1. Planning Ahead: “What are the steps I need to take before I write?”

Grant writing takes time. This includes excellent research, exceptional writing, understanding the donor’s mission, making the match, collaborating with colleagues, planning strategically, and developing an outstanding business plan. If your proposal is prepared correctly, it will have higher chances of rising to the top of the competition and receiving the funds. In the planning process, laying out proposal steps clearly and realistically can be achieved by organizing the activities in terms of the time it will take to effectively accomplish them.

2. Matching the Idea With the Donor: “How can you assure that you found the right donor?”

 One of the most fatal mistakes any grant writer can make is to ignore the interests of the donor. “Making the match” means aligning your mission and your funding request with the donor’s mission. The closer both of you are in what you wish to accomplish, the more likely you will be funded. Also, looking at funded projects will give you a very good idea of the donor’s interests and focus. Ultimately, donors do not care what you need or want funded; they care about what they wish to fund.

3.  Being Concise and to the Point: “What steps will narrow the scope of my proposal?”     

 One of the major reasons for proposal rejection is that the request is overly ambitious and tries to tackle far more than can be accomplished within the timeline of the grant. Rather than trying to solve every problem related to your request, focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within budget and time constraints of the proposal. Also, many grants require the consideration of various potential factors before concluding that the idea is doable, focused, and promising. You need to envision as many of these elements as possible to be certain that you are on the right path. Narrowing the scope of your idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

4. Knowing the Review Process: “How do I understand the proposal review process?”

To successfully survive the review process, you must know the review criteria by which you will be judged and who is reviewing your proposal. In some cases this is easy, but in others, where the process is blind, it is extremely difficult. In the latter case, you can ask the administrator in charge of the process what the experience and expertise of the reviewers will be. Your reviewers have a very short window to review your proposal and worse yet, an even shorter window for the panel discussion. The easier you make it for the reviewers to understand your idea, the greater your chances of being funded.

5. Networking and Collaboration: “How do I identify collaborators to strengthen my proposal?”

Creating effective partnerships requires collective vision, purpose, buy-in, and mutual respect. Without these elements, it is difficult to maintain the momentum of true collaboration. Each partner must be able to contribute knowledge and expertise that would be missing without their involvement. The complexity of many projects requires interdisciplinary efforts and networking. Understanding this, funding agencies now believe in the power of partnerships; and so should you.

At the end of the day, there are many components to a grant proposal. The first and most important is spending the time to understand the donor, then positioning all the pieces of the puzzle effectively together, and finally writing a stellar request. The pieces must include careful planning, focus, and collaboration.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers – Part II appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Timelines: “We can never find the time to dedicate to writing grant proposals.”

The most important solution is to work proactively rather than reactively. One participant said that her not-for-profit developed a yearly timeline of the grants they wished to submit, rather than waiting for the announcements, which can come late as 10 days prior to the submission deadline. This may sound like a difficult undertaking, but once done, it will be easy to match the amount of labor to available personnel and understand the capacity of the organization.

2. Rejections: “We fear rejections and when we get them, we often feel angry and frustrated, almost to the point of not wanting to rewrite the proposal.”

The answer is to understand that a grant should be viewed as an opportunity, and not taken personally. If the team has a strategic and broad picture of the funding landscape for which they apply throughout the year, it will be understood that some grants will fail. Ultimately, when it comes to requests for funding, one has to place their ego in their pocket.

3. Telling a good story: “The reviewers said that we need to tell an enthusiastic story, but it was difficult for us to understand what they meant.”

The universal answer is to engage the donor. Thus, as a proposal writer, one must know how grants will be evaluated and, if possible, who the evaluators will be. Connecting with donors and reviewers is vital to successfully getting funded. The more one knows about them, the more effectively one can spark their interest with the story.

4. Innovation: “We had a difficult time understanding what the donor meant by innovation.”

The answer here is that innovative concepts emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research. In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field.

5. Overambitious idea: “Our grant was rejected because the idea was overambitious. How do we narrow the focus?”

Rather than trying to solve every problem related to the project at hand, it is best to focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within the budgetary and time constraints of the proposal. Narrowing the scope of the idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

The participants chose these key obstacles, for it takes time to narrow ideas, assure innovation and write a good story. In the following blog, I will discuss other obstacles that my audience brought to the table.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The best way to proceed is to give careful consideration to the donor’s critiques and decide whether you should reapply or not. Before you decide what to do, you need to determine whether the application is fixable.

How to Decide What to Do

• Contact the Program Officer for feedback. Ask him/her: (1) what his/her assessment of your proposal is; (2) whether the panel reviewers were enthusiastic about your idea; (3) if there are additional problems not addressed in the reviewer’s summary document sent to you; and (4) what your options may be.
• If the reviewers noted many fixable problems, it is good news, as it demonstrates that they are interested in your idea and that the application is worth fixing.
• If you have to revise more than 50% of your proposal, it is best to rewrite it altogether. If the revisions required are less extensive, then it is best to follow the rules for an amended application.
• If the scores of your proposal are strong, consider amending and resubmitting as soon as possible.

How You Should Proceed

• If your decision is to revise the original application, you should retain most of what you submitted, while addressing the reviewers’ concerns. That way, the next review group will look at the application in the context of the previous critiques and how you addressed them.
• In the resubmission, capitalize on your strengths and eliminate or revise the noted weaknesses.
• Respond to all reviewers’ comments and suggestions, even if you disagree with some. If you disagree, explain why and, if possible, provide additional information.
• Add new findings and make adjustments that you believe will strengthen your proposal.
• Address all items mentioned in the summary statement sent to you; however, remember that you are not limited to those.
• There is always the possibility of not resubmitting right away. The reasons might be: (1) you need to wait until you have the strongest possible application; and (2) you need time to polish your application.

Ultimately, the decision to resubmit depends on the various factors mentioned above. If the application has flaws outside of the idea itself, you should fix them and proceed with a resubmission. If, on the other hand, the idea is flawed, weak or not innovative, you should go back to the drawing board.

Most importantly, you should not be discouraged, as success rates for first submissions can be as low as 12%; thus, you are not alone. The encouraging news is that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has anecdotal evidence that applicants who resubmit have as much as 50% greater chance of being funded.

The post Proposal Rejection – Next Steps appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

You are not alone. Even seasoned researchers have only a 50 percent chance of winning a grant. If you are new to grant writing, the success rate is much lower. Statistically, new grant writers submit between 2.2 – 3 proposals before being funded. In some cases, the award rate might be as low as 12 percent. Still, after your first rejection, don’t wait. Seek the advice of an experienced grantee, then rewrite and resubmit your proposal. If you are not funded after the second submission, it may be that your research or project may have some serious flaws or simply cannot compete against other applicants.

Contact the Program Officer

Your program officer is well aware of your project and what happened during the review process. He or she can guide you to a successful resubmission by giving you invaluable information on how your grant was reviewed, and the flaws that the reviewers believed could be remedied. Your program officer will be your best partner over the course of your resubmission process. Ask him or her about what the reviewers thought were some of the greatest strengths of the grants they reviewed, as well as the greatest flaws. Lastly, ask him or her for constructive comments about your proposal.

Listen to Your Reviewers

Try to listen to what the reviewers have written. Negative comments can occur for several reasons. Your proposal might have had serious flaws, or the reviewers could have found the proposal difficult to read and so could not find where you addressed the scoring criteria. In some cases, some reviewers might have been highly critical while others praised your idea. However, don’t use the praise of one or two reviewers as a reason to mentally dismiss the concerns of the whole panel.

High Risk and Outside-the-Box Research

If your proposal had excellent science, was well written, and had support from your institution, it may have been rejected for being too risky for the donor to invest their funding. This is especially the case when compared to other excellent, less risky but high-benefit applications. If the former is the case, look into foundations that would be willing to fund a high-risk, but high-benefit project for a portion of your work. Once you have secured their funding, resubmit to the more competitive federal agencies.

Don’t Hurry the Resubmission

Your inclination might be to resubmit as soon as possible. This may not be the best approach, since you need to give careful thought to the reviewers’ comments and address them carefully. Be certain that the significance of your research was not the main criticism. If it was, you may want to give your full attention to this area. Whatever the reason, take the time to resubmit your very best work and take the reviewers’ criticisms into account.

Respond to the Reviewers’ Page

Be courteous and appropriately brief in addressing the reviewers’ comments. Under no circumstances imply that the reviewers were incompetent, even if you think they were. Instead, just address the most important criticisms in a factual, objective, and professional manner. This will always impress the panelists and could even win them over.

Become a Grant Panelist

Grantees should always wear two hats when writing their proposals. The first is the requester’s hat and the second is the evaluator’s hat. In order to gain experience and insight into the review process, serve on a grant panel. Once you are fully aware of the review process, it will reinforce good practices and correct bad habits in your own applications and writing.

Samuel Johnson said, “Great works are performed not by strength, but by perseverance.” New grant writers should strive to live by this phrase, which experienced researchers already know to be true. In this way, your proposal’s rejection can be a great motivation to provide your best effort for the resubmission.

The post Prepare for Rejection appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.