12 Secrets of Writing a Winner Grant Proposal

Detailed Outline for a Persuasive Grant Proposal

How to Write a Business Plan

By John M Izzo

Grant writing is part science, part art. While most people prefer dental surgery to grant writing, the process is fairly painless if you follow a few of the simple steps discussed in this article. While this article focuses on federal grant applications, the same process can apply to state, foundation, corporate or other types of response.

The most important thing any organization can do is to examine funding with a critical eye. Far too often, people salivate at the larger dollars often available in a federal grant and blindly chase the money. While such an approach is understandable, especially in these challenging times, it is the completely wrong strategy.

Chasing money that does not fit the mission of your organization has at least two problems. First, you are unlikely to win the grant because the application will read as if you are chasing the money. Second, even if the organization wins the money, it will have to execute a project that is outside the mission and scope of the group. This type of exercise can lead to a loss of credibility. In extreme cases, it can lead to unfortunate consequences with the federal government. (Picture a federal auditor at your door or a negative article in a local newspaper).

Once an RFP is determined to be a good fit, you have gathered your data, and have your partners in place, the writing process begins. The RFP often provides an exact guide as to the preparation of an application. They are typically so detailed as to specify page, spacing, font, and margin requirements. Not following these directions will means that the application will be deemed non-responsive and eliminated from the competition.

A recent tweet from Proposal Caf highlights this sentiment... "If your proposal is to lose, lose because it didn't offer the best product/service, not because you didn't follow the RFP instruction (@proposal cafe - February 1, 2011)."

A fair percentage of applications in each competition are deemed unresponsive and thus never read. The scoring criteria also serve as a proposal outline. All of the questions, sub questions, and points assigned each section are usually listed in this area of the RFP. It is useful to cut and paste this information into the grant narrative documents before the writing actually begins. One determines how many pages one should use for each section based on the number of points.

For example, if 40 points of the application is based on the work plan, then a writer should allocate roughly 40% of available narrative. Grant reviewers usually receive a stack of applications that they must review in a very limited time based on a score sheet they are given. This score sheet usually tracks the scoring criteria. Organizing the narrative based on the scoring criteria thus allows the reviewer to quickly find your answer and assign points. In fact, when I write a grant, I typically leave the questions in there so that my internal review person (more on that later) can see that the question being answered. At the same time, it is very easy for the grant reviewer to find the answer to the question.

Making a grant application easy to review makes it easy for the reviewer to assign points. As someone with experience reviewing proposals, I was more generous to applications that made it easy for me to find the information. In all honesty, about half-way through the review process, if an application made me search for the relevant information, I simply stopped looking because I did not have the time (or the patience).

Finally, it is important to note that federal grants especially fund programs not just things. It is difficult to get a grant for new computers. Funding is more likely if one asks for computers as part of a program that an organization has developed. The focus is on the program, the things make the program possible.

My 12 rules to good grant writing are listed below (I know it should be a top 10 list, but life is rarely that simple). There are a variety of subsets to these rules but I will stick with the basics here. The next article will deal with issues such goals and objectives, evaluation and budgeting.

1. Good Writing is Good Writing: I am truly getting old. I say that because I often appalled at what passes for quality writing today. All those things your junior high and high school English teachers stressed actually matter. This is not a tweet or a text message. A poorly written application tells a reviewer that this application is not an organizational priority. Take your time and make sure your application is written in plain, properly punctuated English.

2. Simpler is better: Grant applications are an opportunity to show the mastery an organization has of the subject matter. It is not an opportunity for the grant writer to highlight his or her intelligence. This is a not a college research project; it is a documented story. A good grant application is written in the active voice with a simple sentence structure (subject, verb, object). Yes, I know it is boring to read a 20 page document written only with this kind of sentence. However, such an approach should serve as a default mechanism.

3.The funder knows nothing about your organization: At the federal level, organizations often have limited or no relationships with the funding organization. The grant writer must ensure that the application provides information that makes the reader feel they have a good grip on your organization. Even when organizations have an established relationship with the program officer or other agency personnel, there is no guarantee that they will be the first reader. I have personally seen applications die at the preliminary stage even when the agency was interested in the application. Federal agencies (and large foundations) are complex organizations with lots of moving parts.

4. Support your writing- have current data: While I dealt with this issue in more detail in a previous article, nothing weakens an application more than old data. Any organization applying for a grant must have their data available and organized. Most grant applications require that one measure success. Such measurement requires baseline data. The more specific your information, the better. For example, rather than citywide statistics, provide statics from the neighborhoods and/or target population the proposed project will serve. Nothing detracts from a grant application like old data. Some basic sources of data include the census, city and federal websites, local foundations and the local chamber of commerce. Command of the data is thus very important.

5. Know best practices in your field (and those mentioned in your application): In the second article in this series, I stated that federal funders are often looking for replicable programs. In addition, RFPs often cite research on models that are comparable with the RFP. It is imperative that the grant application mention these models and how this approach includes, enhances or expands these models. While it is not necessary to completely agree with the proposed model, one must explain the differences well.

6. Answer the %%$%&^%$&^% Question: This is the simplest yet least followed rule provided. Quite simply, avoiding the question will not yield many points. If there is a weakness or something missing in your approach, one must explain it. For example, if you coalition requires six partners but your organization only has five, it is not sufficient to hope that the reviewer cannot count. In one instance, I was able to explain that the missing organization was in the process of changing leaders and could not formally sign on. However, I did indicate that the organization in question had worked with our collaborative in the past and would likely do so in the future once the new Director assumed his or her position. The previous sentence leads me to my second point. Once you have answered the question, it is perfectly OK to highlight or emphasize additional information if the writer has sufficient space. (See the Rule #5)-

• Answer the Question for the Funder Not to Make Your Organization Happy: Grant applications in large organizations sometimes turn into an exercise in what I call "institutional correctness". Like political correctness, it defines a process whose purpose is to not hurt anyone's feelings regardless of logical outcome. With this mindset an institutions create an application that makes sure everyone at the institution or organization is happy whether or not those responses are actually competitive.
• Hemingway is dead but tell me a story: Grant writing is not a purely a creative exercise. While program officers are not jaded, they are experienced professionals in their respective fields and not easily shocked. Often, instead of answering the question directly, a writer paints a beautiful and emotional picture. While the writing is often beautiful, it is empty prose designed to hide something. A well written grant persuasively tells a story in a way that encourages the reader to support your project not burst into tears of compassion

7. Space saving signals: It is often difficult to stay within the page limits. Particularly, when a well-constructed application tries to communicate several basic points more than once. Therefore, consider the use of signals. Signals are simple devices that refer the reader to another place in your narrative. For example, rather than list a biography of key personnel once, simply use a statement such as, (please see page x for more detail biographical information). This can save time and space.

8. Walk me through the process: Very often, organizational programs provide a multi-step service for the user. One way to ensure the reviewer understands is to walk him or her through the service process in the narrative. In fact, this is a great exercise to engage in before writing. Often people think in terms of the big picture. A grant application requires the nuts and bolts of the process. This walk through, (or write through) often illustrates strengths and weaknesses of the application and may raise issues not previously discussed. This part of the process is often overlooked to the detriment of the application.

9. Tell me in their words: RFPs often have very specific language. This terminology may be different than what the organization uses. A well writing RFP response will serve to translate the organizational language into that of the RFP. Using the RFP language limits the potential for misunderstanding.

10. Believable, achievable (and measurable): Even Bill Gates recognizes that it is rare that a grant program will completely eliminate a problem. Quite simply, your program will not end poverty, youth violence, or truancy (or make me taller or thinner). It is important in many ways that an organization has big dreams. However, it is absolutely imperative that it have a clear mission and focus that is supported with data. Grant funding can have a huge impact on the community, but one must measure that impact (see Rule 4). Therefore, a grant program can reduce truancy by 20% as long as one can demonstate the reduction with data. A big part of your credibility is the setting (and meeting) of reasonable goals and objectives drawn from organizational experience supported by the data.

11. The narrative and budget should match: In most applications, the program narrative and the budget (and accompanying narrative) are in separate parts of the application. Unfortunately, this disparity often results in one having no relation to the other. For example, applications will complain about a lack of materials and computers in the narrative and then request neither in the budget. Another mistake is to request staffing dollars that are not mentioned in the project narrative. The program narrative should set the table for the budget.

12. Prepare multiple drafts & proofread: Good writing requires multiple drafts. It is always a good idea to have two people review the narrative. The first should be a subject matter expert; the second is, ideally, someone with limited or no knowledge of the subject matter. This approach allows for both technical correction and improved readability. Both reviewers should understand exactly what the project does and why. Finally, it is a good idea to have both reviewers read and correct the same copy. I highly recommend the Microsoft editing tools. Having multiple drafts with different corrections circulating can make things confusing if one does not have experience in grant writing. A well written application tells a persuasive story that is supported by the data. It requires strong time management and organizational skills.

In this current era of shrinking budgets more and more organizations are looking to grants as a viable revenue source. Many people will prepare applications; many will not succeed because they do not follow the rules, answer the questions or make their information hard for the reviewer to find.

John M. Izzo is the co-founder of Community Grants Associates, a grant writing, research and consulting firm located just north of San Francisco in San Rafael, CA. For more information on Community Grants Associates, please visit our website at http://www.communitygrantsnow.com.

Return from "12 Secrets of Writing a Winner Grant Proposal" to How to Write Anything home page

Have a Great Tip, Photo or Comment About This Topic?

Do you have a great tip or photo about this? Something that you believe we should read or see? Contribute and share it today!