Category Archives: grants

Fighting to Avoid Change

I had an evaluation contract recently to evaluate an organization’s safe schools programs. My job was to evaluate the degree to which they were achieving their identified objectives and implementing their program as designed.

The bottom line is that they were neither achieving objectives nor implementing their program as designed. Every time the project director tried to do something she was supposed to do, she was foiled by upper administration. They said they wanted change, but they did everything in their power to stop change. So, the project director stayed busy doing other things – good things – while staying away from any controversy that might affect her job.

Halfway through their 4-year grant period, they were subject to a federal monitoring visit because of a clash between the grant’s lead partners and the dysfunctional administration of the grantee (my client). I was asked to share results.  I did. I said they were neither achieving objectives nor implementing the program as designed.

Until that moment, I had no idea how far people would go to cover their tracks and avoid change. The administration rose up and started pointing at all the wonderful things they were doing. I made that the point that those activities were, indeed, wonderful, but they would not do a thing to get them closer to achieving their objectives. I also reminded them that they selected the activities that they put in their grant because they were evidence-based practices that would likely lead to positive changes in the areas targeted by their objectives.

Things got ugly. Soon, fingers started pointing at the evaluation as the culprit.  That perplexed me because the evaluation had no role in implementation at all.  How could it possibly be our fault that they were not doing what they had agreed to do?

But they were persistent and brutal.

They asked for (and were granted) permission to change some of their objectives to say simply that they were successful at doing what they were doing.

Six months later, when it came time to contract for another year, I declined and walked away. Clearly, the administration was more interested in avoiding change than making their schools any safer. I know that sounds harsh, and I know that those administrators would never, ever admit to such a thing.  Maybe they don’t even realize what they are doing, but avoiding accountability is avoiding change and fighting to keep the status quo. I couldn’t be part of that anymore.

The result?

They hired another evaluator, presumably one who they hope will tell them what they want to hear.

And now, at the end of the grant period, the schools are no safer than they were before the grant was written, nothing has really changed in the infrastructure of the organization that can reasonably be expected to make their schools safer, and there is even more gang activity (and it’s more violent) in the community than there was before.

Millions of federal dollars were spent and nothing significant has changed.

Why?

Because it’s human nature for people to avoid change and, if their jobs may be affected in any way, they will fight to avoid it. The status quo, the “way things have always been done,” is a very powerful force. Clearly, throwing money at it is not the key to change. Don’t get me wrong. Financial resources may be necessary for change, but they are not the most important part.

The most important part is buy-in, and not just the buy-in of your collaborative partners, although that is very important.  Often, the buy-in you need most to make anything real happen is on the part of people you didn’t even think to bring to the table.

So, as you are thinking about applying for a collaborative grant, ask yourself, “If we get this grant, who could really sabotage our efforts and cause us to fail?” That is who also needs to be at the table from the beginning.

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

Losing My Wallet

I like to think I am a pretty organized person. I like knowing where to find things. I tend to put my keys and wallet in the same place each evening on the coffee table, and on the same place on my desk at the office every morning.
I find it is less stressful to know that I won’t have to search for them when I need them again. To my mind the less I have to think about things I can control, the more space in my head I’ll have for things I can’t control. I try to avoid creating problems, life gives  me enough problems  to solve.
Grant writers have to be organized because we deal with so much real and virtual paper. The stacks of documents, publications, emails, text messages, tweets, excel spreadsheets, graphics, and pictures can be overwhelming. They pile up so darned fast that important documents can get lost, overlooked, or mulch in an electronic compost pile if you aren’t careful.
I like to think of myself as an organized person but I still lose things and waste time looking for them. I don’t always follow a logical system for labeling and storing electronic files. Oh, I usually have a reason for where I put them, it’s just that I can’t always remember my reasoning 45 minutes after I have concluded my deliberations.
It doesn’t help that there are so many bloody disk drives on my computer, and CD disks, and flash drives, and external hard drives, and multiple computers! It’s like having six coffee tables where I could put my keys and they were all identical; I would probably forget which coffee table I put my things on and have to scour each one before I left for work. That’s how it gets with :c and, :e and, :f and, :I drives; they all have storage and they all have folders and I forget where things are placed. That’s where I can get things horribly lost.
My systems for staying organized are imperfect and sometimes they get crisscrossed in my brain – especially when there’s a deadline.  Suddenly I’ll find that I am flinging my wallet onto the dresser in the bedroom or on the counter in the kitchen instead of the coffee table next to my Newsweek magazine that I won’t have time to read because I’ll spend fifteen minutes hunting for my wallet and cursing the ne’er-do-well who snuck in during the night to rob me.
Other Posts You May Enjoy:
Graphic Credit – Chelsea Koetsveld
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Silent Fraud in Federal Grant Evaluations Costs Billions

I’m stuck in a very difficult position with one of my evaluation clients right now. I have a report due very soon and there are some poor outcomes to report and some whistle blowing that needs to be done. This is the very reason why this particular program requires that all grantees hire independent external evaluators.  Many federal programs have the same requirement.  It’s an effort to ensure that grantees don’t fudge their evaluation results to make themselves look better and worthy of continued funding.

The problem is that most external evaluators are not independent.  In fact, they are very dependent on the grantees for their livelihood.  Sure, they aren’t employees of the grantees; they are usually independent contractors, but bias is inherently built into the relationship by the very people who want to ensure an unbiased evaluation – the funders.

The problem: Grantees have the freedom to fire evaluators who say things that they don’t want to hear and hire someone else who will be more amenable to telling the story the way the grantee wants it told. And in this time of economic hardship and massive budget cuts impacting almost every organization in the country, grantees have a powerful incentive to look good at all costs just to keep the dollars flowing.

Sure, you can say that an evaluator with integrity will tell the truth anyway, and I agree with you to some extent.  Unfortunately, in today’s economy jobs are hard to come by and independent contractors have to do everything they can to get and keep jobs, so many are faced with this ethical conundrum at a time when they will pay a very high price for their integrity. They are faced with biting the hand that feeds them, and hoping that the hand doesn’t bite back.

And for every honest evaluator who stands her ground, there are 20 unscrupulous ones ready and willing to step in and say whatever the client wants to hear.

And it’s not just about the integrity of the evaluator in that situation or keeping that job. The grant world is a fairly small one and word spreads.  No one wants the reputation of being someone who isn’t afraid to make their client look bad.  It makes you a hero among evaluators and funders, but it also makes you untouchable to clients, and they are the folks who make the hiring decisions.

Here’s another problem:  Many external evaluators write the federal performance reports for their clients.  In many ways this makes sense because they are the ones most familiar with the data and in the best position to describe and report the outcomes. However, performance reports technically are the responsibility of the grantee and they are submitted by the grantee as their statement of progress. In a performance report, the grantee has every right to change what the evaluator writes to align it with their own perspective. So, even if the evaluator has the integrity to tell the ugly truth, the funder won’t see it, unless of course the grantee doesn’t read their own report before it is submitted which is an unfortunate, but very common, practice..

Unlike performance reports, evaluation reports cannot be tampered with by the grantee, but the evaluator has to deal with the first problem I described – biting the hand that feeds them.

So here I sit, staring at some data that tell a very unflattering story. I’ll write the performance report that tells the truth and the client will get very upset and change it before they submit it. Then we’ll have some tension in our professional relationship, which I’ll spend the next 5 months trying to repair before the decision about contracting with me next year has to be made.

Yes, my friends, these are your tax dollars at work. It’s a corrupt system. Because performance reports are used by the federal government to make decisions about continuation funding, lying in performance reports constitutes fraud, but everyone looks away.  Looking away is the only way the corrupt system can continue.

In a time when banks and big businesses are being vilified for their fiscal practices, this fraud – which amounts to billions of dollars a year – goes unexamined and continues to thrive in every corner of the country.

***************************

Follow us on Twitter! @grantgoddess
Like us on Facebook!

http://grantgoddess.com

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

How NOT To Do It

I usually like to publish positive tips for improving your grant writing skills, but every now and then I come across such a great example of what not to do that I can’t help but share it.

21st Century Community Learning Center grants were due earlier this week.  A little over two months ago, I approached one of my longstanding clients about writing one.  The reply was a cool, “No, we’ve got people who can handle this one.”  I replied as I always do to when a client declines my services.  I wished them luck and reminded them that if they need any help or would just like me to do a quick read (free of charge, of course) and give some feedback before they submitted the grant, I would be glad to help. I was assured that they wouldn’t need my help.

Then I let it go.

I moved on with that grant with contracts I acquired with two other clients.  Everything progressed as expected.

Then, at 3:00 p.m. on deadline day (proposals had to be received by the funding agency by 5:00 p.m.) I got a call from someone representing that client who wanted their login and password for the online system so they could upload their proposal.

First of all, I didn’t have their login and password for that particular system. If I’d had it, I would have provided it immediately. The other problem, though, is that this online system was a little strange. Applicants were required to complete a lot of forms online and submit them online.  Then, they needed to print some of them for signatures, and then combine those forms with the grant narrative and attachments and submit the hard copy to the funding source.  The whole package was not to be uploaded at all.

That meant that once these folks found a login and password, they would have to get those forms filled out, print some of them, gather more signatures, assemble their whole package, and hand deliver it to the funding source.  It would take them 30-40 minutes to get there to deliver the package.

I don’t know how it turned out, but it’s pretty likely they missed the deadline.

What’s the big takeaway lesson here?

If you are submitting a grant through any electronic system, acquiring a login and password and checking out the system and submittal procedures is one of the first things you should be doing, not the last.

These folks fell into the trap of focusing on the preparation of the narrative, rather than seeing the entire process. It’s a mistake that may have cost them half a million dollars.

*********************
Try reading A Writer’s Journey and Sexy Grant Writers for more tips, hints, and even laughs.

What to see some examples of successful grant proposals to help you improve your grant writing skills?  Visit Grant Samples.

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

Writing is My Fascination

Excellent writing fascinates me because it is so powerful. I believe that writers are born. But even born writers must be trained. I was a writer from a young age. I made comic books for my brother, and I told him stories at night about my stuffed animals to make him laugh.
My training has mostly been outside the classroom. I was educated in California where grammar wasn’t taught. It was considered an unnecessary encumbrance to the creative process. I drive my editors insane.
“Prose is architecture, not interior decoration.” Ernest Hemingway


I write a lot. I write almost all the time. I write on the bus. I write at the coffee shop. I write at home. I write for a living.
When I am not writing, I am usually reading. I read on a Kindle, a smart phone, and an HP Netbook. I also have shelves of books I haven’t time to read yet. But the collection grows because I can’t help collecting interesting titles.
“Read everything–trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies the master. Read! You’ll absorb it. Then write. If it is good, you’ll find out.” William Faulkner


The written word is no less magic for me within a grant proposal than it is within a fictional book about goblins and faeries. Description and beautiful arrangement of words, phrases, and sentences stands out when you read it no matter what it’s about. There is a flow to excellent writing that is simply wonderful. Achieving that flow is mastery. Every once in a while I’ll write something that comes close to achieving the flow. But it’s hard work and I don’t do achieve that level as often as I aspire to do.
“Quantity produces quality. If you only write a few things, you’re doomed.” Ray Bradbury


Writing a fine narrative is hard work that requires hours of revising, polishing, and editing. There’s no way around the work, there are no shortcuts.
“God sells us all things at the price of the labor.” Leonardo da Vinci 


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

Script Writing vs. Grant Writing

I attended a script writing seminar recently in Los Angeles. I went because I wanted to see what writers from another genre talk about and I glad I attended. It was fascinating and thrilling to be with a group of authors. Grant writers tend to be reclusive folks and don’t tend to flock together. One of the authors presenting on one of the three panels quipped, “You probably became writers to get away from people, but I hate to tell you, being a script writer means you’ll have to work with people all the time.”

Two things occurred to me when I heard her say that.  First, that I love writing because it is solitary. I enjoy being alone and it’s probably why I enjoy the solitude of the mountains so much. I do my best writing when I am not bothered by people making demands on me. I write best when my mind is uncluttered, with the TV off, the phone silenced, and no event to prepare myself to attend.
The second thing that occurred to me is that I used to have a naive solitary vision of what a grant writer does, sits blissfully writing brilliant narratives in a cedar-paneled alcove perched overlooking the ocean. Ahhh… well, we’re allowed our little fantasies, right?
Alas, reality intruded on my vision, just like script writers, there is a lot of interaction with people during the grant process.  You must talk to people to obtain a contract. You must engage with people to plan, sometimes a lot of people. You must engage with people to review and revise the proposal. The end of the process leaves you alone again, grinding out the final proposal; but it’s a brief interlude, and actually only a prelude to starting the process all over again. Before the glow of submittal leaves your rosy cheeks, you are right back into meeting with people again!
Don’t get me wrong, I am not misanthropic. I enjoy people’s company and seek it out when I want it. But there is something magical for me in the solitary writing process that is necessary and wonderful at the same time. Passing time within the written word, within the conceptualization and the phrasing brings joy to me that non-writers can’t understand, especially people who thrive on conversation the way I thrive on composition.
A comical statement by another author at the seminar stuck in my mind, “If you want to be a script writer and you didn’t come from a dysfunctional family, I feel sorry for you.” By this she meant that a dysfunctional background gives a writer knowledge that is useful for producing fictional narratives, because they’re always written around solving a problem. Dysfunctional families have lots of problems to solve.
I think the benefits of dysfunctional experience applies to grant writing. Grants are often written to solve a problem too; but instead of coming from a dysfunctional family, a grant writer benefits if they have worked in a dysfunctional organization. I have that in spades (one public organization I worked for went bankrupt [for the record, I was not the cause]). I’ve seen every aspect of organizational management done wrong, so it’s easier for me to envision a better way and describe it in my narratives.
I was pleased to learn at the seminar that my background blesses me in both genres (don’t worry, I am not telling tales out of school, my family won’t argue the point). Perhaps I am destined to write a script one day: who knows where a writer’s path will lead?

If You Liked This Post, You Will Enjoy:
Grant Writing is No Mystery
Grant Writing: Fact or Fiction?

(For the Record – Consultant Derek Link authored this post, so the Grant Goddess’ family should neither remove her from their Christmas shopping list nor “unfriend” her on Facebook.)

Photo Credit – Craig Purdum

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

How Does a Grant Writer Build Client Trust?

I’ve worked as a consultant for many years now and one thing I know is that establishing trust with clients is important. I’ve watched many consultants over the years fail to build trust with their clients and the result has always been that they fail. Critical ways for a grant writer to lose trust with a client are low approval rates and lack of confidentiality.
The problem with grant writing business failure, beyond the obvious trouble for the consultant, is that the client suffers because they’ve worked to get approval for a consulting agreement. The client has demonstrated their trust in an individual who let them down; it damages the client’s reputation within their organization.
Hiring a grant writer is a big decision because it costs money. While a good grant writer can earn an organization large awards, if the consultant is average or poor, their grants will be funded at a low percentage and contracting with them will cost the organization a lot of money with little or no return on investment.
A poor approval rate erodes trust quickly and another key way to lose the trust of a client is to be less than strictly confidential. I’ve witnessed many consultants lose trust with clients because they are unprofessional and share information they shouldn’t. It may be information about themselves, their co-workers, competitors, or their other clients. A grant writer who is inclined toward gossip will never make a good consultant; these people are a liability to an organization, not a benefit. There is no positive return on investment for gossip.
An easy way to identify a consultant that will not be trustworthy is that they share derogatory information about their competitors to make themselves look good. If a grant writer is willing to gossip about competitors, the client has evidence to question the consultant’s confidentiality with regard to their own organization. It is certain the client’s personal and organizational faults and foibles will be gossiped to anyone who gives an ear. As the old saying goes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
A grant writer must have a history of writing successful proposals and be capable of maintaining professional confidentiality in order to achieve a successful career. Organizations are wise to hire consultants cautiously and pay attention to the level of professionalism they display.
Whoever gossips to you will gossip about you.  ~Spanish Proverb~






Other posts you may enjoy:

Photo Credits: Israel Papillon & Julia Freeman-Woolpert
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Grant Writer Taking a Break

Refreshing your brain is important for anyone who, a) has one, b) must use it to make a living.

Keep close to Nature’s heart… and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean.  John Muir

So once a year I go to the mountains to camp and to wash my spirit clean. California’s mountains are beautiful in summer and there are yet places to go where few people do, even though these are becoming harder to find.
Writing is always a part of these trips, but not grant writing of course. I take a Moleskine®  with me and make a point of writing each morning while greeting the sun. I sit high on a boulder where I can hear the Marsh Hawk screech and the peeping ground squirrels and where I can watch the coyotes trot home to their burrows after a night of hunting.
I look forward to these times in the mountains from the moment I leave there each year until the moment that I step back into that glorious valley. 
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Grant Writing is Part Fiction

In the broadest terms, grant writing is like fiction writing because the grant writer describes a future state that results from delivery of grant services. The details of how the grant will unfold are fictional, based on the best facts at hand, sound planning and demonstrated competence of the organization.  In this post, I compare the key parts of a fiction story to key features of a grant narrative.

Fiction Writing

Grant Writing

The Main Character

The main character is the one who has to solve the conflict of the story.

A main character has a history that gives depth and makes the characters present actions logical.

The main character needs to experience some form change that causes them to grow.

It is not necessary to describe as much history about the supporting characters as the main character. A supporting character may support the resolution of the conflict while others may be the cause of the problem.

The Applicant

The applicant is the main character and must be described. The writer must detail the history, strengths, accomplishments, plans, etc.

The conflict in a grant narrative is the need that has caused the submission of the grant in the first place.  The grant is designed to resolve the needs(conflict) presented.

The supporting characters in a grant application are the partners, major donors, etc.  The amount of description to include for each partner depends on their involvement in the grant design.

Another type of supporting character in a grant application is the recipients of services who may also grow, change or benefit from the services that the grant provides. It could be people, the environment, or an organization that benefits from the grant services.

A grant typically produces changes and/or growth in the application organization that relates to its history and mission in a logical way.

Character Building
A fictional character must be defined for the reader. A character must be described thoroughly so it produces a clear picture in the reader’s mind.

Many times in fiction a more unique each character makes the story a lot more interesting.

Building the Program Design

Character development is similar to development of the project design in grant writing.  The project design needs to be defined, shaped, and described so clearly that the grant reader can “see” the end product with absolute clarity and conviction. Uniqueness can be helpful in grant writing too, but only if it builds the funder’s commitment to giving you the grant.  If the uniqueness of your project just makes it unbelievable, you’re in trouble.

Dialogue
Grants do not have dialogue.  This is a key point of departure between the two writing genres.

Detail
Details greatly enhance fiction but using too much detail can ruin a story by bogging down the flow of the action.
Detail

While too much detail may ruin a fictional story, detail can only help a grant narrative; in fact, getting enough detail into a grant narrative is the most difficult challenge a grant writer faces. Detail is crucial to the credibility of your narrative.

Related Posts:

Photo Credit – 

Julia Freeman-Woolpert

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

Has the Golden Age of Education Grant Writing Passed?

I started writing grants in about 1995 during what I have come to think of as the Golden Age of education grant writing. Government grants were used as a positive way to spark and spread new ideas and solutions. I became, and remain, a huge proponent of grants as an effective vehicle to fund educational change.
A prime example of how education grants were used in the Golden Age was bilingual education. Bilingual grants spurred innovation as practitioners were given funding to experiment and seek the best ways to implement bilingual programs. The government looked to the field to discover the best way to ensure immigrant children succeeded, and concomitantly, to teach a second language to both English and non-English speakers. Bilingual education got plowed under by the politics of language and immigration; in the end, success was irrelevant and all the funds were redistributed.
Slowly but surely over the past 16 years, the number of grants from the federal and state level for all educational programs dwindled as government leaders consolidated centralized control, in the form of standards which remain the organizing dictum for budgeting in education. In the absence of innovation, standards have gone largely unchallenged as the preeminent organizing philosophy (a topic for another post).
The Golden Age of grants passed into the Lead Age of entitlements in which money is redistributed at pennies per student to be consumed by the ravenous starving dogs that are general fund budgets (woof). In this new age, grants to fund innovation are superfluous and replaced by entitlements and a few grants to pay for implementation of “approved”, “research-based” solutions.
I’m eager for an educational grant renaissance that will revive an entrepreneurial style of leadership; one that sparks innovation and change. The answers to educational issues can be discovered but it requires that we trust practitioners to plan and take risks based on their experience on the front line.
Other posts you may enjoy:
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com