User:Gina browning/Grantsmanship

GRANTSMANSHIP

Grants provide money and other resources to aid and assist organizations in funding and completing projects that benefit the public. Agencies and governments offer the opportunity to receive funding for specific types of studies and research each year to individuals, public agencies, schools, non-profit organizations, and corporations. A complex and all-encompassing application must be completed in order for an organization to be considered to receive the grant money. The person who writes the grant is called the grant writer. It is his or her responsibility to complete all the components of the application process and submit the application to the funding agency on time.

Myths

Often times, organizations are reluctant to apply for grants because there are many misconceptions about grants, grant funders, and grant writing. The idea that there is no money available is one myth that keeps organizations from considering applying for grants. There are millions of dollars that funders are eager to give away.

Another myth is that money that is available goes to larger and more well-known companies and organizations. This idea prevents smaller and non-profit agencies to see the effort as worthwhile. These same organizations feel that without connections they have no chance of being considered for a grant. Although connections are an asset, they are not necessary in order to get a grant. Being awarded the grant is dependant upon the production of a top-quality proposal with goals targeted to the right grant agency.

The idea that collaborating with other colleagues gives the grant writer more time for grant writing is not always true. Because of different work ethics and perspectives of individual responsibilities, the collaboration will take more time and cause frustration for some of the members of the group. Buying into any of these myths can lead to missed opportunities for organizations to obtain funding for commendable projects that could benefit a community or other group.

Developing a Project

Writing a successful grant proposal is a long process that begins with an idea. This idea should be one that will add to the understanding and knowledge of science, medicine, social issues, or other areas that will benefit the common good of society. The writer must spend time considering and conceptualizing how he or she will complete the desired project or program. In order to help the writer visualize the big picture, drawing a plan or flow-chart can be helpful.

After an idea is conceived, it is time to begin the process of creating the grant proposal. “Successful proposal writing involves the coordination of several activities including planning, searching for data and resources, writing and packaging a proposal, submitting the proposal to a funder, and follow-up.” Before a writer even pens the first word of a grant proposal, many processes must be completed to ensure that he or she is prepared to write. The beginning steps of the grant writing process will take he most time, but this time will pay off in the end. The following steps and strategies will help a grant writer complete the grant writing process.

Mission and Goals

“Funders don’t give you money because an organization needs it; they give money because the organization can help them carry out their mission." A project wishing to receive funding must have goals and objectives that align with the funding source. Immediately after an idea is conceptualized, it is important to clarify the purpose of the project by writing a concise mission statement. Write out the project goals to achieve the mission and then the objectives that are specific activities that will lead to the accomplishment of the goals.

Significance

The significance of projects seeking funding can be divided into four categories: theoretical, methodological, applied, or social. A theoretical project contributes to basic knowledge and helps refine current theories in a particular area or proposes a new theory. A methodological project involves the use of new and innovative methods or improvement of existing methods. A project with an applied significance provides answers to real-world problems. Projects that provide society with something useful and valuable have social significance.

Searching for Grants

When the idea has been developed into a proposal with goals and objectives, the writer must find the right grant. Resources to assist in finding grants are abundant. One place to begin the search is online. Federal grants are a good place to start. The writer can browse for federal grants by grant name, subject area, applicant type, federal agency, type of assistance needed, and the Federal Grants Index or Federal Grants Directory. A person seeking grant funding can contact the Foundation Center Cooperating Collection which maintains a core collection of print and electronic directories of national grant funders.

The number of grant funders is immense. It is important to define the scope and remain focused on the mission and goals of the project while looking for the most appropriate source. “Grant making organizations have distinct personalities and histories with unique requirements and interests." Once several agencies have been identified, review any and all publically available documents provided by each grant agency, such as mission statements, strategic planning reports, statement of current goals and information on previously financed projects. Then, the grant writer will consider which grant(s) best compliment the purpose of the project and contact the agency to request a grant packet.

Getting Organized

Organization is an essential part of successfully completing the grant writing process. When the grant packet is received, the writer will carefully read through the information several times. At times the information can be unclear or contradictory. Requirements can turn up in unexpected sections of the grant. The writer should take notes to ensure that no detail is overlooked and make a check list as a way to organize key information. Important information includes submission deadlines, eligibility requirements, proposal format, time tables, budgets, funding goals and priorities, award levels, evaluation processes and criteria, and a contact person.

Contact Program Officer

At this point in the process, the grant writer should contact the program officer at the grant funding agency. Some grant writers will not contact this person because he or she may feel intimidated, but this person’s job is to help organizations applying for a grant. As he or she talks with the officer it is important to discuss whether his or her project fits well with the goals of the funder. The writer's interpretation of what the agency wants could be quite different from the program officer’s interpretation. Wasted time and frustration might be avoided after a conversation with the program officer if the grant writer realizes that the grant may not correspond to the goals of his or her project.

When he or she confirms that the grant from an agency aligns with those of the project, the program officer can be an invaluable resource. He or she can provide information regarding deadlines, budgetary requirements, and preferences. The officer could offer suggestions, criticism, and advice and explain how proposals are reviewed and decisions are made. The program officer could offer technical assistance including draft review and help the grant writer secure literature and references from the agency’s library.

Timeline

The timeline is a key part of the planning task. Once the grant writer has contacted the program officer and is certain that the project for which the organization is seeking funding aligns with the goals and mission of the grant funding agency, he or she should immediately develop a realistic timeline that includes adequate time to complete all parts of the application. Some grant writers begin searching for appropriate grants 18 months to a year before the submission deadline.

The first date to put on the timeline is the deadline for the grant application. The grant writer can then return to the beginning and outline the steps of the process. The timeline should provide a picture of the flow of activities that have to be completed. Estimate an approximate amount of time it will take to complete each activity. It is crucial to consider even the smallest detail and include time for unexpected happenings or delays.

The grant writer must factor in time to complete planning, research, reviews, pre-writing tasks, and multiple drafts. Time must also be allocated for development of the budget and attaining consultation from a professional if needed. Certain projects will require hiring staff, and time to interview and select the appropriate candidate must be allotted. When an appendix is necessary, the grant writer must have time to gather the relevant materials. Colleagues who review the drafts for the grant writer should be given adequate time to read the proposal without feeling pressured because the grant writer failed to provide enough time for this task.

Requirements that seem simple and uncomplicated still take time, especially if the grant writer must rely on other people for some tasks to be completed. The final part of the grant is to obtain authorized signatures. Many times the person whose signature is needed my not be able to accommodate the writer’s schedule due to lack of time. Without the proper signatures, the grant proposal never gets to a review board; it is automatically rejected. A detailed and realistic timeline that allows extra time for unexpected obstacles will allow the grant writer to prepare a better proposal and feel less stressed during the process.

Read Successful Grant Proposal

Approved proposals are public documents. Some major agencies list recent grant recipients and titles of proposals online, or the grant writer may request copies from the funding agency using the Freedom of Information Act. Read the winning grant proposals awarded by the grant funder. They will offer a wealth of information about the workmanship of grants such as the writing scope of the project and the level of detail used to describe it. Reading these grants will show the types of projects that the funders have supported in the past.

Collaboration

Many grant writers find that collaborating with other professionals when working on a grant proposal can be advantageous because it combines ideas, resources, and abilities. In order for collaboration to be a help rather than a hindrance to the process, it is important to be certain that the people working together have the same work habits to develop clarity and focus and identify gaps in thinking and planning. Qualified experts and interested individuals familiar with the organization and its projects will add quality to the committee, but the grant writer is the key person in the group. The writer will lead, inspire and coordinate the activities and responsibilities of the committee members.

Parts of the Proposal

There are several components included in all grant proposals. An abstract, narrative, literature review and/or data, and methodology are included in all proposals. Some grant funders require more information in a proposal. Many funding agencies now require that applicants include an evaluation plan that shows how the grant recipient will determine if the project is successful or not. Additional information that might be required is data analysis, time tables, letters of support, or plans for dissemination.

Title Page

The title page creates the first impression for reviewers. Most funding agencies have specific requirements for a title page so it is imperative that they are followed exactly. Typically the title page will include the project title, the institution’s name and the date. Cute titles are not recommended. Giving the project a two part name that includes a general title followed by a colon and a second more specific title is an excellent way to reflect the importance of the project.

Abstract

The abstract is the most read section and is the single most important piece of the proposal. First cuts are based on the abstract. The abstract is usually 200-300 words and summarizes all parts of the grant application including key elements such as the general purpose, specific goals, research designs, methods of evaluation, contribution rationale, and the potential impact of project. This stand alone summary might be the only part of the proposal read by all members of the grant committee so it should state specific aims of the project.

There are differing opinions as to when the abstract should be written; some writers compose the abstract first and modify as needed and others write it last to ensure that all components are included. It should be well-written in third person and future tense. Before final cuts are made, the reviewers will re-read the abstract so it is urgent that it serves as an accurate description of the proposal when it stands alone.

Narrative

The narrative is a longer and more detailed explanation of the project and should be written as if it were being addressed to a colleague who is knowledgeable in the general area but is unfamiliar with the specifics of the project. It should begin with the statement of need. Providing background information to support the current need is excellent support for the need for funding. Another key element is establishing the credibility of the institution. One way of showing credibility is to certify the institution's ability to successfully undertake the project and reach the anticipated goals. Brief biographies of board members and key staff and descriptions of past and present operations of the institution also serve this purpose. Including the organization goals, philosophy, track record and success stories will also certify the institutions credibility.

Literature Review

In the literature review section, the writer will show that he or she has done the necessary research to show that the proposed work will fit into what has already been done in the field. The literature review will show through data that he or she has gathered that the grant will address theoretical, research-based or social issues. He or she should make sure that the literature being used is up-to-date and is directly linked to the purpose of the proposal. Omission of recent, relevant works can hurt his or her credibility. This section should include critical evaluation of the literature, show more than one side, and indicate how his or her project is relevant to future research.

Research Data

Depending on the type of proposal being submitted, research data that has already been conducted can help prove the relevance and need for new research. Historical data, statistical analysis, graphs and figures, and long term projections can aid in justifying the agency’s funding of the project. Grant agencies like to see statistics. Because of the anxiety and desire to be awarded the grant, some grant writers will "pad" this section with inaccurate and poorly researched data. Doing this will have a negative impact on the grant writer's, and possibility the organization's, credibility.

Methodology

The methodology is the plan that will be used to accomplish the aims of the project. In this section the writer will explain the specific processes and activities that will be used to conduct research or address social issues. Descriptive, historical, and some theoretical projects greatly depend on methodology just as experimental studies do. When explaining the methods for the collection and analysis of data, the grant writer must carefully explain procedures that are new or are likely to be unfamiliar to the reviewers. If the method involves a new technique, explain why it is better than existing methods.

In this section, the writer will also describe the sample of participants for the project and tell how he or she will gain access to these participants. He will explain the procedures and processes from the participants’ perspective. If there are multiple groups of participants in a research project, the writer will discuss how cross contamination will be prevented.

Potential difficulties and limitations of the proposed procedure should be discussed. Although this may seem to weaken the grant proposal, it is actually a way to answer the questions and prevent potential criticisms of the reviewers. Once the writer identifies the possible weaknesses, he or she is able to give alternative procedures, or a back-up plan, to achieve the desired goals. Another important part of this section is a description of the reliability and validity of any instruments that will be used in data collection. An anticipated timeline of when the activities and procedures will be completed is also a good thing to include.

The method of data analysis is identified in this section. The writer will show a clear plan of the way the collected data will be analyzed so that a reviewer will have an accurate picture of the entire project. This section is where the writer will prove to the reviewers that the methods being used are the most appropriate for the project and why other methods were not chosen.

Program Evaluation

“Most federal agencies now require some form of program evaluation.” This is different from data analysis in the methodology section. This form of analysis evaluates the stated plan of action, the indicators, and specific measurements for assessing the project's progress toward achievement of the anticipated goals. The evaluation plan should include a formative evaluation to inform the effectiveness of various activities of the project and a summative evaluation to assess the impact and significance of the project on the target audience. The evaluation plan will address the success of the results that can be attributed to the project. The evaluation may be conducted by an internal staff member, a professional evaluation firm, or both. “The absence of a good evaluation plan could result in the rejection of a proposal that is an innovative idea with well-described goals and objectives.”

Dissemination of Information

The dissemination of information is the way in which the organization plans to share the information gained or successful results of the project with the academic, scientific and social worlds. Dissemination is an extension beyond the scientific exercise which makes an impact on the world. A dissemination plan is often required by the funding agency, but, even if it is not required, the inclusion of one will enhance the proposal. This section should give detailed descriptions of the activities that will be used to disseminate the information and content of the project to other scientists, educators and the community.

A well-positioned proposal can show how the project can be integrated with service and teaching in course-based and field-based studies. The plan should reflect that the dissemination efforts will be tailored to a target audience and help develop an ongoing, productive relationship with groups dealing with the very problems that the proposed study or project will explore. Proposals that move the latest findings out of the experimental setting into the classroom, home, or community are more likely to be awarded funding than those that will take longer to show desired results.

Some suggested mechanisms for dissemination are websites, publications, presentations at conferences, training and education, and/or public outreach through museums or libraries. A grant writer who can demonstrate that the research findings of his or her proposal can be quickly and easily moved into practice are top contenders for receiving grants.

Budget

The budget is usually considered last after the merits of the proposal have been decided. This does not mean that it is less important than the other parts of the proposal. This is an area that the grant writer might consider hiring a professional to ensure that the proposed budget is realistic and adequate. Having inadequate or unrealistic cost estimates will make the organization look fiscally inexperienced and unknowledgeable.

The budget spells out project costs and shows in a spreadsheet or a table detailed line items. The most important parts of the project will be allocated the most money. Make sure that all budget items meet the funding agency requirements. Check with the grant funder to see what items it does not support. Once he or she knows this information, He or she should not ask. If equipment is needed, document why each piece is essential. Give sufficient details explaining the need for each item so that it will be difficult for the reviewers to suggest cuts. Include a 1-2 page budget justification to explain various expenses even if it is not requested.

Personnel is another important component of the budget. Ask in the beginning if personnel can be covered with grant money. If not, do not include this in the proposed budget. When including personnel in the budget, be explicit about the qualifications of personnel already in place and explain how any personnel not relevant in later stages of the project will be phased-out.< For personnel yet to be hired, specify the unique and essential role each one will play in the success of the project. When possible include the specific person to be hired if the project is funded. Avoid “to be named” so that the reviewers know that the person(s) to be hired is highly qualified for the position.

The budget can be the most tedious and difficult part of the grant writing process because it is easy to under-budget with the idea that if less money is requested the likelihood of receiving the grant will increase. The opposite extreme is also a problem; padding the budget to allow for unanticipated costs will also have a negative impact on the grant reviewers’ responses. It is important not to inflate, over budget or under budget when planning the cost of the project.

Because of fluctuating costs and the economy, it is important to consider the changes that might occur in costs of leases or rental buildings, equipment, utilities, salary, food, telephone, insurance, transportation, evaluation systems, and audits. It is necessary to consider the costs associated with these areas in order to have a plan for adjustments. Making adjustments after receiving the grant can be a lengthy process.

The grant writer should never anticipate the income from the grant to be the sole support of the project. This is a mistake. Grant funding agencies do not like to be the only source of financial assistance. Make it clear to the agency that he or she is looking for additional funding from other sources. Additional money can be obtained by applying for other grants or seeking financial support from community organizations and businesses.

It is important for funders to know that the project will be sustained once the grant funds are used. Build in a discussion about a continuation plan beyond the grant period to show continued growth of the project. Include information about the availability of other resources to sustain the project in the future.

Appendices

An appendix includes supplementary data or information to give more in-depth analysis or clarification. Some items included in an appendix are time tables, work plans, schedules, activities, methodologies, legal paperwork, and letters of support or endorsements from the community.

Writing and Revising the Proposal

When writing the first draft using his or her conceptual outline and notes, the grant writer will combine all of the information and clearly explain the project. He or she will make the proposal easy for the reviewers to identify what they are reading by labeling sections. The draft should be clearly organized and flow so that the reader is guided through the steps of the project. The writer should relate each program goal to the goal of the grant funding agency so the reviewers can see the relevance of the project and how it will help the agency fulfill its mission statement. He or she should make an effort to predict the questions that reviewers may have and answer them in the text. Try not to interrupt writing the content of the proposal by editing; this will come later.

When the first draft is finished, the writer will compare it to the checklist made in the planning stages. Set aside the proposal for 24-48 hours and return to it with “new eyes.” Upon returning to the draft, the writer should read as a reviewer and try to identify gaps and areas that are unclear or confusing. Mark these sections and make notations but don’t edit at this point.

Next, the grant writer should ask for feedback from several readers. A variety of readers such as specialists in the research areas or non-specialist colleagues will provide a more complete review of the proposal. Seek out specialized readers in areas such as the budget or methodology sections to ensure that they are accurate and clear. Give the reader a copy of the grant requirements and the evaluation criteria. Ask the readers to carefully consider whether he or she has made clear connections between the research objectives and methodology. Accessed January 26, 2011. It may be painful for the grant writer to have “brutal” comments made about the draft because he or she is too close at this point to be objective, but the readers need to be completely honest. As difficult as this may be to accept, it is better that colleagues make these criticisms rather than the review board.

Once the first drafts are reviewed and returned, study the comments that have been made. It may be difficult for the grant writer to accept some of the criticism, but the notations and comments made by colleagues should be given attention. One way of determining if the comments are valid is to have a colleague who is uninvolved with the project read the comments and give his or her opinion. The writer must recognize that composing is a recursive process, even for the best of writers; and to create the best document, change is always necessary. Ultimately the grant writer must make the final decision about whether to make the suggested changes. He or she is the person who must be satisfied and comfortable with the final draft that will be submitted.

When revising the first draft, correct errors, clarify sections that are unclear, strengthen weaknesses, and add additional information within the proposal or in an appendix when necessary. One of the most important aspects of the revision is to make sure that the sections of the proposal are cohesive. When the second draft is complete, a final review by another colleague is always a good idea.

Pitfalls

Writing a grant is a long, painstaking and complicated process that can start a year before the deadline for submission. It is important to be mindful of common pitfalls made by new and experienced grant writers at every step in the process. Grant reviewers will have little patience for poorly written proposals. They read a great number of proposals each day so they will not want to have to “work” hard to understand and follow the logic of a proposal. Writers who include an excessive amount of jargon, fail to define terms, and/or don’t explain acronyms prevent the document from being reader-friendly.

Because the grant writer is so knowledgeable about the field of the proposal and so familiar with the goals and objectives of the project, he or she might fail to include information that he or she thinks the reviewers would already know. This is based on the falsehood that the reviewers will be experts in the area of the proposal. Another problem that grant writers have is writing a “generic” proposal that does not clarify the connection between the project’s goals and the mission and goals of the funding agency.

Discussing literature reviews and research is often a common pitfall in two different ways. Grant writers can fail to include recent and relevant historical data, statistical analysis, and/or important graphs that will help the reviewers understand the relevance and need for the project. The opposite issue with literature reviews--including too much information--is also a problem. The writer can discuss what has been done in the past by using literature reviews but fail to focus on the future research and development for which the grant money will be used. This fails to help the reviewers anticipate how the proposed project or research will add to the knowledge and practice in the field.

Another pitfall is that the grant writer emphasizes the “why” more that the “how.” He or she fails to tell the steps, activities, and methods that will be used to accomplish the goals and objectives of the project. The lack of clarity regarding the expected outcome of the research or project leaves the reader with no sense of why the project is important. If the grant writer does not include a plan to evaluate the success of the results, her or she fails to give the reviewers confidence that the organization will be able to complete the project. Without this information, the reviewers can not be certain that the organization can or will produce results that will aid the funding agency in accomplishing its mission.

If the grant writer does not include an adequate and/or realistic cost analysis of the expenses that the grant money will be used for, it will have a negative impact on the reviewers’ opinions of the financial dependability of the organization seeking funding. Finally, waiting until the last minute to complete and submit the grant application is trouble from the start. The lack of time for preparation, drafting, and research will show through in the lack of quality of the grant proposal.

Tips for Writing an Effectual Grant

Due to the pitfalls that can ruin a grant writer's chance of writing a successful proposal, professionals with a great deal of experience have offered may tips to help him or her avoid problems in planning, researching, writing, and submitting the proposal. The first step seems easy enough; follow all guidelines exactly. As simple as it sounds, it is not always easily accomplished. A list or chart of the specific requirements and criteria for submission can help make aligning the proposal with the expectations of the grant funder easier. If the grant is limited to 15 pages, make sure that it does not exceed 15 pages. Do not attempt to “fudge” by adjusting any margins. If the font size is supposed to be 12 points, do not make type 11.5 points in order to include a few more sentences. These altercations will be recognized and could create a lack of trust in the organization.

What seems like a tip that should not have to be mentioned is to pay attention to the proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. It would seem that professionals and grant writers would automatically make note of these components, but they are often more concerned with content of the proposal and fail to notice these errors. The grant writer should not rely on the computer's spell checker to catch errors. Words with the correct spelling can be different that the word intended.

When writing the proposal, the grant writer should write with a sense of urgency to convey the need for the project or research for which the grant money will be used. The writer needs to show his or her passion for the work he or she desires to complete. Identifying unique qualities of the project can add to its merit and significance. Special consultants working on the project or substantial community involvement will make the proposal stand out from other grant applications.

Probably the most important tip is to show the grant funder how the proposal will help it reach its goals. The grant writer should be absolutely certain that each part of the project, each activity, and each method of evaluation aligns with the goals and will help the agency fulfill its mission.

Suggestions for Specific Types of Proposals

If the proposal is experimental and focuses on new research, it probably consists of a complex series of experiments. After explaining each experiment, restate the point of completing this activity and how it relates to the main purpose of the study. At the end of the methodology section, it is import for the writer to summarize how all of the experiments converge to reach the expected outcome of the project.

In a sociolinguistic or theoretical project, the reviewers should be given information about the people who will be interviewed. It is important that they understand how the elicitation procedures will be adequate to obtain the varied population of participants needed for the study. The grant writer needs to explain why the population or database is the right one to work with and how it is capable of providing the kinds of data needed to address the issues of the project. The grant writer should provide samples of data already obtained if possible. Research that will be based on field work will need to be explained carefully for the reviewers to have a clear picture the work that will be completed. They should know that the participants conducting the field work are aware of the conditions they will be working in and are prepared to cope with the elements of the environment.

If the project is exploratory or descriptive work, the grant writer should explain the intrinsic value of doing this kind of research and the theoretical relevance. For a proposal aimed at creating a descriptive grammar or dictionary, the grant writer should explain why this document would be significant to the field being studied, the method of organization to be used, the potential users, and how the new book will be better than existing ones.

Steps After Funding Decisions are Made

After the grant proposal is submitted, the decision making process may take several months. The only thing that is certain is that there are only two end results—funding or rejection. Regardless of the outcome, there are steps that remain in the grant writing process.

Receiving the Grant

As soon as a grant writer is aware that the project has been funded, he or she needs to write a letter of appreciation acknowledging the award. The simplest way that organizations and grant writers are notified that they have received the grant funding is by receiving a cover letter and check by mail. However, many funding agencies require much more. Some agencies require that a contract is agreed upon and returned with the appropriate signatures before the organization can be awarded the grant money. A major part of most of these contracts is a stipulation that a pre-determined number of reports are submitted to the funding agency. If a contract is required, the grant writer should read it carefully and make notes of any requirements or reports that are required. If reports are requested, make sure that they are submitted on time. If a problem arises and the report will be late, the grant writer should be sure to send a written notification and call to make the funder aware of this.

If there is an opportunity for a grant to be renewed, the organization should immediately begin collecting artifacts that show the quality of work being completed and achieved during each step of the project. Another important factor after receiving funding is to remain flexible. Funders might ask for adjustments in methods, evaluation or budget. The organization must be willing to alter or modify activities, evaluation or time lines when asked to by the funding agency. Being flexible and willing to work cooperatively with the funding agency are key components in developing positive relationship with the grant funder. This could put the organization and the grant writer in a favorable position for future opportunities between the grant recipient and the funding agency.

Rejection

Rejection is never easy to accept, but it is a reality that only a few of the grant proposals will be funded each cycle. If the grant writer does not hear about the outcome of the grant reviews, it may be necessary to contact the funding agency. Not all agencies notify applicants who were not awarded a grant. Follow-up is important, and a positive phone call is an appropriate way of making contact. When talking to the program officer, the grant writer must avoid feeling angry or combative. The decisions made by the review board were not personal; they were based on how well the goals and expected outcomes of each proposal aligned with the mission of the funding agency. The writer should try to make the call positive and try to determine whether it would be advantageous to reapply in the future.

The next step in the follow-up process is to request copies of the reviewers’ comments. These are not sent automatically. It is essential for the grant writer to know why the project was rejected. After reading the comments, the writer may realize that the rejection had very little to do with quality of the proposal. The funding agency may have been flooded with applications; and, although they liked the proposal and saw the significance and relevance, they simply ran out of money. Another cause of rejection could be a small point of confusion that the grant writer can easily resolve and resubmit the proposal in the next cycle.

These are the best circumstances in which to accept rejection, but most often the rejection is more difficult to overcome because it is due to a lack of merit or the quality of the grant application. It may be hard for the grant writer to read negative comments about a proposal that he or she spent so much time and energy to develop and compose. For some writers it may take a cooling off period before he or she is ready to read the negative comments, and this is an appropriate, positive way to handle the rejection.

As tempting as it may be for the grant writer to dismiss the comments of the reviewers, it is in the best interest of the organization to address the suggestions and criticism made about the proposal. The grant writer needs to read and evaluate the reviewers' comments as objectively as possible. After considering the comments about the proposal, he or she should reconsider the alignment of the project goals and the funding agency's mission. If the writer recognizes an incongruity of the goals, his or her time will be better spent finding a new grant to apply for. However, if the grant writer still feels that the goals correspond, he or she needs to determine why the proposal did not work, make necessary changes, resubmit the proposal at the next cycle.

The grant writer must understand that rejection does not mean that a proposal should be abandoned. It can be revived and revised and resubmitted. Many grant proposal applications are only successful on the second or third submission. The only time a grant writer can be certain that the grant will not receive funding is when the proposal is not submitted.

If the grant writer feels that it is worthwhile to resubmit the proposal in the future, he or she must determine the components of the grant application that need improvement. One way to determine these areas is to have a colleague who is not involved with the project evaluate the reviewers' comments and assess their validity. His or her assessment of the criticisms will assist in developing the proposal in the future. Looking at the criticism through someone else's eyes will help the grant writer become more objective.

The grant writer needs to determine the areas of the proposal are weak, confusing, or unsupported. Does the narrative fail to establish the alignment of the goals of the proposal and the funding agency? Does the literature review not show how the project is relevant to the field of study? Does the methodology need to be redesigned? Is the evaluation plan inadequate to determine if the expected goals were met? Is the budget unrealistic? It is imperative that the grant writer meticulously examine the proposal and identify the areas that need to be improved, modified, or eliminated. This will allow him or her to create a document that better communicates the merits of the proposal and how it can contribute to the funding agency's mission.

Final Comments

Experience is probably the one thing that most improves the grant writer’s ability to compose successful grant proposals. The writing process itself provides valuable skills and training that will benefit the writer and the organization for which he or she works. Getting involved in academic and research projects will also enhance grant writing skills. Quality grant writing workshops can be helpful in developing grant writing proficiency. With continuous cultivation, preparation, and determination, a grant writer can increasing improve the odds that his or her future grant writing endeavors will be funded.

As a grant writer is engaged in developing his or her grant proposal, he or she must remain centered on what the reviewers will focus when they read and evaluate proposals. The reviewers are “forced to look past the idea itself for evidence of how likely it is that the project will produce an outcome that has merit in itself or could lead to future development or change” and how it will help the funding agency reach its goals and support its mission. Grant writing is a long, tedious and painstaking process; but, in the end, the reward of receiving the grant will make all the labor worthwhile for the grant writer and his or her organization.