Tune Out the Noise in Your Grant Proposal

Do you remember how difficult it could be sometimes to tune in to a radio station? A tiny move of the tuning nob could bring static.  Another tiny move could bring in two stations talking over each other and a little static, too. Finally, you get it just right and you hear the station you wanted as clear as a bell. (I realize that there may be some very young ones among you who have come of age in an era of iPods and Pandora who don’t know what I’m talking about, but go with it for a moment, ok?)

I have been working on a grant application this week (as usual), and I have a great client who has been doing some fantastic things.  This client is extremely bright and she sees connections between everything.  When she describes what she wants to do through the new grant, she can’t help but connect it to all sorts of other activities and programs that are already going on.  This integration of webs of services and partnerships is one of the hallmarks of a skilled program administrator, but it makes for messy grant writing.

Don’t get me wrong.  It’s very important in a grant narrative to connect new and existing services, to show the organization’s capacity for implementing programs of the size and scope of the one in the grant, and to use previous examples of success to demonstrate the likelihood of success of the new project. However, it’s also critical to describe what you plan to do as clearly as possible with as little “noise” as possible.

The simpler the program design, the easier it is to describe it clearly in writing. The more complex the design, the more potential there is for “static,” and the higher the likelihood that the readers will start to read other things into the proposal that are not really there and to impose their experiences and biases over your writing (that’s the other radio station you hear that’s infringing on your favorite song).

Your job as a grant writer is to keep it as simple as possible for the reader. Draw connections to other programs and services, but not so much that your message (your program design) becomes less clear.

Remember, the grant readers don’t know your organization or your fabulous program. Those little extra pieces of information about related programs and services that are only partially explained bring into your mind a full picture of integrated services.  To the reader, they only spark questions…..and static.

Do yourself a favor…..keep your program design simple and clean, and clear as a bell.

————————
Related Posts:

Five Tips for Writing Good Grant Objectives

Five Mistakes to Avoid When Writing Grant Objectives

Relax……And Tell Your Story

A Fool and His Grant Are Soon Parted – Follow the Instructions

————————

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

Tune Out the Noise in Your Grant Proposal

Do you remember how difficult it could be sometimes to tune in to a radio station? A tiny move of the tuning nob could bring static.  Another tiny move could bring in two stations talking over each other and a little static, too. Finally, you get it just right and you hear the station you wanted as clear as a bell. (I realize that there may be some very young ones among you who have come of age in an era of iPods and Pandora who don’t know what I’m talking about, but go with it for a moment, ok?)

I have been working on a grant application this week (as usual), and I have a great client who has been doing some fantastic things.  This client is extremely bright and she sees connections between everything.  When she describes what she wants to do through the new grant, she can’t help but connect it to all sorts of other activities and programs that are already going on.  This integration of webs of services and partnerships is one of the hallmarks of a skilled program administrator, but it makes for messy grant writing.

Don’t get me wrong.  It’s very important in a grant narrative to connect new and existing services, to show the organization’s capacity for implementing programs of the size and scope of the one in the grant, and to use previous examples of success to demonstrate the likelihood of success of the new project. However, it’s also critical to describe what you plan to do as clearly as possible with as little “noise” as possible.

The simpler the program design, the easier it is to describe it clearly in writing. The more complex the design, the more potential there is for “static,” and the higher the likelihood that the readers will start to read other things into the proposal that are not really there and to impose their experiences and biases over your writing (that’s the other radio station you hear that’s infringing on your favorite song).

Your job as a grant writer is to keep it as simple as possible for the reader. Draw connections to other programs and services, but not so much that your message (your program design) becomes less clear.

Remember, the grant readers don’t know your organization or your fabulous program. Those little extra pieces of information about related programs and services that are only partially explained bring into your mind a full picture of integrated services.  To the reader, they only spark questions…..and static.

Do yourself a favor…..keep your program design simple and clean, and clear as a bell.

————————
Related Posts:

Five Tips for Writing Good Grant Objectives

Five Mistakes to Avoid When Writing Grant Objectives

Relax……And Tell Your Story

A Fool and His Grant Are Soon Parted – Follow the Instructions

————————

Bless His Cotton Socks

Every culture has its own polite way of saying, “He’s an idiot.” In South Africa, a friend of mine who grew up there will say “Bless his cotton socks.” In the Southern U.S., I’ve heard the common, “Bless his heart.” In California, we tend to use the somewhat lukewarm, “He meant well.”

These sayings are used at the end of sentences like, “Joe fell off the top step of the ladder again, bless his heart,” or “Judy is wearing that peacock-feathered hat again, bless her heart.” In grant writing there’s a little different set of applications for these sayings. Here are a few:

  1. “Mortimer thought the budget would be easy to put together so he waited until 8AM on the deadline date to start. Bless his heart.”
  2. “Jackie skimmed the RFA and missed the fact that there had to be an evaluation section. Bless her heart.”
  3. “George figured a one page letter of commitment wasn’t a big deal for the partners so he didn’t ask request them until a week before the deadline. Bless his cotton socks.”
  4. “Fernando wanted to save paper so he reduced the font to size ten in all the tables when the RFA required a size 12, but he meant well.”
  5. “Wynona put 20 computers in the project budget but didn’t describe how she’d use them in the narrative. Bless her heart.”

While we use these sayings to accommodate the humanity of our follies, finding them at the end of a sentence in a grant writing process is generally very bad news. Don’t invite someone to bless your cotton socks as a grant writer!

—————————-

This post was written by Derek Link, non-profit consultant and expert grant writer.

—————————-

Want grant tips? Visit GrantGoddess.com!

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

Bless His Cotton Socks

Every culture has its own polite way of saying, “He’s an idiot.” In South Africa, a friend of mine who grew up there will say “Bless his cotton socks.” In the Southern U.S., I’ve heard the common, “Bless his heart.” In California, we tend to use the somewhat lukewarm, “He meant well.”

These sayings are used at the end of sentences like, “Joe fell off the top step of the ladder again, bless his heart,” or “Judy is wearing that peacock-feathered hat again, bless her heart.” In grant writing there’s a little different set of applications for these sayings. Here are a few:

  1. “Mortimer thought the budget would be easy to put together so he waited until 8AM on the deadline date to start. Bless his heart.”
  2. “Jackie skimmed the RFA and missed the fact that there had to be an evaluation section. Bless her heart.”
  3. “George figured a one page letter of commitment wasn’t a big deal for the partners so he didn’t ask request them until a week before the deadline. Bless his cotton socks.”
  4. “Fernando wanted to save paper so he reduced the font to size ten in all the tables when the RFA required a size 12, but he meant well.”
  5. “Wynona put 20 computers in the project budget but didn’t describe how she’d use them in the narrative. Bless her heart.”

While we use these sayings to accommodate the humanity of our follies, finding them at the end of a sentence in a grant writing process is generally very bad news. Don’t invite someone to bless your cotton socks as a grant writer!

—————————-

This post was written by Derek Link, non-profit consultant and expert grant writer.

—————————-

Want grant tips? Visit GrantGoddess.com!

The Anti-Creativity Checklist for Non-Profit Leaders

Lisbeth Cort, author of the blog, “Nonprofit Execs on the Edge” shared this excellent video for leaders about 14 things you should never say!!!

It’s an Anti-Creativity Checklist….

My Anti-Creativity Checklist from Youngme Moon on Vimeo.

————————

Vsit GrantGoddess.com for mroe advice for non-profit leaders.

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

Federal Grant Selection Processes: Random or Fair?

I thoroughly understand that federal grant makers want applicants to be concise in their writing.  I also understand that having page limitations and formatting requirements helps to level the playing field so everyone is bound by similar restrictions.

Over the years I have witnessed formatting requirements and page limitations become more and more restrictive in an effort to prevent an unfair advantage to those who are more skilled at the manipulation of text through MS Word and other word processing programs.

The problem is that these restrictions have now reached the point of being so ridiculous that while the playing field may be level, it has become nearly impossible in some competitions to provide enough information to help the readers make a truly informed choice. Yes, the playing field is level now….we all have the same opportunity to be randomly chosen, almost by chance, because we cant really differentiate ourselves anymore.

Don’t misunderstand.  There is still a clear line of differentiation between good grant narratives and poor ones. But that’s not where the problem lies.  In today’s competitive grant environment, when all of the funded grants in a competition will score at least 96 out of 100 points (anything above 90 – 92 would be considered excellent), a single point can make the difference between success and failure. If there are 100 proposals that can be considered excellent, and only 50 are being funded, it’s critical to give readers enough information to fairly differentiate between those proposals.  Without enough that information, it’s like a lottery. Sure, there is a “process” for selection, but that process yields the same result as if the the funded proposals had been selected by chance from among the high quality applications.

I’m working on a grant now that has a 25 page limit (double-spaced) for the narrative. In that 25 pages, we are asked to “thoroughly address” 7 scoring criteria and 22 sub-criteria. The bottom line is that some will completely fail at the task; however, there will be hundreds of proposals that score well (over 94), but the page limitation is so restrictive that no one will be able to thoroughly address all the criteria.

So it’s a crap shoot. If you get lenient readers who really like your core ideas, you’re in.  If you get very detail oriented readers who focus on the detail rather than the big picture, you’re done.

And all it will take is a single point to make the difference.

If you’re funded, you’ll get the money (which is great!), as well as the praise of your colleagues for your grant writing skills.  If you’re not funded, you’ll spend time trying to figure out what you did wrong, when in reality your proposal might have been better than some that were funded.

This is a way to select applicants to fund, but is it the best way?

If applicants were allowed to just say what they need to say in response to the scoring criteria, readers would actually have enough information to make an informed decision.  There could be suggested page limitations,and savvy writers would know that submitting too much is not in your best interest because you’ll just lose the readers’ attention. That would really force applicants to think carefully about their proposals.

In the current competition I’m working on, there will be millions of dollars worth of professional time invested in the grant preparation process.  Most of that investment will be taxpayer money because public agencies (school districts) are competing for this grant. The sad part is that most of that investment will be wasted because the majority of the grants that are submitted will not be funded.  All of those hours could have been spent helping kids.

If this kind of speculative investment must be made to compete for funding, at least make it a fair process and give the readers enough information to make an informed choice.Otherwise, just save all the time and money that folks spend on proposal preparation and just flip a coin.

————————————-

Get grant writing tips:

Visit GrantGoddess.com

Get the Grant Tips iPhone App

Buy the book, 101 Tips for Aspiring Grant Writers

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

Federal Grant Selection Processes: Random or Fair?

I thoroughly understand that federal grant makers want applicants to be concise in their writing.  I also understand that having page limitations and formatting requirements helps to level the playing field so everyone is bound by similar restrictions.

Over the years I have witnessed formatting requirements and page limitations become more and more restrictive in an effort to prevent an unfair advantage to those who are more skilled at the manipulation of text through MS Word and other word processing programs.

The problem is that these restrictions have now reached the point of being so ridiculous that while the playing field may be level, it has become nearly impossible in some competitions to provide enough information to help the readers make a truly informed choice. Yes, the playing field is level now….we all have the same opportunity to be randomly chosen, almost by chance, because we cant really differentiate ourselves anymore.

Don’t misunderstand.  There is still a clear line of differentiation between good grant narratives and poor ones. But that’s not where the problem lies.  In today’s competitive grant environment, when all of the funded grants in a competition will score at least 96 out of 100 points (anything above 90 – 92 would be considered excellent), a single point can make the difference between success and failure. If there are 100 proposals that can be considered excellent, and only 50 are being funded, it’s critical to give readers enough information to fairly differentiate between those proposals.  Without enough that information, it’s like a lottery. Sure, there is a “process” for selection, but that process yields the same result as if the the funded proposals had been selected by chance from among the high quality applications.

I’m working on a grant now that has a 25 page limit (double-spaced) for the narrative. In that 25 pages, we are asked to “thoroughly address” 7 scoring criteria and 22 sub-criteria. The bottom line is that some will completely fail at the task; however, there will be hundreds of proposals that score well (over 94), but the page limitation is so restrictive that no one will be able to thoroughly address all the criteria.

So it’s a crap shoot. If you get lenient readers who really like your core ideas, you’re in.  If you get very detail oriented readers who focus on the detail rather than the big picture, you’re done.

And all it will take is a single point to make the difference.

If you’re funded, you’ll get the money (which is great!), as well as the praise of your colleagues for your grant writing skills.  If you’re not funded, you’ll spend time trying to figure out what you did wrong, when in reality your proposal might have been better than some that were funded.

This is a way to select applicants to fund, but is it the best way?

If applicants were allowed to just say what they need to say in response to the scoring criteria, readers would actually have enough information to make an informed decision.  There could be suggested page limitations,and savvy writers would know that submitting too much is not in your best interest because you’ll just lose the readers’ attention. That would really force applicants to think carefully about their proposals.

In the current competition I’m working on, there will be millions of dollars worth of professional time invested in the grant preparation process.  Most of that investment will be taxpayer money because public agencies (school districts) are competing for this grant. The sad part is that most of that investment will be wasted because the majority of the grants that are submitted will not be funded.  All of those hours could have been spent helping kids.

If this kind of speculative investment must be made to compete for funding, at least make it a fair process and give the readers enough information to make an informed choice.Otherwise, just save all the time and money that folks spend on proposal preparation and just flip a coin.

————————————-

Get grant writing tips:

Visit GrantGoddess.com

Get the Grant Tips iPhone App

Buy the book, 101 Tips for Aspiring Grant Writers

New Grant Tips LITE iPhone App!

Our new FREE iPhone App is available! You may have already heard about our Grant Tips iPhone App.  It includes over 100 grant writing tips, a Twitter feed, and inspiration for grant writers.  You can just go to the App Store on your iPhone and search for “Grant Tips.” It only costs 99 cents (not 99 cents a month.  Just 99 cents ….period). The best part is that we keep adding tips, so you buy it once, and it becomes a resource that keeps giving.

Now we have the Grant Tips Lite version, which is 100% FREE. It is just like the full version of the App, except that it only has 50 tips.  If you like it, you can easily upgrade to the paid version.  If you don’t, no harm no foul.  How can you go wrong?

You can find Grant Tips Lite by going to the iPhone App Store and searching for “Grant Tips Lite.”  It will come up and you can download it for free right away.

And please don’t forget to leave a 5 star rating and review!

Z8VRZWDJC6ZF

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

New Grant Tips LITE iPhone App!

Our new FREE iPhone App is available! You may have already heard about our Grant Tips iPhone App.  It includes over 100 grant writing tips, a Twitter feed, and inspiration for grant writers.  You can just go to the App Store on your iPhone and search for “Grant Tips.” It only costs 99 cents (not 99 cents a month.  Just 99 cents ….period). The best part is that we keep adding tips, so you buy it once, and it becomes a resource that keeps giving.

Now we have the Grant Tips Lite version, which is 100% FREE. It is just like the full version of the App, except that it only has 50 tips.  If you like it, you can easily upgrade to the paid version.  If you don’t, no harm no foul.  How can you go wrong?

You can find Grant Tips Lite by going to the iPhone App Store and searching for “Grant Tips Lite.”  It will come up and you can download it for free right away.

And please don’t forget to leave a 5 star rating and review!

Z8VRZWDJC6ZF