Category Archives: grants

Good Grant Writers are Like Wedding Planners

Non-Profit consultant and grant writer, Derek Link, shares some thoughts on deadlines:

Deadlines are stressful and that’s what a wedding date is for a wedding planner. Each grant also comes with a deadline date and that makes grant writing stressful for the writer and his staff. Many grant applications are complicated documents that necessitate great attention to detail in order to produce a cohesive proposal. Paying attention to detail under the pressure of a deadline is hard! A good grant writer must also be a good organizer, sort of like a wedding planner, without the cake.

Here are a few glitches that can and do come up all in alignment with Murphy’s Law which says if things can go wrong, they will go wrong, and at the worst possible time.

1. Online submissions are always subject to the vagaries of the Internet, the website host, your internal network, your computer, your software, and power failures. A crash in any of these can cause you to miss a deadline.

2. Paper submissions are subject to internal network problems, computer problems, software problems, copier problems like running out of ink or hideous accordion-folded, roller-munching paper jams.

3. Any kind of submission can be impacted by key staff getting sick, faulty review of application docs that suddenly become clear at the last moment, lack of expertise with software or online submission programs, failure of the applicant to register for the online system in time to be approved and receive access, and even – dare I say it – clients who neglect to get key documents signed and returned until the day of the deadline.

In the end it’s crucial that the deadline is met because a tardy grant is a dead grant. It is important to know where the potential pitfalls are in advance, especially if you are motivated by the adrenaline-laced rush of procrastination. Alyce P. Cornyn-Selby in the Procrastinator’s Success Kit said, “A perfect method for adding drama to life is to wait until the deadline looms large.”

Grant drama is as inevitable as wedding drama so be sure you know where the pitfalls are and then put contingency plans in place.

—————————-

Do you know about the awesome resources available to you through the GrantGoddess.com Member Site?

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

Good Grant Writers are Like Wedding Planners

Non-Profit consultant and grant writer, Derek Link, shares some thoughts on deadlines:

Deadlines are stressful and that’s what a wedding date is for a wedding planner. Each grant also comes with a deadline date and that makes grant writing stressful for the writer and his staff. Many grant applications are complicated documents that necessitate great attention to detail in order to produce a cohesive proposal. Paying attention to detail under the pressure of a deadline is hard! A good grant writer must also be a good organizer, sort of like a wedding planner, without the cake.

Here are a few glitches that can and do come up all in alignment with Murphy’s Law which says if things can go wrong, they will go wrong, and at the worst possible time.

1. Online submissions are always subject to the vagaries of the Internet, the website host, your internal network, your computer, your software, and power failures. A crash in any of these can cause you to miss a deadline.

2. Paper submissions are subject to internal network problems, computer problems, software problems, copier problems like running out of ink or hideous accordion-folded, roller-munching paper jams.

3. Any kind of submission can be impacted by key staff getting sick, faulty review of application docs that suddenly become clear at the last moment, lack of expertise with software or online submission programs, failure of the applicant to register for the online system in time to be approved and receive access, and even – dare I say it – clients who neglect to get key documents signed and returned until the day of the deadline.

In the end it’s crucial that the deadline is met because a tardy grant is a dead grant. It is important to know where the potential pitfalls are in advance, especially if you are motivated by the adrenaline-laced rush of procrastination. Alyce P. Cornyn-Selby in the Procrastinator’s Success Kit said, “A perfect method for adding drama to life is to wait until the deadline looms large.”

Grant drama is as inevitable as wedding drama so be sure you know where the pitfalls are and then put contingency plans in place.

—————————-

Do you know about the awesome resources available to you through the GrantGoddess.com Member Site?

Lessons from Reviewing Grants

Non-Profit Consultant Derek Link shares the value of his experience as a grant reader:

Probably the most beneficial thing I’ve ever done as a grant writer is to volunteer to read and score grants. I highly recommend this strategy for anyone who wants to learn how to write a grant. Where else can you be educated, bored, entertained, aggravated, pampered, and condescended to all in one week?

I’ve been invited to read grants by state and federal government agencies. These agencies brought a group of us all together in one place – usually a hotel – and we’d be put up in rooms and given a stipend to cover our costs.

To read the grants we were given group training and organized into “triads”, groups of three as you may guess. One person with previous experience was elevated as the leader of the triad and usually had a larger room with a little dining area or a couch and chairs. This person organized the triad’s reading, hosted the scoring reviews, picked up and dropped off proposals and scoring forms, and generally attempted to ensure that the group accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish; namely, read and score a certain number of grants over a period of days.

Here are a few of the many reasons this experience is so instructive:

  1. You are given detailed training by the agency staff on the important points of the grant program. This is useful if you ever want to submit a grant to that program;
  2. The process entails carefully scoring proposals according to the agency criteria, then comparing your scores to the other members of the triad. Usually there is a predetermined tolerance for score meaning all scores must be within a specified range. When a score falls outside the range, the triad must “discuss” why a certain score was given and make adjustments to move the scores closer together. This can be horrific if a genetically recalcitrant person is part of your triad – I’ve experienced one or two very long weeks of grant reading with people who were never subsequently included on my Christmas card list;
  3. You get out of town, take a plane ride, meet new people, stay in a nice hotel (usually), and meet government employees (can be fun or fascinating);
  4. You’ll see some truly fabulous writing that may make you feel rather incompetent – and it doesn’t take a Steinbeck to inspire me (although he does);
  5. You’ll also get to see some truly hideous writing that makes you feel better about your own – I even feel better about my serial hacking of grammar (lamented by many would-be English teachers).

In summary, there are more pros than cons to being a grant reader so by all means go and do it if you’re serious about becoming a good grant writer.  In a compressed time and through hands-on experience you’ll get a great education about good grant writing.

———-

Related Posts:

How to Be a Better Grant Writer (Part 1)

How to be a Better Grant Writer (Part 2)

The Value of Readers’ Comments

Is There a Formula for Grant Writing Success?

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

Lessons from Reviewing Grants

Non-Profit Consultant Derek Link shares the value of his experience as a grant reader:

Probably the most beneficial thing I’ve ever done as a grant writer is to volunteer to read and score grants. I highly recommend this strategy for anyone who wants to learn how to write a grant. Where else can you be educated, bored, entertained, aggravated, pampered, and condescended to all in one week?

I’ve been invited to read grants by state and federal government agencies. These agencies brought a group of us all together in one place – usually a hotel – and we’d be put up in rooms and given a stipend to cover our costs.

To read the grants we were given group training and organized into “triads”, groups of three as you may guess. One person with previous experience was elevated as the leader of the triad and usually had a larger room with a little dining area or a couch and chairs. This person organized the triad’s reading, hosted the scoring reviews, picked up and dropped off proposals and scoring forms, and generally attempted to ensure that the group accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish; namely, read and score a certain number of grants over a period of days.

Here are a few of the many reasons this experience is so instructive:

  1. You are given detailed training by the agency staff on the important points of the grant program. This is useful if you ever want to submit a grant to that program;
  2. The process entails carefully scoring proposals according to the agency criteria, then comparing your scores to the other members of the triad. Usually there is a predetermined tolerance for score meaning all scores must be within a specified range. When a score falls outside the range, the triad must “discuss” why a certain score was given and make adjustments to move the scores closer together. This can be horrific if a genetically recalcitrant person is part of your triad – I’ve experienced one or two very long weeks of grant reading with people who were never subsequently included on my Christmas card list;
  3. You get out of town, take a plane ride, meet new people, stay in a nice hotel (usually), and meet government employees (can be fun or fascinating);
  4. You’ll see some truly fabulous writing that may make you feel rather incompetent – and it doesn’t take a Steinbeck to inspire me (although he does);
  5. You’ll also get to see some truly hideous writing that makes you feel better about your own – I even feel better about my serial hacking of grammar (lamented by many would-be English teachers).

In summary, there are more pros than cons to being a grant reader so by all means go and do it if you’re serious about becoming a good grant writer.  In a compressed time and through hands-on experience you’ll get a great education about good grant writing.

———-

Related Posts:

How to Be a Better Grant Writer (Part 1)

How to be a Better Grant Writer (Part 2)

The Value of Readers’ Comments

Is There a Formula for Grant Writing Success?

Grant Writing Secret – The Power of Language Mimicry

The persuasive power of mimicry has been well established in the fields of sales and marketing, yet professionals in education and the social services rarely use the strategy to get an advantage.  It can be a very powerful tool for success in grant writing.

Language mimicry in grant writing is all about using the same language of the scoring criteria in your responses to the criteria. I’m not talking about merely restating the criteria, but using the exact language of the criteria somewhere in your response.

Here’s a very basic example: If the scoring criterion is, “The degree to which the applicant identifies and addresses gaps in services,” you would not discuss “services that are missing.” You would specifically use the language “gaps in services.”  You would also claim  that your project “addresses these gaps in services to a very high degree,” or that it represents a “superior approach to addressing gaps in services.” Of course, the detail is important, but using the language of the criteria signals to readers that you are focusing on those criteria.

Unfortunately, what many people do instead of mimicking the language is to simply restate the criteria. “Our project has identified gaps in services and addresses them,” is an example of simply restating the criterion.

There are several reasons why this strategy gives you a leg up:

  1. Grant readers become fatigued after reading several grants. Fatigue begins to set in with the third grant read in a sitting.  As they become fatigued, they start to look for key words.  What are those key words?  The key words in the scoring criteria. the later in the day your proposal is read, the more important those key words become.
  2. Not all grant readers are experts in the disciplines of the competition. This is most commonly seen in the area of evaluation.  The criteria may include a requirement that your evaluation use both qualitative and quantitative data, and you may have given examples of both qualitative and quantitative data.  However, most grant readers are not evaluators and I have seen examples of readers not being able to identify listed data sources as qualitative and quantitative.  You need to write “The qualitative data we will collect for evaluation purposes are…..” and “The quantitative data we will collect….”
  3. In federal competitions, readers from other states may not understand programs in your state. For example, the criteria may say that the projects must include services for youth in schools going through a program improvement process.  Your state may have a particular name for that process that does not include the words “program improvement.”  You cannot assume the readers will just know.
  4. The psychological research in the area of mimicry tells us it works. When you mimic the language of the scoring criteria, the readers view you as more professional and more responsive to the RFP, in the same way that physically mimicking the person you are talking to in a meeting gives the impression that you are more interested and focused on that person’s needs.

Language mimicry is not the only thing you need to pay attention to in the grant writing process.  It is not even the most important thing to remember. However, it is one of those secrets that separates a good grant writer with a moderate level of success from the great ones with phenomenal success.  Which one do you want to be?

Grant Writing Secret – The Power of Language Mimicry

The persuasive power of mimicry has been well established in the fields of sales and marketing, yet professionals in education and the social services rarely use the strategy to get an advantage.  It can be a very powerful tool for success in grant writing.

Language mimicry in grant writing is all about using the same language of the scoring criteria in your responses to the criteria. I’m not talking about merely restating the criteria, but using the exact language of the criteria somewhere in your response.

Here’s a very basic example: If the scoring criterion is, “The degree to which the applicant identifies and addresses gaps in services,” you would not discuss “services that are missing.” You would specifically use the language “gaps in services.”  You would also claim  that your project “addresses these gaps in services to a very high degree,” or that it represents a “superior approach to addressing gaps in services.” Of course, the detail is important, but using the language of the criteria signals to readers that you are focusing on those criteria.

Unfortunately, what many people do instead of mimicking the language is to simply restate the criteria. “Our project has identified gaps in services and addresses them,” is an example of simply restating the criterion.

There are several reasons why this strategy gives you a leg up:

  1. Grant readers become fatigued after reading several grants. Fatigue begins to set in with the third grant read in a sitting.  As they become fatigued, they start to look for key words.  What are those key words?  The key words in the scoring criteria. the later in the day your proposal is read, the more important those key words become.
  2. Not all grant readers are experts in the disciplines of the competition. This is most commonly seen in the area of evaluation.  The criteria may include a requirement that your evaluation use both qualitative and quantitative data, and you may have given examples of both qualitative and quantitative data.  However, most grant readers are not evaluators and I have seen examples of readers not being able to identify listed data sources as qualitative and quantitative.  You need to write “The qualitative data we will collect for evaluation purposes are…..” and “The quantitative data we will collect….”
  3. In federal competitions, readers from other states may not understand programs in your state. For example, the criteria may say that the projects must include services for youth in schools going through a program improvement process.  Your state may have a particular name for that process that does not include the words “program improvement.”  You cannot assume the readers will just know.
  4. The psychological research in the area of mimicry tells us it works. When you mimic the language of the scoring criteria, the readers view you as more professional and more responsive to the RFP, in the same way that physically mimicking the person you are talking to in a meeting gives the impression that you are more interested and focused on that person’s needs.

Language mimicry is not the only thing you need to pay attention to in the grant writing process.  It is not even the most important thing to remember. However, it is one of those secrets that separates a good grant writer with a moderate level of success from the great ones with phenomenal success.  Which one do you want to be?

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

Writing Good Letters of Support for Grants

One of the most difficult parts of the grant writing process is getting good letters of support from project partners. Collecting lots of letters is not the point.  In fact, having a big handful of poorly written letters will actually hurt your chances of funding, rather than help.

The whole point of submitting letters of support with a proposal is to document your collaboration and the contributions to be made by various partners. If your letters do not accomplish that point, they are more of a hindrance than a help.

Here are some tips to help you write and gather great letters of support:

  • Don’t use a form letter.  Yes, everyone is really busy, but using a form letter for all of your letters of support (just substituting the letterhead and the name of the organization) actually demonstrates a lack of collaboration, which is opposite to the effect you want. If you want to provide samples for your partners, fine, but be aware that some folks will just copy those samples unless you work with them very closely.  If your partners are unable to put together the kind of letters you need, it would be a better idea to write each individual letter for them and submit them to your partners for their approval and signature.  They can then make any changes they need before putting the letter on letterhead and signing.  They will be grateful for the help, and you’ll get better letters.
  • Include the identity of the partner, the nature of the relationship, and the nature of the contribution. That’s three core paragraphs.  The identity of the partner paragraph should include basic information about the agency authoring the letter.  The nature of the relationship paragraph should discuss the history of the relationship and how the parties are working together on the project in question. The history of the relationship would go here, too. The nature of the contribution paragraph should focus on what contributions the partner agency will make to the project during the life of the grant, or at least over the next year.  It should clearly delineate if the contribution is an in-kind donation of services or if the agency will be compensated for the contribution through the grant.
  • Quantify contributions whenever possible. Contributions can be quantified, but folks often hesitate to do so because they are afraid they will be asked to produce that donation in cash at some point.  That is not the case.  If you’re that worried about it, say in the letter that the contribution is in the form of services, not cash. An estimate of the actual dollar value of the contribution is enough.  This is a letter of support, not a tax receipt.
  • Put the letter on agency letterhead. This makes it look much more official than a letter on plain white paper. Remember, in the computer age, letterhead can be easily created for free.
  • Include the signature of the organization decision maker. The signature of the superintendent or executive director is generally more valuable than the signature of a coordinator or project manager; however, if a letter from a lower level employee in the organization would be more inclusive of details about how the agencies work together, go for it! Remember, the content matters.
  • Make sure the letters match what you said in the narrative.  This is why grant planning and writing can be so challenging.  Your partner letters need to reinforce and support what you said in the main grant narrative.  That means your partners really need to play some role in the planning and know something about the proposal.  They don’t necessarily need to see the full proposal before you can expect a letter, but they should at least know something about it. The more they know, the stronger the letters will be.

Taking the time to gather really good letters can make a big difference in your chances of funding.  Sometimes, the letters will make the difference.  Don’t make the mistake of underestimating their value.

On Friday, February 26, 2010, we’ll be hosting a Tips from the Grant Goddess BlogTalkRadio episode on this very topic. You can listen to the show live (and call in to ask questions, if you’d like) or you can listen to the recording of the show on-demand any time after the live broadcast at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Veronica-Robbins . Of course, it’s free!

In addition, sometime within the next few days, we’ll be posting a FREE webinar on the topic (Writing Great Letters of Support for Grants).  You can access it through the webinar page on our website.

Writing Good Letters of Support for Grants

One of the most difficult parts of the grant writing process is getting good letters of support from project partners. Collecting lots of letters is not the point.  In fact, having a big handful of poorly written letters will actually hurt your chances of funding, rather than help.

The whole point of submitting letters of support with a proposal is to document your collaboration and the contributions to be made by various partners. If your letters do not accomplish that point, they are more of a hindrance than a help.

Here are some tips to help you write and gather great letters of support:

  • Don’t use a form letter.  Yes, everyone is really busy, but using a form letter for all of your letters of support (just substituting the letterhead and the name of the organization) actually demonstrates a lack of collaboration, which is opposite to the effect you want. If you want to provide samples for your partners, fine, but be aware that some folks will just copy those samples unless you work with them very closely.  If your partners are unable to put together the kind of letters you need, it would be a better idea to write each individual letter for them and submit them to your partners for their approval and signature.  They can then make any changes they need before putting the letter on letterhead and signing.  They will be grateful for the help, and you’ll get better letters.
  • Include the identity of the partner, the nature of the relationship, and the nature of the contribution. That’s three core paragraphs.  The identity of the partner paragraph should include basic information about the agency authoring the letter.  The nature of the relationship paragraph should discuss the history of the relationship and how the parties are working together on the project in question. The history of the relationship would go here, too. The nature of the contribution paragraph should focus on what contributions the partner agency will make to the project during the life of the grant, or at least over the next year.  It should clearly delineate if the contribution is an in-kind donation of services or if the agency will be compensated for the contribution through the grant.
  • Quantify contributions whenever possible. Contributions can be quantified, but folks often hesitate to do so because they are afraid they will be asked to produce that donation in cash at some point.  That is not the case.  If you’re that worried about it, say in the letter that the contribution is in the form of services, not cash. An estimate of the actual dollar value of the contribution is enough.  This is a letter of support, not a tax receipt.
  • Put the letter on agency letterhead. This makes it look much more official than a letter on plain white paper. Remember, in the computer age, letterhead can be easily created for free.
  • Include the signature of the organization decision maker. The signature of the superintendent or executive director is generally more valuable than the signature of a coordinator or project manager; however, if a letter from a lower level employee in the organization would be more inclusive of details about how the agencies work together, go for it! Remember, the content matters.
  • Make sure the letters match what you said in the narrative.  This is why grant planning and writing can be so challenging.  Your partner letters need to reinforce and support what you said in the main grant narrative.  That means your partners really need to play some role in the planning and know something about the proposal.  They don’t necessarily need to see the full proposal before you can expect a letter, but they should at least know something about it. The more they know, the stronger the letters will be.

Taking the time to gather really good letters can make a big difference in your chances of funding.  Sometimes, the letters will make the difference.  Don’t make the mistake of underestimating their value.

On Friday, February 26, 2010, we’ll be hosting a Tips from the Grant Goddess BlogTalkRadio episode on this very topic. You can listen to the show live (and call in to ask questions, if you’d like) or you can listen to the recording of the show on-demand any time after the live broadcast at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Veronica-Robbins . Of course, it’s free!

In addition, sometime within the next few days, we’ll be posting a FREE webinar on the topic (Writing Great Letters of Support for Grants).  You can access it through the webinar page on our website.

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

If It’s Not Right, Just Say No

I did a BlogTalkRadio broadcast on Saturday about two new RFPs that came out last Friday – Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools and Grants for Integrating Schools with Mental Health Systems. On the radio show, I summarized the details of each grant opportunity – deadlines, eligibility requirements, funding priorities, available funding, etc.

One of the details for Grants for Integrating Schools with Mental Health Systems is that grant funds cannot be used to fund direct services for students.

Since then, I’ve had two conversations with people who want to know if there is any way they could use that funding source to pay for a school counselor.  The answer was, “Not if that counselor is going to provide any direct services to students.” Both then followed up with several questions asking if we could find a way to describe the counselor’s duties that would be acceptable to get them funded, but then they went on to make their intent clear – that the counselor would be providing direct services to students.  My answer, “No.”

When you have an intensive need, it’s very tempting to try to make the square peg of what you need fit into the round hole of what the funder is offering, but it is never a good idea. Not only can it be unethical, but ultimately, it won’t help you get closer to the achievement of your mission.

In the case of my example, I advised these clients to wait for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program grants.  That source will fund school counselors.  It’s a square hole made to fit the client’s square peg.

Keep looking, you’ll find the funding source that fits your needs.

If you find one that’s not right for you, just say no.

If It’s Not Right, Just Say No

I did a BlogTalkRadio broadcast on Saturday about two new RFPs that came out last Friday – Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools and Grants for Integrating Schools with Mental Health Systems. On the radio show, I summarized the details of each grant opportunity – deadlines, eligibility requirements, funding priorities, available funding, etc.

One of the details for Grants for Integrating Schools with Mental Health Systems is that grant funds cannot be used to fund direct services for students.

Since then, I’ve had two conversations with people who want to know if there is any way they could use that funding source to pay for a school counselor.  The answer was, “Not if that counselor is going to provide any direct services to students.” Both then followed up with several questions asking if we could find a way to describe the counselor’s duties that would be acceptable to get them funded, but then they went on to make their intent clear – that the counselor would be providing direct services to students.  My answer, “No.”

When you have an intensive need, it’s very tempting to try to make the square peg of what you need fit into the round hole of what the funder is offering, but it is never a good idea. Not only can it be unethical, but ultimately, it won’t help you get closer to the achievement of your mission.

In the case of my example, I advised these clients to wait for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program grants.  That source will fund school counselors.  It’s a square hole made to fit the client’s square peg.

Keep looking, you’ll find the funding source that fits your needs.

If you find one that’s not right for you, just say no.

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