sit apart from both. The Office of Justice Programs instructs applicants to provide projections for operating and maintaining facilities and equipment, and to plan for maintenance and future program funding where funds support construction (OJP). A building whose operating budget is unfunded is a stranded investment in the most literal sense, and capital funders know it.

Research funders occupy a fourth position. Sustainability in a research award usually means the data, instrumentation, cohort, or trained personnel that outlast the project period, rather than continuation of the research itself.

How do you write a sustainability plan?

Write a sustainability plan in six moves, in this order, and keep it to one page unless the funder allows more. The order matters: naming the durable asset first prevents the section from becoming a fundraising narrative.

1. Name what persists. State the specific thing — positions, service, curriculum, data system, policy, coalition — that continues past the period of performance. One or two items, not a list of everything.
2. Price it annually. Give the recurring annual cost of the thing named, separated from the one-time costs the grant covers. A plan without a number is an intention.
3. Assign the cost to a source. For each dollar, name the budget, contract, reimbursement stream, or partner that carries it, with the percentage each covers.
4. Separate committed from pursued. Distinguish what is signed from what is being sought, and date each. Attach the commitment letters described in the organizational capacity section.
5. Say what ends. Name the components that will conclude deliberately, and why concluding them is correct rather than a failure.
6. Set the decision point. Identify when the continuation decision gets made, who makes it, and what evidence they will use. Sustainability planning works best when it starts at the beginning of the grant and is revisited on a schedule (Calhoun et al., Preventing Chronic Disease, 2014).

The table below contrasts phrasing that reviewers discount with phrasing that carries evidence. The right column is not longer; it is more specific. Figures in the right column are illustrative placeholders an applicant would replace with its own.

Weak phrasing	Stronger phrasing
“We will seek additional grant funding.”	“The county has agreed to include two of the four positions in its next budget request; the letter is attached.”
“We are committed to sustaining this work.”	“Curriculum, training materials, and forty trained district staff remain in place at no recurring cost.”
“We will diversify our funding base.”	“Billing covers 35 percent of program cost by month 18 at the attached reimbursement rates.”
“The program will become self-sustaining.”	“The program concludes at month 36. The reimbursement code it secured does not.”
“We will pursue foundation support.”	“Two named funders have invited a request for the following year; a third declined and is out of the plan.”

What does sustainability language commit you to after the award?

Sustainability language written into a funded proposal becomes part of the record the funder measures performance against. Federal performance reporting compares actual accomplishments to the objectives established in the award, and the approved application is generally incorporated by reference into the terms (2 CFR 200.329). A commitment to institutionalize positions is a statement a program officer can ask about at every reporting interval.

Where an agency judges an applicant to present elevated risk, it may attach specific conditions to the award, which can include additional reporting on the very commitments the proposal made (2 CFR 200.208). Overpromising in the sustainability section therefore transfers cost into the post-award period rather than eliminating it.

One constraint catches organizations by surprise: the fundraising a sustainability plan promises generally cannot be paid for with the grant. The Office of Justice Programs states plainly that “it is prohibited to use grant funds or grant-funded positions for your fundraising efforts” (OJP). A plan whose execution depends on grant-funded staff time raising the successor money is unfundable on its own terms.

The reverse discipline is useful. A sustainability plan written as a set of dated, assignable commitments doubles as a work plan, and the organization that executes it enters the renewal conversation with evidence rather than argument.

What goes wrong in sustainability plans?

Sustainability plans fail in six recognizable ways, and five of them are drafting problems rather than evidence problems.

1. Circular funding logic. Replacing this grant with an unnamed future grant answers the question with the question.
2. Cost never stated. A plan that never names the recurring annual cost cannot be evaluated by anyone, including the applicant.
3. Uncommitted commitments. Partners described as “supportive” or “engaged” without a signed letter or a budget line.
4. Sustaining everything. A plan that promises to continue every component signals that nothing was prioritized.
5. Written last, disconnected from the budget. Sustainability language that contradicts the project budget’s staffing or timeline is a consistency failure reviewers catch quickly. See writing a budget narrative for how the two documents should align.
6. Silence on the ending. Refusing to name what concludes leaves the reviewer to assume the applicant expects permanent funding.

Frequently asked questions

How long should a sustainability plan be?

Most sustainability sections run a half page to a full page unless the funder specifies otherwise, and length is capped in practice by how much verifiable content exists. A page of dated commitments outperforms three pages of intent. Where a funder sets no limit, match the length to the number of mechanisms actually in play.

Is a sustainability plan required for a one-year grant?

Often yes, because the question is about what happens after the period of performance regardless of its length. Short awards typically draw a shorter answer focused on what persists rather than what continues. Funders making one-year grants for discrete deliverables usually accept “the deliverable persists” when the deliverable is real.

What if the project genuinely cannot continue without grant funding?

Say so, and shift the plan to outcome persistence: the evidence generated, the trained staff, the policy secured, the asset built. A candid statement that direct service will end paired with named durable products is more credible than a fabricated revenue model. Reviewers have read the fabricated version many times.

Does a foundation care about sustainability differently than a federal agency?

Foundations generally assess whether the organization is financially healthy and whether other funders have invested, rather than scoring institutionalization against a rubric. Federal agencies score it against published criteria and record the answer. Both discount unsourced fundraising optimism, but only the federal reviewer assigns points for the difference.

Should the sustainability plan include a fundraising target?

Include a target only with a source, an amount, and a date attached to each component. A total dollar goal with no allocation reads as a wish. Naming three funders, their giving ranges, and their decision calendars converts the same paragraph into a plan.

Can capacity built during a grant count as sustainability?

Yes, and it is among the more defensible claims when documented. Trained staff, written curricula, data systems, and formal partnerships persist after funding ends even when program scope contracts. The claim requires naming the specific capacity, where it resides, and who maintains it.

Related topics

• Writing the Proposal — the hub covering what each proposal section is asked to prove
• The Anatomy of a Grant Proposal
• The Abstract and Project Summary
• Goals, Objectives, and Activities
• The True Cost of Running a Program

Sources

1. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 34 CFR § 75.210, General selection criteria. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.210 (accessed 2026-08-11)
2. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 2 CFR § 200.208, Specific conditions. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/section-200.208 (accessed 2026-08-11)
3. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 2 CFR § 200.329, Monitoring and reporting program performance. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/section-200.329 (accessed 2026-08-11)
4. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Develop a Budget,” Grants 101. https://www.ojp.gov/funding/grants101/develop-budget (accessed 2026-08-11)
5. Mary Ann Scheirer, “Is Sustainability Possible? A Review and Commentary on Empirical Studies of Program Sustainability,” American Journal of Evaluation 26(3): 320–347, 2005. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1098214005278752 (accessed 2026-08-11)
6. Mary Ann Scheirer and James W. Dearing, “An Agenda for Research on the Sustainability of Public Health Programs,” American Journal of Public Health 101(11), 2011. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3222409/ (accessed 2026-08-11)
7. Rachel C. Shelton, Brittany Rhoades Cooper and Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, “The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care,” Annual Review of Public Health 39, 2018. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014731 (accessed 2026-08-11)
8. Sarah F. Schell et al., “Public health program capacity for sustainability: a new framework,” Implementation Science 8:15, 2013. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-8-15 (accessed 2026-08-11)
9. Douglas A. Luke et al., “The Program Sustainability Assessment Tool: A New Instrument for Public Health Programs,” Preventing Chronic Disease 11:130184, 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/13_0184.htm (accessed 2026-08-11)
10. Annaliese Calhoun et al., “Using the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to Assess and Plan for Sustainability,” Preventing Chronic Disease 11:130185, 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/13_0185.htm (accessed 2026-08-11)
11. Rural Health Information Hub, “Sustainability Strategies for Rural Community Health Programs.” https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/toolkits/rural-toolkit/5/sustainability-strategies (accessed 2026-08-11)
12. The Dynamics of Sustainability: A Primer for Rural Health Organizations, prepared for the HRSA Office of Rural Health Policy, via Rural Health Information Hub. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/assets/1211-4984/dynamics-of-sustainability.pdf (accessed 2026-08-11)
13. Center for Effective Philanthropy, New Attitudes, Old Practices: The Provision of Multiyear General Operating Support, 2020. https://cep.org/report/new-attitudes-old-practices/ (accessed 2026-08-11)
14. Center for Effective Philanthropy, “Strengthening Nonprofits: The Value of Complementing Multiyear GOS Grants with Capacity Building Supports,” 2021. https://cep.org/blog/strengthening-nonprofits-the-value-of-complementing-multiyear-gos-grants-with-capacity-building-supports/ (accessed 2026-08-11)