1. Evaluate your progress – If a Grant Design Chart was developed for the initial proposal, the task of connecting all the pieces, including objectives, timelines, personnel, partners, evaluations, outcomes and budget will go smoothly. You will then be able to show accountability for each of these items as promised.

2. Review the donor’s regulations – In almost all cases, federal granting agencies will supply the specific regulations on how to manage the grant, both in terms of content and financially. Also, the appropriate Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular will specify the rules.

3. Create Gantt charts – The three essential Gantt charts will be: (1) personnel accomplishments, including any partners that may be involved in the project; (2) all activities that have been delineated in the grant; (3) scheduled evaluations that will be ongoing, incremental and will measure the success of each expected outcome.

4. Assure fiscal responsibility – At institutions of higher education, the research office will be responsible for this activity. This office or its equivalent will place and manage all budgetary matters under one dedicated account, including personnel time, salaries, and fringe benefits. This will assure that fiscal issues are handled independently, while at the same time being coordinated with the activities of those running the grant. If you are at another type of organization, your accounting office will probably handle compliance and all financial issues. Audits can become a nightmare if this does not happen. The key rule to remember is: only use funds as approved in the budget and never move funds from one category to another without institutional and donor approval.

5. Time all reports – In all cases, you will write progress reports of all the accomplishments, evaluations and outcomes as promised. These should be laid out in your initial Gantt chart. If you are the Principal Investigator (PI) or Program Director (PD), you will be responsible for all the content reporting. The research or accounting office will be responsible for fiscal reporting. Thus, it is essential that there is coordination on an ongoing basis between those implementing the grant and those responsible for budgetary compliance and audits.

Ensuring a smooth implementation will take place with prompt and careful planning. There are many horror stories from those who have not planned along the way; thus causing serious budgetary and content offenses. To avoid these, deliver what you promised, get permission for any changes, follow the guidelines of what is required, and, most of all, be certain that every penny is accounted for as planned and promised.

The post Five Crucial Aspects of Grant Management appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

I discovered, however, that once the grant was won and the funds became available, those responsible for the implementation often did not know how to proceed. For example, the detailed plan outlined in the original grant request often was not followed, timelines were set back, funds were not dispersed properly and many other inconsistencies occurred. The result was that a large percentage of the grants failed at the implementation level. This phase of the project does not involve the external grant writer. Also, in cases where I was writing a grant for my own institution, it would not be unusual for a supervisor to ask me to apply for funding even though I had given very specific reasons why we would not succeed. Their reply was: “just spin it.” It was for these reasons that I eventually stopped writing grants for others. Today, I am at times offered large sums of money to write grants within a short window of time, but I refuse. I do so because of the following reasons:

1. Chasing the money – In much of my own experience, the top level administrators who hired me to write their grants were primarily interested in the money. After a while it became clear, however, that grants are not about the money, but the good ideas that need money to be executed.

2. Lack of buy-in – This is a major reason for the implementation stage failure, since it is not unusual for administrators to receive a grant and then assign the responsibility of implementing it to those who either know nothing about it or even worse, are not interested.

3. Lack of effective management – It is important to agree prior to submitting the grant on how the project will be managed and implemented. This cannot be done if extensive conversations have not taken place on what the grant award will mean for the institution and its beneficiaries.

4. No attention to detail – If the grant is written by an outside grant writer, there probably has been little discussion on who will oversee and execute the details of the project. This becomes a serious problem if an outside evaluator from the funding agency examines how the project was executed.

5. Strategic planning is non-existent – Superior grants emerge from institutions that have a sound understanding of external funding. They know that successful projects will emerge from the strengths of the institution and focus on how these strengths can be augmented via external requests.

At the end of the day, utilizing external grant writers leaves an institution in a position where they have to hire more of the same, and eventually, there is a good chance that their reputation could very well suffer. Instead, the institution needs to train as many people as possible to write successful proposals. These people should be familiar with the needs, strengths, and challenges of the organization. Once a proposal is written, it should be the same individuals who will implement the grant. The ultimate success for any institution will require a proactive approach that evolves out of strategic planning, buy-in from administrators, attention to detail, excellent management, and a large number of grant writers who have the training and experience in writing winning proposals.

The post Why You Should Not Hire an External Grant Writer appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The budget must give an accurate assessment of all cost items and cost amounts that are deemed necessary and reasonable. It should be complete and include all costs for any personnel, supplies, and activities that will be undertaken. If the project is funded, the budget will become the financial plan used by the funding agency to provide support. Once negotiated and approved, the budget will be etched in stone, and modifications will require the approval of the donor. It will also be a legal agreement between the institution and the donor and will be subject to audits to ensure compliance.

Where should one begin?

The solicitation – The first step in the process of submitting a proposal is to identify the appropriate solicitation. For federal grants, this could be a Research Funding Announcement (RFA), Request for Proposal (RFP), Proposal Announcement (PA), or Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). If you are applying to a foundation, they may have different solicitation announcements that you would need to follow. It is vital to read the announcement in its entirety before starting. The solicitation will give funding guidelines and will state any budgetary restrictions. A budget template is often provided as well. It is critical to determine whether there are any limitations on direct or indirect costs.

Grants Office – The second step will be to outline your budget categories and discuss those with the staff in your research office or a grants office. They can assist you with personnel details, equipment, and other budget categories. If, on the other hand, you have to come up with a budget on your own, you will need to consider the following direct and indirect costs.

Putting the Budget Together

Direct costs are the expenses that the donor will pay for a specific project. These costs will include activities and expenditures that will take place during the course of the grant, such as personnel salaries, employee benefits, travel, equipment, publications and training. It is important to adhere to the allowable costs for personnel salaries and fringe requests.

• Personnel Costs – This category will always be the first part of the budget and will include the percentage of time dedicated by each of the key and non-key personnel. The Principal Investigator (PI) or the Project Director (PD) may devote a certain percentage of time to the project. The cost will be determined from his or her current salary and benefits. The non-key personnel, such as students or others not directly involved in the content of the project, also are included in the budget in terms of the percentage of time spent on the grant.
• Other Costs – Equipment (with acquisition cost of more than $5,000 as per most government grant guidelines), travel, participant support, consultants, statisticians, training costs and animal purchases will be categories for those doing research projects. Materials, supplies, publications, and computer services might be additional costs.
• Activity Costs – For project grants, the main areas that drive the budget will be the solicitation requirements and the objectives and activities of the grant. Thus, every activity should be budgeted according to personnel and non-personnel costs. For example, how much time will be dedicated to evaluation both in terms of personnel and non-personnel costs?

Indirect Costs – These are the costs that an institution will charge the grantor for conducting the project.

Often referred to as the “costs of doing business”, overhead, and facilities and administration charges, these costs are negotiated with federal and state governments. It is essential to adhere to the solicitation’s allowable costs for this category. Donors may restrict the percentage of allowable indirect costs. Some may allow the total amount requested, others a certain percentage, and yet others none at all. The latter is especially the case with foundations.

It is important to remember that a budget will not include any costs incurred prior to receiving the grant and any that will follow the life of the grant. Additionally, there are frequently total allowable funding limits and cost share requirements, all of which must be first taken into consideration.

Ultimately, the budget will tell the fiscal story of your proposal and must match the narrative of the project. It must be detailed, accurate, necessary and reasonable. Your story should begin with the narrative and end with the budget, and both need to match up perfectly.

The post Justifying Your Proposal: The Budget appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Institutional Compliance

My institution at the time was a large 501c3 research organization with over $100 million in grant revenue per year, and an award portfolio of almost $1 billion. Like most nonprofits and research institutions, we lived and died by our ability to procure grants and maintain a healthy sponsored projects portfolio. Participation in proposal development was mandatory for researchers, and the institution was constantly forecasting workload needs based on submitted, pending, awarded, and closing grants. The culture at my institution encouraged PIs to aim for large, multi-year grants with padded budgets, since these were the most likely to yield an automatic no-cost extension or two. Furthermore, most researchers could only maintain employment through their grant portfolios. Given this environment, it is easy to understand how this PI believed that the grants being awarded to him were his personally.

Accountability to the Donor

Unveiling the truth about grant awards is rather anti-climactic. In the simplest language, grants are non-repayable funds or products, disbursed by a sponsor to a recipient. Most awards support a specific project and require some level of compliance, evaluation, and reporting. Sponsors of all kinds have the money and desire to advance certain agendas, activities, or research areas, but do not have the internal resources to do so. Specifically, foundations and not-for-profit organizations award funds based on a recipient’s ability to further a mission or goal, as well as fulfilling the work outlined in a proposal submission. Although a PI or team submits the proposal, sponsoring organizations do not recognize individuals as entities that can or will share responsibility on the same level. Instead, that burden falls to the organization or institution to which those PIs and teams belong. Moreover, a single person cannot carry out the proposed work or research to the degree that an organization can.

Tax Liability

The additional issue of tax liability is enough to dispel the erroneous notions of possession from most researchers. Institutions with the capacity to receive grants are either exempt from IRS tax liability, or they are large enough to absorb said tax liability. Excepting most scholarships, fellowships, and some disaster relief aid, if a grant is awarded and accepted by an individual, that person will be responsible for paying all the tax liabilities associated with it. I will never forget a meeting where I met a handful of faculty members who had been accepting grants awarded to them personally. The IRS had finally caught up with them and was demanding over $50,000 in back taxes, with the penalty for non-payment being time in prison. Had the institution accepted these awards, there would have been no tax liability at all.

Remember, grants are made to institutions, not individuals. Understanding why grants are awarded, and what the researcher’s role is in administering the award is vital for an organization’s ability to survive an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) audit. As Project Directors or PIs, you have been selected by your institution to act as the representative for the award. You have been made accountable for managing the programmatic requirements supplied by the sponsoring organization. While this is an awesome responsibility, it does not make the grant funding yours. Should there be an audit issue down the road, you may end up quite grateful for this fact.

The post Whose Money Is It, Anyway? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Internal Control Systems

Grant-winning institutions must have a tight system of policies and procedures in place that are recognized and respected at all levels of the organization. Normally, this system is managed by the Sponsored Research Office or another fiscal administration office, whose ultimate responsibility is to manage grants for the organization. Most often, this office will provide grant management training for staff and grantees, in addition to coordinating programs with similar goals and purposes.

Performance Measures

Monitoring the progress of program objectives to meet short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes in accordance to the request and timelines of the funded grant is a major way to achieve performance measures. Working with grantees to ensure the objectives and outcomes are linked with the activities can lead to compliance and collaboration. This is especially important with new grantees, who may not be aware of the regulations for grant awards. A sound and ongoing training process will greatly facilitate this effort.

Pre-Award Process

During the pre-award process, institutional grant administration personnel review compliance regulations and requirements in the RFPs and RFAs, and convey these to the applicant. Doing so makes certain that all parties are aware of the scope of management and responsibility of the grant. Specifically, the grant administrators will finalize the budget, ensure appropriate internal signatures, and – for a federal grant – submit the proposal through Grants.gov.

Post-award process

If the pre-award process is carefully designed and administered, the post-award procedure to ensure results will be a simpler undertaking. Three main areas control this aspect of grant management: financial compliance, performance monitoring, and time commitments of grantees. Awarded, in-kind, and matching funds will need to be tracked, along with payroll and participant records. Monetary conformity and the time commitment of the staff are essential for success. Poor management in the latter aspect has often resulted in institutions having to return money to donors. When a grant is awarded with a time commitment from existing full-time personnel, the awardee institutions must demonstrate a reduction in the existing duties of said personnel that corresponds to their reported time commitment for grant activities. This is why payroll and participant records need to be especially accurate and specific.

Assessing and Using Results

The donor organization’s monitoring process should be a blanket effort over all awarded grants, which will ensure compliance and grant success. Serving as both a grantee and a compliance team officer has given me the perspective from both sides. As a grantee, I wanted to expedite a program that may or may not have been precisely executed according to what I had promised the donor in my grant request. As a compliance team officer, I had to guarantee that what had been promised by the grantee was being achieved. These two roles are often more cacophonous than harmonious. Nevertheless, grantees must provide progress reports throughout the various phases of their work, including demonstration of achievement. Ongoing and continuous evaluation of the program objectives – along with results assessment and alterations to the program, if needed – is a good method to ensure that the original promise to the donor is met by the end of the grant. At the end of the day, the institution that has a strong system of regulations and reiterates those to their grantees is an institution that need not worry about audits.

The last time your institution was audited, what was the outcome? Share your experience in the comments.

The post Surviving an Audit: How to be Ready appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.