Every major incident leaves behind more than an after action report. It leaves behind evidence.
Evidence of where communications held. Evidence of where they failed. And evidence of what must change before the next incident.
As agencies look ahead to 2026 funding cycles, now is the time to turn those hard earned lessons into funded connectivity improvements, not last minute grant applications.
From After Action Reports to Capital Planning
After action reports are often treated as compliance documents. Filed, reviewed, and then quietly shelved.
But for grants teams and leadership, AARs are one of the strongest planning tools available.
They do three critical things:
- Document operational impact in real terms
- Tie technology gaps directly to mission outcomes
- Create a defensible rationale for investment
When an AAR notes loss of connectivity at an EOC, limited bandwidth during surge operations, or reliance on a single carrier, that is not just a technical issue. It is a funding justification.
Agencies that consistently secure funding are the ones that:
- Translate AAR findings into clearly scoped projects
- Connect those projects to resilience, continuity, and public safety outcomes
- Begin planning well before funding announcements are released
Understanding the 2026 Grant Timeline
Most federal and state funding programs follow a predictable rhythm, even if award decisions do not.
For many major programs:
- FEMA preparedness grants typically release funding notices in late spring or early summer
- DHS programs often follow similar mid year cycles
- State administered grants may align with legislative sessions or fiscal years
In practice, this means:
- Projects conceived after funding opens are rushed
- Projects planned in advance are positioned
- Projects aligned early are easier to approve
If connectivity improvements are first discussed after a funding notice is released, the agency is already behind.
What Grant Reviewers Look For in Connectivity Projects
Connectivity projects are strongest when they are framed as risk reduction, not technology upgrades.
Successful applications clearly explain:
- Why existing connectivity fails under real world conditions
- How outages, congestion, or single points of failure affected operations
- What changes operationally once the project is implemented
Generic requests like “upgrade internet” or “increase bandwidth” are difficult to justify.
In contrast, reviewers respond to clearly defined improvements such as:
- Primary and secondary connectivity paths
- Satellite connectivity for failover or mobile operations
- Network designs that continue operating during regional disruptions
These solutions are easier to evaluate, justify, and fund.
Positioning Projects for Internal Approval
Grant success starts internally.
Leadership and procurement teams need clarity on:
- Scope and operational value
- Cost justification and grant eligibility
- Long term sustainability
That clarity comes from early coordination between:
- Emergency management
- IT and communications teams
- Grants and finance
- Procurement and executive leadership
When alignment happens early, projects move faster and survive scrutiny at every stage.
Planning Now Reduces Risk Later
Connectivity failures rarely stay contained. One outage often leads to multiple operational impacts.
Funding cycles provide a chance to break that pattern.
By acting now, agencies can:
- Design resilient, redundant connectivity architectures
- Build capital plans aligned with funding requirements
- Enter 2026 grant cycles prepared instead of reactive
The Bottom Line
Grant season does not start when funding opens. It starts with planning.
Agencies that succeed in 2026 will be the ones that:
- Use incident insights as planning inputs
- Treat connectivity as critical infrastructure
- Prepare projects well before deadlines
At PEAKE, we help agencies translate real world operational needs into fundable, approvable connectivity projects before the grant clock starts.
Resilience is not an add on. It is a design decision.