Chapter 2: Preparation for Grant Writing

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, published a Fact Sheet, “20 Tips for Grant Writing Success”. Reading the Fact Sheet revealed an interesting pattern. Of the 20 (very helpful) tips, which are included below, very few of them are about writing. In fact, around half of the tips have to do with the research and preparation involved before any writing gets done at all.

1. Find the right program for you and your idea.

Review the purpose of the program or funding priority, and determine if your idea fits. Is it a mainstream fit? On the fringe? Do you meet the eligibility requirements? Don’t waste time applying for the wrong programs.

2. Become a “student” of the Request for Applications (RFA) document.

Read it in full. Understand the main goals of the program and the instructions outlined on how to assemble the proposal.

3. Develop a timeline for preparation.

Create a timeline that allows for completion of the proposal at least four weeks before submission deadline. If you rush preparation it will show, and reviewers will notice.

4. Understand criteria for evaluating proposals.

RFAs normally contain the criteria that will be used by reviewers to evaluate your proposal. Understand these criteria before you begin preparing your proposal. It will provide better understanding of where to target greatest efforts.

5. Understand review process and reviewers.

Reviewers may be assigned 10 to 20 proposals. Following directions in the RFA, and preparing the proposal logically and clearly helps reviewers.

6. Write logically and clearly.

Organize the proposal according to the outline in the RFA or evaluation criteria, whichever is most logical.

7. Prepare a budget with a strong justification.

Unreasonable budgets hurt proposals. Keep budgets within the guidelines of the RFA. They are judged on degree of reasonableness. 8. Obtain critical input from experienced and successful colleagues. Find someone who is clear, concise and not afraid to be honest with feedback.

9. Fill out forms completely and correctly.

Make sure you have prepared all required documents and include all required information in the correct format.

10. Allow time for intramural administrative requirements.

Submit on time and follow all deadlines.

11. Make sure your project team has all the expertise needed for successful completion.

Recruit collaborators or technical consultants as needed. Include letters of support, if required. Clearly explain who will do what and why, as well as each person’s expertise and why they are required on the project.

12. Use acronyms sparingly and identify them.

Acronyms conserve space but often at the expense of clarity. Consider including an acronym “key” to which the reader can easily refer.

13. Write clearly and concisely.

Avoid words with multiple meanings – e.g., use because instead of since, that instead of which, and may instead of might. Avoid redundancy except where it is critical, such as in hypotheses, goals or outcomes.

14. Use font effects sparingly.

These include highlighting, bold, italics, underlining, etc. Use consistently and primarily when critical to focus the reader on that text.

15. Use tables and figures to help illustrate important points.

A picture can be worth 1,000 words!

16. Avoid writing dense narratives. 

17. Omit use of external links.

Proposals should be self-contained.

18. Write for both the expert and the novice.

Not all reviewers will be experts on your proposed topic but will have some expertise to contribute. Write to show seasoned reviewers that you are an expert and current on the topic. Write also so the novice reviewer can understand the proposal and to show the importance of the work.

19. Learn about the review process.

The best way to do this is through experience, like serving on RFA review panels. Review RFAs to identify programs for which you have expertise, and contact the program leader to volunteer. Provide a very brief description of your expertise and your CV.

20. For resubmitted proposals, respond to the previous review positively and effectively. Use the one-page Response to Previous Review to your advantage in communicating revisions. Be polite and appreciative. Reviewers will give credit to applicants for a nicely crafted Response to Previous Review.

Before we can jump right into writing, there is mandatory preparatory work. This stage is about research and information. The first part involves identifying potential funders and assessing their compatibility with your project based on a set of general criteria. Equally important is conducting a comprehensive needs or problem assessment to fully understand the specific issues your program or organization aims to address. This assessment should help you identify existing gaps within the community and clearly articulate how your project can effectively bridge these gaps. By ensuring that these preliminary steps are carefully executed, you set the stage for a well-informed, compelling grant proposal that is more likely to resonate with potential funders and successfully secure the necessary support.

Finding Grants

There are over 126,000 private foundations and over 90,000 governments in the U.S, and according to at least one database, over 2,000 corporate grants with current RFPs as of this writing. There are funders out there, it is simply a matter of finding the right match for your organization or project.

Once the type of funding required has been identified, the next step is to initiate the search for potential funding sources. This involves creating a comprehensive list of prospective funders. Due to the varied nature of funding proposals and the diverse needs associated with them, there is no universal approach that suits all scenarios when it comes to finding suitable funders. Many experts in grant proposal writing recommend thoroughly exploring all potential information sources. This search should include a wide array of entities, including federal, state, and local governments, foundations, nonprofits, corporations, professional associations, clubs, community groups, and religious institutions.

Each potential funder has its own set of grantmaking interests and priorities. An essential part of the research process is to carefully review how these interests align with the objectives outlined in your funding development plan. Understanding the alignment between a funder’s interests and your project’s goals can significantly increase the likelihood of a successful application. It is inefficient and counterproductive to pursue funding from sources whose goals do not support or align with the needs of your project.

To streamline this process, it is advisable to employ specific screening criteria to evaluate whether a grant opportunity is worth the effort of application preparation. Typically, these criteria might include the compatibility of goals, the potential for long-term funding, the funder's openness to new applicants, the complexity of the application process, and the typical award size. Such criteria help in assessing the viability of a funding source and ensure that the time spent on grant application is productive and targeted. Table 2.1 provides a (non-exhaustive) criteria approach to evaluating grant opportunities.

Table 2.1: Criteria for Evaluation

An example of misalignment between a funding request and a funder could be a scenario where an organization seeks $5,000 for a community garden project from a funder whose usual grants range from $50,000 to $100,000. Similarly, it would be ineffective to request $15,000 for an arts education program from a funding source that generally awards grants to health-based initiatives. In both cases, the disparity in the request and the funder’s intentions indicates a fundamental mismatch that would likely lead to the rejection of the proposal. Such situations underscore the importance of ensuring that the funding requirements align with the grantor’s awarding intents and capabilities to increase the chances of a successful application.

Historically, funding opportunities could be researched by means of any variety of media such as books, magazines, periodicals, newsletters, bulletins, journals, newspapers, flyers, written announcements, to name only a few. These days nearly all funding opportunities are found online. Some grantmakers publicly advertise that they have funding opportunities available while others rely on internal networking communications instead. Some funding agencies may choose to accept proposals throughout the year, others implement set deadlines for submissions. There are as many possibilities for how a funding opportunity might be managed as there are possible funding agencies to provide awards.

When looking for funding, there are a variety of sources and clearing houses that provide funding opportunities, offering support in a myriad of ways. Table 2.2 gives some resources to help identify potential financial support.

Table 2.2: Sources of Grants

Table 2.2 is not all-inclusive. Grants are also often available through such avenues as professional associations (e.g. the American Medical Association or the National Society of Accountants), clubs and community groups (e.g. Elks Club, Lion’s Club, Daughters of the American Revolution), or religious institutions,

Most funding agencies  prefer to contribute to only a part of an applicant's total funding needs rather than providing the full amount. This is a good thing. Securing funding from multiple sources not only builds a diverse supporter base but also reduces the risk associated with relying on a single funding source. Additionally, showing that various organizations recognize and support a project can enhance its credibility and attractiveness to new potential funders.

When preparing to submit a proposal, it is advisable to organize your list of funding sources into three categories. First, include grantors who have already committed funding. Second, list those to whom proposals have been sent and are currently under review. Finally, mention prospective funding agencies to whom you plan to apply but have not yet started the process. This structured approach not only clarifies the funding landscape for the proposal reviewers but also demonstrates thorough planning and organizational capability. One example of how this can be managed is in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Sample Grant Management Table

Needs/Problem Assessments

The order of operations in grant writing can seem a bit backward at first. Imagine talking to someone and going into great detail about all of the reasons that you are going to do a thing before you ever tell them what that thing is that you’re going to do. This is how grants generally work.

The statement of need/problem is prioritized at the beginning as it establishes the context for problem-solving. A grant writer must present a clear and comprehensive understanding of the problem and subsequently link the proposed solution or project plan back to this initial problem statement. Although grants are typically awarded to address urgent issues, funders increasingly favor proposals that offer innovative and directly responsive programs. Thus, while the severity of the need remains important, the effectiveness and adaptability of the proposed solution often take precedence in the decision-making process of funders.

This is not the time to worry about the needs of the applicant organization. You aren’t even actually writing yet. This is the time to conduct thorough background research so you can thoroughly discuss the needs of the community in which the organization works (Fig. 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Linkage Model

Often, the specific requirements of a funder's request for proposals (RFP) will outline the type of information needed in the statement of need/problem, such as socioeconomic, health, education, or programmatic data. However, in some instances, the funder may allow applicants the flexibility to decide which data to include to strengthen their case. The relevance of the context cannot be overstated. For example, if the community issue is a high rate of poverty concentrated in a particular neighborhood, your project aimed at poverty alleviation would naturally target that specific area. Conversely, if your strategy involves initiating an anti-poverty program in a community that, while in need, is not the most deprived, you might choose a neighborhood with a mixed economic profile to increase the chances of your project's success. In such scenarios, it's best to explain the rationale behind choosing one neighborhood over another, detailing why the selected area offers a better opportunity for positive outcomes.

There are two types of data, hard data (numbers, or quantitative information) and soft data (opinions, attitudes and feelings, or qualitative information). It is relatively easy to gather hard data. It is much harder to sort through to find what is valid information and what is relevant to your story.  Census data are updated every ten years and often can be updated from local sources. The American Community Survey puts out new data every year. The CDC, NIH, NIMH, and…well, just about any government agency whose letters you can think of produces data and reports on a regular basis. Additionally, practically every business and nonprofit organization now collects data.

When evaluating the credibility of a website, it's helpful to start by examining the last three letters of the domain, such as ".edu" for educational institutions, ".gov" for government sites, ".org" for nonprofits, and ".com" for commercial entities. Typically, ".edu" and ".gov" domains are reliable, but be cautious as some sites may misuse these suffixes to appear credible.

Nonprofit websites often provide valuable information and resources, particularly in areas such as education, health, and social advocacy. However, when assessing the trustworthiness of these sites, it's essential to go beyond the surface and examine the specific agenda and mission of the nonprofit organization behind the website. While nonprofits are generally dedicated to public service rather than profit-making, they do have specific causes and objectives that might influence the presentation and interpretation of information.

For example, a nonprofit focusing on climate change might highlight data that underscores the urgency of their cause, potentially downplaying studies or statistics that suggest less immediate danger. Similarly, a nonprofit dedicated to educational reform may emphasize certain pedagogical approaches that align with their educational philosophy.

To evaluate the trustworthiness of information from a nonprofit website, consider the following:

1. Source Transparency: Does the website clearly state the organization's mission and funding sources? Transparency about who funds them can help you understand potential biases.
2. Evidence and Citation: Check whether the claims made on the site are supported by credible sources. Trustworthy nonprofit websites will reference or link to research or data that substantiates their statements.
3. Balance and Fairness: Does the content on the site acknowledge different viewpoints and complexities, or does it only present one side of an issue? A balanced approach suggests higher credibility.
4. Editorial Oversight: Look for signs of professional standards such as clear, error-free, and consistent content, which indicates strong editorial processes.

Understanding these elements can provide deeper insights into how the nonprofit curates its content and can help you decide how much weight to give the information they provide.

Commercial sites require a careful evaluation to determine their trustworthiness. Commercial websites, including those run by news organizations, are designed to generate profit, which can sometimes influence the presentation and focus of the information they provide. When evaluating the trustworthiness of commercial sites, it's important to critically assess several key factors:

1. Advertising and Sponsorship: Understand the relationship between the site’s content and its advertising. High levels of advertising, especially if the content seems directly influenced by advertisers or sponsors, can signal potential biases. It’s important to discern whether content is editorially independent or shaped by commercial interests.
2. Source of Funding: Knowing who funds the website can provide insights into potential biases. For example, a news site owned by a corporation with specific political or economic interests might reflect those interests in its reporting.
3. Journalistic Standards: Credible news websites adhere to ethical journalism standards, including accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. They should have a clear corrections policy and provide transparency about their editorial process. Check whether the site is affiliated with recognized professional organizations that enforce ethical standards, such as the Society of Professional Journalists in the U.S.
4. Author Expertise and Transparency: Reliable commercial news sites typically provide information about their authors, including their credentials and other works. This transparency helps readers assess the credibility of the content. Look for articles that cite sources or provide links to original research, enabling verification of claims.
5. Content Quality: Evaluate the quality of the information. Articles should be well-written, free of factual errors, and clear of sensationalist or emotionally charged language that might be intended to sway rather than inform readers.
6. Balance and Diversity of Perspectives: Trustworthy sites strive to present multiple viewpoints and cover a range of topics. This diversity helps ensure comprehensive reporting and reduces the risk of biased coverage.

By critically examining these aspects, you can better determine the reliability of commercial websites and distinguish between those that prioritize journalistic integrity and those that may be influenced by commercial interests.

Additionally, always note the publication date. In rapidly evolving fields, older information might be outdated. Ensure the information's accuracy by cross-verifying with other trusted sites. If discrepancies arise between different sources, further investigation is necessary.

Regarding sources like Wikipedia, while it contains a vast amount of information, the open-edit nature means reliability can fluctuate. Information might be inaccurately added either intentionally or inadvertently. Thus, treat Wikipedia as a preliminary research tool rather than a definitive source. Similarly, personal blogs, online forums, and chat rooms should be approached with caution as platforms for initial inquiry. They can provide leads for further research but are generally not reliable for verified information.

Soft data, on the other hand, refers to information that is subjective, qualitative, and interpretative in nature. Unlike hard data, which is quantifiable and derived from direct measurements (such as disease rates, financial metrics, or participation numbers), soft data includes opinions, sentiments, feelings, and perceptions. It’s the type of data that captures the nuances of human emotions and experiences, making it valuable for understanding context, motivations, and behaviors that hard data cannot reveal on its own.

Soft data can come from many places. Here are some examples:

1. Surveys and Questionnaires: These are classic tools for gathering soft data, particularly when it comes to assessing customer satisfaction, employee engagement, or market trends. Surveys and questionnaires can be structured to elicit subjective feedback on a variety of topics, allowing organizations to gauge feelings, preferences, and attitudes.
2. Interviews: Conducting individual or group interviews is another effective method for collecting soft data. Through conversational dynamics, interviews can uncover deeper insights into people’s thoughts and feelings about a subject. These are particularly useful in exploratory stages of research or when detailed narratives are needed.
3. Focus Groups: This research technique involves guided discussions with selected participants and is commonly used to explore new products, test new concepts, or gather detailed feedback about experiences. The interactive setting helps to explore different perspectives, uncovering complex reactions that might not be captured through other data-gathering methods.
4. Social Media Monitoring: Social networks are a goldmine for soft data. By analyzing posts, comments, and interactions, researchers can tap into public sentiment and gather spontaneous and unstructured feedback about products, brands, or services.
5. Customer Feedback: Comments, reviews, and testimonials, whether collected through online platforms, customer service interactions, or via feedback forms, provide rich qualitative data. This feedback often reveals what customers value most or their pain points, which can guide improvements or innovations.
6. Ethnographic Research: This involves observing people in their natural environments, which can provide context-rich information and deeper understanding of user behaviors and lifestyle patterns.

Soft data provides context and depth to the numerical precision of hard data. For organizations, combining soft and hard data offers a more holistic view of their operations and markets. For example, while hard data can show a decline in program participation, soft data can help explain why customers are dissatisfied, guiding strategic adjustments.

In grant writing, soft data is instrumental for telling stories. Using the subtleties of community feeling ensures that decisions are not just statistically sound but also reflect a breadth and depth that numbers can’t give us. Moreover, in a rapidly changing digital world, soft data becomes essential for adapting to emerging trends and behaviors that are not immediately quantifiable. It allows organizations to stay ahead by innovating based on not just what the numbers say, but also how people feel.

Ultimately, soft data enriches decision-making processes by adding a layer of human insight that hard data alone cannot provide. By carefully analyzing soft data, organizations can achieve greater empathy and effectiveness in their strategies, ensuring they meet their stakeholders’ needs more comprehensively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the preparatory phase of grant writing is foundational to crafting a successful proposal. Before a single word of the actual grant is written, considerable groundwork is necessary to ensure alignment between the grant seeker's objectives and the priorities of potential funders. Researching and selecting the right funders is vital; it involves not only identifying those whose funding criteria match your project but also organizing a systematic approach for managing submissions. This organized method ensures deadlines are met, and applications are tailored to each funder's specific requirements.

Equally important is conducting thorough background research on the topic at hand. Understanding the full scope of the problem you aim to address forms the bedrock of your proposal. This phase is about gathering both hard data — statistics and facts that demonstrate the urgency and scale of the issue — and soft data, such as personal stories or expert opinions that convey the human element of the problem. Together, these elements weave a compelling narrative that underpins the need for the proposed project.

The effort invested in this initial stage sets the stage for a robust proposal. By ensuring you have a clear understanding of the funding landscape and a well-researched, compelling case for your project, you position yourself as a credible solution provider to the issue at hand. This preparation not only enhances the quality of your grant proposal but significantly increases the likelihood of achieving funding success. Therefore, the prep work should be viewed not just as a preliminary step, but as a requisite component of the grant writing process that directly contributes to the ultimate goal of securing funding.

References

Brown, L. G., & Brown, M. J. (2001). Demystifying grant seeking. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Browning, B. A. (2009). Grant writing for dummies (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Carruthers, R. (2023). Corporate grants: How to find them fast. Instrumentl. Retrieved May 9, 2024, from https://www.instrumentl.com/blog/how-to-find-corporate-grants 

Clarke, C. A. (2001). Storytelling for grantseekers: The guide to creative nonprofit fundraising. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Geever, J. C., & McNeill, P. (1997). The Foundation Center’s guide to proposal writing (Revised ed.). New York: The Foundation Center.

IssueLab. (2021). Key facts on U.S. nonprofits and foundations. Retrieved from https://www.issuelab.org/resources/38265/38265.pdf   

The Foundation Center. (2014). Finding foundation support for your education. Retrieved June 28, 2014, from http://elearning.foundationcenter.org/ed/cours/   

The Foundation Center. (2016). Guide to funding research. Retrieved May 9, 2024, from http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/tutorials/gfr/begin_indiv.html 

Silverman, S. (1991). Writing grant proposals for anthropological research. Current Anthropology, 32(4), 485-489.

Smaldone, A., & Wright, M. L. J. (2024). Local governments in the US: A breakdown by number and type. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Retrieved May 9, 2024, from https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2024/march/local-governments-us-number-type 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture. (2022). 20 Tips for Grant Writing Success. Retrieved from https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/20TipsforGrantWritingSuccess_FactSheet.pdf.