Category Archives: grant writing

Taking Your Grant Research Beyond the RFA

I thought I’d re-post one of our video Tips from the Grant Goddess. All of our video tips are 5 minutes or less.  This one, which happens to be the very first one we produced, is all about taking your grant research beyond the RFA.

Check out our YouTube channel for even more tips and videos. We’ll be producing a lot more quick video tips within the next few weeks, so subscribe to the channel to make sure you are notified of new ones as they come out.

———————————-
Other posts you may like:

If They Made a Movie About Grant Writing Consultants

Grant Writing Success:  A Numbers Game?

The Worst Reasons for NOT Writing a Grant

Help! Grant Writer Drowning in Paper!

——————————–

:Learn the secrets of the Pros!  Download your free copy of 12 Secrets of Successful Grant Writers.

Grant Writing is Like Lasagna

Lasagna is one of my favorite Italian foods – it’s the complete package, if you make it right, that is. A good lasagna has layers of perfectly cooked pasta, tomato sauce, Italian sausage, ricotta cheese, mozzarella cheese, parmesan cheese, and I even like to add a little cheddar cheese. Of course, it’s layered several times with all this good stuff!

Now a good grant is similar to a good lasagna! That’s right people, it really is! You have to write a grant in layers, like making nice lasagna. There’s the needs section (layer), the program design section (layer), the project management section (layer), the sustainability section (layer), the evaluation section (layer). And while each section/layer is distinct – like the sausage and the sauce of my favorite lasagna – there’s also a little bit of intermixing of ingredients/repeating of information.

That’s right! You can write a needs section and never mention it again but you will end up with an inferior lasagna…er, grant. You need to repeat the layers, when it’s appropriate. If the needs you describe are met by the project design – as they must be – then a mention of the needs layer is warranted in the project design layer to reinforce the deliciousness of the design.

A good lasagna would be incomplete with only one set of layers. It takes multiple layers to make a first class lasagna and repeating salient/savory points of the grant sections/layers make a grant come together like a good lasagna.

In example, if you say in your needs section that you have a waiting list o 30 parents for a particular program, then you want to point out that the parenting program you are proposing to implement in response to the need will accommodate all 30 parents on the waiting list and maybe even a few more! Abundanza, you have sausage in the first layer, and even more sausage in the second layer! TASTY!

So write your grant like a lasagna, write it in the layers specified in the RFA and then make sure you repeat the most delicious parts of the layers so that your lasagna is complete and not a single layered impostor that nobody will want to eat; and if they do, one they won’t give a 5 star rating.

By: Derek Link, Non-profit Consultant and Expert Grant Writer
———————-
 
If you’re interested in more of Derek Link’s obsession with how grant writing is like food, try some of these other posts:
 
Grants Are Like Box Lunches
 
Grants Are Like Sausage
 
Some Grants Are Like Peanut Butter
 
Grants Are Like Donuts
 

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Grant Writing is Like Lasagna

Lasagna is one of my favorite Italian foods – it’s the complete package, if you make it right, that is. A good lasagna has layers of perfectly cooked pasta, tomato sauce, Italian sausage, ricotta cheese, mozzarella cheese, parmesan cheese, and I even like to add a little cheddar cheese. Of course, it’s layered several times with all this good stuff!

Now a good grant is similar to a good lasagna! That’s right people, it really is! You have to write a grant in layers, like making nice lasagna. There’s the needs section (layer), the program design section (layer), the project management section (layer), the sustainability section (layer), the evaluation section (layer). And while each section/layer is distinct – like the sausage and the sauce of my favorite lasagna – there’s also a little bit of intermixing of ingredients/repeating of information.

That’s right! You can write a needs section and never mention it again but you will end up with an inferior lasagna…er, grant. You need to repeat the layers, when it’s appropriate. If the needs you describe are met by the project design – as they must be – then a mention of the needs layer is warranted in the project design layer to reinforce the deliciousness of the design.

A good lasagna would be incomplete with only one set of layers. It takes multiple layers to make a first class lasagna and repeating salient/savory points of the grant sections/layers make a grant come together like a good lasagna.

In example, if you say in your needs section that you have a waiting list o 30 parents for a particular program, then you want to point out that the parenting program you are proposing to implement in response to the need will accommodate all 30 parents on the waiting list and maybe even a few more! Abundanza, you have sausage in the first layer, and even more sausage in the second layer! TASTY!

So write your grant like a lasagna, write it in the layers specified in the RFA and then make sure you repeat the most delicious parts of the layers so that your lasagna is complete and not a single layered impostor that nobody will want to eat; and if they do, one they won’t give a 5 star rating.

By: Derek Link, Non-profit Consultant and Expert Grant Writer
———————-
 
If you’re interested in more of Derek Link’s obsession with how grant writing is like food, try some of these other posts:
 
Grants Are Like Box Lunches
 
Grants Are Like Sausage
 
Some Grants Are Like Peanut Butter
 
Grants Are Like Donuts
 

Grant Writing Success – A Numbers Game?

It is not easy to explain all of the factors involved in grant writing success. Certainly, experience and skill have a lot to do with it, but there’s much more to it than that. In many ways, it’s a numbers game.

First, there are the odds of how likely you are to get funded given the total amount of money to be awarded, the total number of grants to be awarded, and the number of grant proposals likely to be submitted. So, you combine these odds with your skill and experience and that should take you to grant writing success, right?

Not so fast.

You still have to deal with the vicissitudes of the readers. In a government grant competition, you will likely have three readers and scoring criteria that add up to 100 possible points awarded per reader. Hopefully, the readers will be carefully trained and will thoroughly understand the scoring criteria and how points should be allocated. Even in this ideal situation, there can still be dramatic differences in the points allocated by the different readers. In some competitions, the readers are required to conference with each other and bring their scores within a certain distance of each other, but sometimes the readers score independently and all three scores are averaged. This is how it’s possible to get scores of 100, 98, and 85, knocking your proposal out of the funding range. It shouldn’t be possible, but it is.

And the more extreme the competition is (see my discussion of the odds, above), the higher your score needs to be in order to be funded, which means that you need all three readers to award you exceptionally high scores if you hope to be funded.

Even then, it’s no guarantee. In a recent grant competition I received scores of 100, 98, and 96, and our proposal still was not funded. When I looked back at the readers written comments, there were no suggestions for improvement. It kind of makes you think that the whole grant award process is more random than you thought, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the odds and the biases of the readers, experience and skill still play the biggest roles in the grant award process. In the example I just gave you, as frustrating as it was to have submitted an excellent proposal that was not funded, the truth is that if it had not been an excellent proposal it would’ve had absolutely no chance of being funded. In that particular competition, only the absolute best, near-perfect proposals had a chance at being funded. While it may seem random, it’s not.

Submitting a well-written, high-quality proposal is still the best way to negotiate the maze of the numbers game and reach the goal of grant writing success.

—————————-

Would you like to improve your grant writing skills?  Want to learn to be a great writer?  Try our Grant Writing 101 online course.  Learn at your own pace when it’s convenient for you.

Grant Writing Success – A Numbers Game?

It is not easy to explain all of the factors involved in grant writing success. Certainly, experience and skill have a lot to do with it, but there’s much more to it than that. In many ways, it’s a numbers game.

First, there are the odds of how likely you are to get funded given the total amount of money to be awarded, the total number of grants to be awarded, and the number of grant proposals likely to be submitted. So, you combine these odds with your skill and experience and that should take you to grant writing success, right?

Not so fast.

You still have to deal with the vicissitudes of the readers. In a government grant competition, you will likely have three readers and scoring criteria that add up to 100 possible points awarded per reader. Hopefully, the readers will be carefully trained and will thoroughly understand the scoring criteria and how points should be allocated. Even in this ideal situation, there can still be dramatic differences in the points allocated by the different readers. In some competitions, the readers are required to conference with each other and bring their scores within a certain distance of each other, but sometimes the readers score independently and all three scores are averaged. This is how it’s possible to get scores of 100, 98, and 85, knocking your proposal out of the funding range. It shouldn’t be possible, but it is.

And the more extreme the competition is (see my discussion of the odds, above), the higher your score needs to be in order to be funded, which means that you need all three readers to award you exceptionally high scores if you hope to be funded.

Even then, it’s no guarantee. In a recent grant competition I received scores of 100, 98, and 96, and our proposal still was not funded. When I looked back at the readers written comments, there were no suggestions for improvement. It kind of makes you think that the whole grant award process is more random than you thought, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the odds and the biases of the readers, experience and skill still play the biggest roles in the grant award process. In the example I just gave you, as frustrating as it was to have submitted an excellent proposal that was not funded, the truth is that if it had not been an excellent proposal it would’ve had absolutely no chance of being funded. In that particular competition, only the absolute best, near-perfect proposals had a chance at being funded. While it may seem random, it’s not.

Submitting a well-written, high-quality proposal is still the best way to negotiate the maze of the numbers game and reach the goal of grant writing success.

—————————-

Would you like to improve your grant writing skills?  Want to learn to be a great writer?  Try our Grant Writing 101 online course.  Learn at your own pace when it’s convenient for you.

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

If They Made a Movie about Grant Writing Consultants……

It would be a thriller.  Yes, I’m sure of that. It would be an action-packed, intrigue-driven thriller that would keep you on the edge of your seat. I’m talking about the kind of thriller that is somewhere between Speed (with Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves) and Matt Damon’s The Bourne Identity, but it would have the heart of a drama – think about the perseverence of The Shawshank Redemption.  And it would also have some of the recklessness of Thelma and Louise.

I would be played, of course, by Kathy Bates, who would certainly win an Academy Award for her sensitive portrayal of such a complex character. Other grant writing consultants in the movie would be played by Brad Pitt and Shirley McClain, with supporting roles filled by Ben Affleck, and other fine actors. Richard Gere would be in it just because.

Here’s the basic plot:

Our heroine, Kathy Bates, would get a phone call charging her to write a very competitive grant in a very short period of time. She would argue briefly that it couldn’t be done, but she’d be told that it must be done and it must be successful because the fate of free world is in her capable hands. She would call her colleagues Brad Pitt (who’s having a beer at Rubicon) and Shirley MacLaine (who is somewhere in the moutains firewalking and getting in touch with her Chi) who would rush back into town to help.

Brad Pitt would work with the client to get the data needed for the grant, but it wouldn’t arrive.  Kathy Bates would yell, “But tell them we must have it!” and Brad would valiantly declare, “Don’t worry, I’ll get it,” as he hopped on his trusty steed (old Honda) and headed out to pick up the data personally. Richard Gere would just massage Kathy’s back while she wrote, whispering, “You can do it.  I know you can,” into her ear while she writes.

Tight shot on the clock spinning wildly as the time passes, and the calendar as the days fly by….

Shirley MacClaine tirelessly does research while support staff member Tina Fey works on the budget. Ben Affleck answers the phone with expert skill, keeping would-be interrupters away with a polite, but firm, “No, you can’t speak with her.  She’s saving the world!”

As the deadline draws nearer, the pressure mounts.  Shirley floats in and out picking up pieces here and there and offering her expertise.  Brad  remains calm on outside while expertly assembling appendices. Kathy’s fingers sieze up from the pain, but Richard massages the pain away.

As the first draft is complete, in walks Helen Mirren, competently and calmly proclaiming, “I’ll take over from here,” as she sits with the narrative and begins proofreading and editing, her pen flying across the page as Richard offers Kathy cool grapes, Tina wraps up the budget, Shirley finalizes the abstract, and Brad  talks to the client on the phone, assuring him that all is well.

Suddenly, Tina shouts, “Nooooo!!!!! The web portal is down!” Kathy rushes into her office, knocking Richard down on the way (sorry, Richard). “But it can’t be down!  The grant is due in 2 hours!” Tina just rocks back and forth, “It’s down, it’s down, it’s down, oh my god it’s down…..”

Helen retains her predator-like focus on the editing task.

Tina says, “Wait!  I think I can hack into the portal through the government’s evaluation site…”

“Do it!” shouts Kathy, “Do it NOW!”

Ben shouts at someone on the phone, “New phone service?  Are you crazy?  This is no time for solicitation!  She doesn’t want to talk you.  She’ll never want to talk to you!”  As he slams the phone down, Tina explains, “I’m in!”

“Great,” sighs Kathy, “Let’s get this baby uploaded and put to bed.”

“Ready!” says Helen, as she hands over a perfectly edited draft to Kathy.

Shirley calmly floats in, “I knew everything would be ok.”

“Don’t be so sure,” cautions Kathy. “We’re not out of the woods yet.”

Tina, Brad, and Helen work together to get all the documents uploaded, while Shirley and Kathy sip some tea.

Tina announces, “Done! The grant has been submitted…on time!”

Helen adds, “And it’s a good one!”

Kathy comments, with a matter of fact tone, “Of course it is.”  Then she looks around for Richard….

Ben answers the phone and tells Kathy, “It’s Mr. Non-Profit. He says he has a challenging project for you…..and it’s due next week.”

Kathy sips her tea, raises and eyebrow, and says, “Oh?  Sounds intriguing.  Brad, Shirley, we have another assignment!”

——————————

If They Made a Movie about Grant Writing Consultants……

It would be a thriller.  Yes, I’m sure of that. It would be an action-packed, intrigue-driven thriller that would keep you on the edge of your seat. I’m talking about the kind of thriller that is somewhere between Speed (with Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves) and Matt Damon’s The Bourne Identity, but it would have the heart of a drama – think about the perseverence of The Shawshank Redemption.  And it would also have some of the recklessness of Thelma and Louise.

I would be played, of course, by Kathy Bates, who would certainly win an Academy Award for her sensitive portrayal of such a complex character. Other grant writing consultants in the movie would be played by Brad Pitt and Shirley McClain, with supporting roles filled by Ben Affleck, and other fine actors. Richard Gere would be in it just because.

Here’s the basic plot:

Our heroine, Kathy Bates, would get a phone call charging her to write a very competitive grant in a very short period of time. She would argue briefly that it couldn’t be done, but she’d be told that it must be done and it must be successful because the fate of free world is in her capable hands. She would call her colleagues Brad Pitt (who’s having a beer at Rubicon) and Shirley MacLaine (who is somewhere in the moutains firewalking and getting in touch with her Chi) who would rush back into town to help.

Brad Pitt would work with the client to get the data needed for the grant, but it wouldn’t arrive.  Kathy Bates would yell, “But tell them we must have it!” and Brad would valiantly declare, “Don’t worry, I’ll get it,” as he hopped on his trusty steed (old Honda) and headed out to pick up the data personally. Richard Gere would just massage Kathy’s back while she wrote, whispering, “You can do it.  I know you can,” into her ear while she writes.

Tight shot on the clock spinning wildly as the time passes, and the calendar as the days fly by….

Shirley MacClaine tirelessly does research while support staff member Tina Fey works on the budget. Ben Affleck answers the phone with expert skill, keeping would-be interrupters away with a polite, but firm, “No, you can’t speak with her.  She’s saving the world!”

As the deadline draws nearer, the pressure mounts.  Shirley floats in and out picking up pieces here and there and offering her expertise.  Brad  remains calm on outside while expertly assembling appendices. Kathy’s fingers sieze up from the pain, but Richard massages the pain away.

As the first draft is complete, in walks Helen Mirren, competently and calmly proclaiming, “I’ll take over from here,” as she sits with the narrative and begins proofreading and editing, her pen flying across the page as Richard offers Kathy cool grapes, Tina wraps up the budget, Shirley finalizes the abstract, and Brad  talks to the client on the phone, assuring him that all is well.

Suddenly, Tina shouts, “Nooooo!!!!! The web portal is down!” Kathy rushes into her office, knocking Richard down on the way (sorry, Richard). “But it can’t be down!  The grant is due in 2 hours!” Tina just rocks back and forth, “It’s down, it’s down, it’s down, oh my god it’s down…..”

Helen retains her predator-like focus on the editing task.

Tina says, “Wait!  I think I can hack into the portal through the government’s evaluation site…”

“Do it!” shouts Kathy, “Do it NOW!”

Ben shouts at someone on the phone, “New phone service?  Are you crazy?  This is no time for solicitation!  She doesn’t want to talk you.  She’ll never want to talk to you!”  As he slams the phone down, Tina explains, “I’m in!”

“Great,” sighs Kathy, “Let’s get this baby uploaded and put to bed.”

“Ready!” says Helen, as she hands over a perfectly edited draft to Kathy.

Shirley calmly floats in, “I knew everything would be ok.”

“Don’t be so sure,” cautions Kathy. “We’re not out of the woods yet.”

Tina, Brad, and Helen work together to get all the documents uploaded, while Shirley and Kathy sip some tea.

Tina announces, “Done! The grant has been submitted…on time!”

Helen adds, “And it’s a good one!”

Kathy comments, with a matter of fact tone, “Of course it is.”  Then she looks around for Richard….

Ben answers the phone and tells Kathy, “It’s Mr. Non-Profit. He says he has a challenging project for you…..and it’s due next week.”

Kathy sips her tea, raises and eyebrow, and says, “Oh?  Sounds intriguing.  Brad, Shirley, we have another assignment!”

——————————

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Uh-Oh: We Got the Grant, But We Didn’t Plan!

Often when you are applying for grants clients get very excited and can tend to exhibit what Alan Greenspan called “irrational exuberance.”


It is important to remember as a grant writer that developing grant applications without proper planning can create more problems than the grant funding would solve. There is a considerable amount of responsibility and work that goes along with implementation of a successfully funded grant. Careful planning throughout grant development is vital in order to ensure successful implementation.

Here are 10 things to consider when planning for submission of a grant proposal to ensure that your grant is well thought out, realistic, and is based on achievable objectives:
  1. Establish a planning committee before the RFP is publicized. Be certain to include all relevant partners who may be interested in participating, impacted by the grant services, and who are logical partners to share costs and in-kind services.
  2. Maintain meeting records for the committee including roster, minutes, and agendas.
  3. Engage the committee in a needs assessment and program planning process.
  4.  Work out collaborative agreements and partnerships.
  5.  Develop memoranda of understanding and letters of commitment among the partners.
  6. Gather resolutions from boards and leadership committees of the partner organizations.
  7. Obtain commitments from the partners for materials, services, budget commitments, participation in governance, and commitment to contribute data.
  8. Develop a program design that the planning committee is in agreement with to address the needs identified in item 3.
  9. Create an evaluation design to ensure that partners are aware and committed to data collection that will validate the achievements of the grant program.
  10. Engage the planning committee in reviewing the grant narrative as it is being developed in order to ensure its accuracy and feasibility.

Often it is the responsibility of the grant writer to act as the voice of reason and to share their experience with clients who may be irrationally exuberant (or irrationally hesitant) about a grant opportunity. This may seem counterintuitive, in that you may feel that you are losing valuable business; however, it’s good business to bring funding to your client if it is going to result in positive programs and positive outcomes that make them look good and help them achieve their mission. Enabling clients to apply for grants that they are either unqualified to implement or are of a scale that is beyond their capacity is harmful to your relationship with your client in the long run.

My master teacher always told us that failing to plan was planning to fail. Grant writers must be proactive in assisting their clients in the planning process to ensure that the grant submitted is realistic both in terms of current reality and future feasibility for implementation.


By:  Derek Link


————————————


Other posts from The GrantGoddess Speaks that you might like:

How Did I Learn Grant Writing?  – Derek Link

Grant Writer Stalked by Client

Rantings of an Opinionated Grant Writer

Help! Grant Writer Downing in Paper!

How Positive Writing Makes a Better Grant

Also, take some time to visit A Writer’s Journey for more thoughts on writing.

Uh-Oh: We Got the Grant, But We Didn’t Plan!

Often when you are applying for grants clients get very excited and can tend to exhibit what Alan Greenspan called “irrational exuberance.”


It is important to remember as a grant writer that developing grant applications without proper planning can create more problems than the grant funding would solve. There is a considerable amount of responsibility and work that goes along with implementation of a successfully funded grant. Careful planning throughout grant development is vital in order to ensure successful implementation.

Here are 10 things to consider when planning for submission of a grant proposal to ensure that your grant is well thought out, realistic, and is based on achievable objectives:
  1. Establish a planning committee before the RFP is publicized. Be certain to include all relevant partners who may be interested in participating, impacted by the grant services, and who are logical partners to share costs and in-kind services.
  2. Maintain meeting records for the committee including roster, minutes, and agendas.
  3. Engage the committee in a needs assessment and program planning process.
  4.  Work out collaborative agreements and partnerships.
  5.  Develop memoranda of understanding and letters of commitment among the partners.
  6. Gather resolutions from boards and leadership committees of the partner organizations.
  7. Obtain commitments from the partners for materials, services, budget commitments, participation in governance, and commitment to contribute data.
  8. Develop a program design that the planning committee is in agreement with to address the needs identified in item 3.
  9. Create an evaluation design to ensure that partners are aware and committed to data collection that will validate the achievements of the grant program.
  10. Engage the planning committee in reviewing the grant narrative as it is being developed in order to ensure its accuracy and feasibility.

Often it is the responsibility of the grant writer to act as the voice of reason and to share their experience with clients who may be irrationally exuberant (or irrationally hesitant) about a grant opportunity. This may seem counterintuitive, in that you may feel that you are losing valuable business; however, it’s good business to bring funding to your client if it is going to result in positive programs and positive outcomes that make them look good and help them achieve their mission. Enabling clients to apply for grants that they are either unqualified to implement or are of a scale that is beyond their capacity is harmful to your relationship with your client in the long run.

My master teacher always told us that failing to plan was planning to fail. Grant writers must be proactive in assisting their clients in the planning process to ensure that the grant submitted is realistic both in terms of current reality and future feasibility for implementation.


By:  Derek Link


————————————


Other posts from The GrantGoddess Speaks that you might like:

How Did I Learn Grant Writing?  – Derek Link

Grant Writer Stalked by Client

Rantings of an Opinionated Grant Writer

Help! Grant Writer Downing in Paper!

How Positive Writing Makes a Better Grant

Also, take some time to visit A Writer’s Journey for more thoughts on writing.

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Do You Want to Become a Freelance Grant Writer: Are You Barking Mad?

Non-profit consultant and expert grant writer, Derek Link, shares his experience as a freelance grant writer with others who believe they are ready for the task:
 This is a serious question with serious consequences only to be considered by serious people because freelancing is a dangerous business.
First let us peer back through the annals of history to get some perspective on the term with the help of Wikipedia
According to Wikipedia – The term was first used by Sir Walter Scott (1771–1832) in Ivanhoe to describe a “medieval mercenary warrior” or “freelance” (indicating that the lance is not sworn to any lord’s services, not that the lance is available free of charge). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer, accessed on 9/16/10)
As you can see, the term referred originally to a mercenary warrior which is what we still are; however, to borrow an over-used phrase from literature, “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword” or in this case, lance.
Just as a mercenary warrior for hire wasn’t free, neither are freelance grant writers.  We charge for our services reflecting the skill involved and the grave difficulty of overcoming the wicked enemies (RFP’s, RFA’s, Dragon Naturally speaking, etc).
We’re also similar to the warriors of old, in that if we aren’t really good at what we do, we’re likely to die a premature death;  although, our death would be figurative and primarily financial involving a future of cardboard signs and shopping carts; while the warriors, on the other hand, simply died a hideous death.
You must possess certain qualities to become a freelancer. You must be brave to confront the possibility of failure and certain death, you must be skillful to defeat the enemies, and you must be active to find someone who will employ you (or you’re just a vagrant with a lance).
Ah indeed, the life of a freelancer is fraught with danger and intrigue.  It is a life on the road, never sleeping in the same place for two nights (Motel 6), eating whatever you can forage along the road (AM/PM, 7-11, conference buffets), and trying to earn enough money to keep your trusty steed healthy and well-fed (oil change on your ’87 Honda Civic and gas at $4 a gallon – scary).
But you think still this life as a freelancer is for you?  Ah, you’re hale and hearty if you do, but you’ll be forsaking allegiance to one master, a risky business (i.e., leaving your cushy government job).  There will be mistrust because you’re a stranger; there will be misunderstanding (because you don’t speak their language); there will be blind attacks from the right and the left (from nasty Board members and inept leadership); and there will be times of feast and famine (carry trail bars and water in the trunk).
If freelancing courses through your blood then prepare well, for all your skills will be tested and re-tested.
——————————–
Sign up now for our online curse – Becoming a Freeland Grant Writer.  Sessions start soon.








Knight photo courtesy of Freerk Lautenbag.
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com