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.

1. What types of grants are available for my research and my institution?

Federal, state, foundation, and corporate grants are available to faculty, teachers, K-12 schools, nonprofit organizations, and colleges and universities. The primary source of grant funding by far is the Federal Government, followed by individual giving, and foundation and corporate support. Federal funding includes both federal entitlements or formula funds, and competitive grants.

2. How much time does it take to prepare a grant proposal?

The amount of time and work it takes to prepare a grant application is a direct function of the number of people on your project team. Most grants have four to six weeks between the time the application is released and when the proposal is due. For larger, more complex grant proposals, this may not be enough time. Planning well in advance of the application release date can give you a head start and alleviate some of the pressure.

3. Who should I include on my grant writing team?

In addition to the content experts (PIs, Co-PIs, or Project Directors), every grant writing team should include key administrators. These are the people who have authority to make administrative decisions for the project, which can be invaluable during the proposal writing process. In addition, you may include personnel from the budget office, graphic designers, editors and grant reviewers, evaluators, technology coordinators, statisticians, and – in some rare cases – marketing consultants.

4. What are the key components of a grant proposal?

Competitive grants require a specific type of application. Although state and federal agencies and especially foundations have different requirements, the basic parts of a grant application remain the same. Those components are:

• Summary or Abstract is the most important part of your proposal because it is the first impression you make on the reviewer.
• Needs Statement/ Statement of Significance is the reason for your project and makes the argument for why the grant should be funded. Relevant data and research, such as surveys, preliminary studies, a literature review, and identified successful models of previous studies will all substantiate the needs of the targeted population or for your research project.
• Goals and Objectives are your plan of operation, and must be aligned with the project’s identified needs. A goal will be the end result of your project or research, and the objectives will prove how the goal will be met in measurable and quantifiable terms.
• Activities explain how each objective will unfold to meet the goal.
• Timelines describe the project activities in terms of deadlines. These may include your plan of operation, evaluation, and budget.
• Evaluation Plan is one of the most critical components for a project grant application, especially with the current heightened level of accountability. You must detail a comprehensive evaluation plan that incrementally tracks the effectiveness of your proposed objectives.
• Outcomes are critical in all evidence-based grant proposals. Outlining the short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes with specific benchmarks for success is vital for the donor’s understanding of the ultimate purpose for the funding. A helpful tool in developing and demonstrating the process indicators for successful outcomes of your proposal is the logic model.
• Budgets estimate as accurately as possible what the cost of each activity will be in personnel and non-personnel costs. Be certain to include a cost for each activity mentioned in your narrative, since it aligns directly with your budget.

5. What does it take to win a grant?

Many grant applications are accompanied by scoring criteria or rubrics. Read them carefully, because they will give you specific guidelines for creating a winning proposal. In the absence of a scoring rubric, read through the grant guidelines and make a careful list of all the items you must answer. As you fill out the application, check off each item so your proposal is in full compliance with the grant requirements. Aside from knowing the donor’s prerequisites to win a grant, you must have a well-crafted idea, excellent research, collaboration, innovation, and need for your proposed proposal.

6. What do I do if my grant is rejected?

This will depend on the scores of your application, rejection comments or letter. If your proposal has been rejected for a flawed idea or because you applied to the wrong donor, you should not reapply. However, if you have been rejected for defects in some of your activities, lack of examples, or a weak evaluation, you should speak with the donor concerning their recommendations on what needs to be fixed, and reapply as soon as possible.

As you develop the grant application, many more questions will arise. These can be answered by experienced colleagues at your institution or your grant administration office. Others, which deal directly with your expertise, can only be answered by you. The range of universal questions is wide; however, the ability to answer them effectively will lead you in the right direction for being funded. Most importantly, success depends on a well-crafted idea, extensive research, collaboration, innovation, and perseverance.

The post 6 Most Asked Questions about Grants appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Our objective is to transform eight different communication courses over a period of one year via the integration of a two-week instructional module on negotiating skills, to be included in each course.

The process is as follows:

Questions

What do you want to know to determine if your objective was realized? For the example above, you would want to know if:

• criteria for course transformations were met
• subject matter was appropriate for the module
• criteria for negotiating skills are achievable and being met
• measurable outcomes are accomplished along the way

Indicators and Evidence

How will you know that the above questions are being answered? Examples include, but are not limited to:

• pre- and post-project tests
• surveys, observations, interviews, and other methods that gather qualitative information
• quantitative data collection such as: number of students, instructors involved, course transformations, tests, and grades
• Involvement in and success rates of mock negotiations

Timing

When should you collect this data? Your project will determine the timing; however, gather your data incrementally according to the percentage of change for established baselines of your proposal. A timeline demonstrating each of the changes as they are measured and happening is an extremely valuable tool.

Data Collection

The data-collection process assists the evaluation team in revising the design of the program and methods based on resources – both financial and human. The team can also examine how the evaluation process is received by participants and other people from whom information is collected. Assessment of the usefulness of the information collected is another factor the team can determine. This will include:

• Sources: Who has the information? What are the measurable criteria and expected outcomes for each of the objectives? In our example above, sources may be the evaluator, the faculty, the course transformation experts, a committee of experts who will evaluate each module, and of course, the students.
• Methods: How and when will the information be gathered? Your approach might be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method research. Very often an evaluation consultant is included to ensure the statistical design and methodology are well-developed and logical.
• Sample: From whom will the data be collected?In large studies, a stratified random sample may be obtained by separating the population into mutually exclusive sets, or strata, and then drawing random samples from each stratum. Since the population for our example objective is not very large, chances are that the data will be collected from everyone involved in the project.
• Instruments: What tools will be used in gathering the data? These can range from quite simple to extremely complicated. Developing the instruments may be a lengthily process and relate directly to what needs to be known about each objective. Some examples may include attitudinal instruments, surveys, and pre- and post-tests. Once again, you may require the assistance of an evaluation consultant.

An evaluation plan is a written document that states the objectives of a project and the questions that will be used to determine its success. It also includes the information that will be collected and the timeframe of data collection. You can think of the evaluation plan as the instructions which will guide you through each step of the process. It is the key to demonstrating accountability to the donor.

The post Evaluation: Measuring Success appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The Learning Environment and Challenging Curriculum

Funding requests should include the following best practices for a positive learning environment:

• Encouraged collaboration between students
• Topics that relate to student interests and the discovery process
• Integration of math, science, and technology to help students understand the importance and connections between these fields
• Focus on hands-on experience, not just textbook learning
• Students should be helped to understand that failure is a normal occurrence while learning, and under no circumstances should they be punished for failure
• Flexible curriculum that demonstrates and facilitates creativity
• Use of latest technology, visual aids, and laboratory kits to foster learning
• An inquiry-based experiential curriculum that is clearly defined and understood
• Real-world applications
• Critical thinking and problem solving
• Student-centered plans to carry out investigations
• Students critiquing their own and their peers’ science practices
• Criteria that incorporate local, state, and national standards

Teacher Training on Inquiry-Based Learning

I would agree with Bill Gates, who said: “Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important.” Teacher training should be ongoing and provide the techniques to use state-of-the-art technology and experiential teaching approaches. The focus should be on how teachers and students can work together as active learners. Specifically, training should include:

• Outcome-based lessons, whereby teachers transform their classes to include components of their training
• Topics for classroom instruction, such as: inquiry-based science teaching, the frontiers of science, and the analysis of difficult problems
• Subjects that lead to inquiry-based science learning with embedded student experiments
• An emphasis on the importance of student diversity, individuality, and uniqueness

Defined Outcomes or Assessment

Your proposal should clearly identify goals and objectives, and success should be measured against them. These should reflect the short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes. The evaluation should include a mixed method approach, in which quantitative and qualitative information is sought. The resulting assessment must clearly demonstrate a continuous effort to improve the program and ensure that all students are reached.

Sustained Commitment from the School Leadership, Parents and Community

In order for any STEM program to be sustained, collective support should be a major factor. This should begin with the school leadership, who should encourage and reward teachers who practice inquiry learning. Just as importantly, parents should be recognized for being involved in their children’s education. The community can also become an active partner via the funding from private industry.

These elements need to be included in a funding request to the donor to win STEM education grants. Both the public and private sectors are now offering funding opportunities, based on the urgency of this problem.

The post America’s STEM Education Problem 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.

Hopeful Nonprofit Seeks Supportive Foundation

A foundation’s financial support should be based on a solid strategic plan of what they want to accomplish and the areas that they wish to fund. They set the expectations and standards of the plan of action or research. Foundations do vary, but those that make a difference are collaborative, supportive, and have clear, well-defined missions and goals. They work in partnership with grantees to ensure that the results they are both seeking are carefully scrutinized in every step of the implementation.

The Gates Foundation serves as an excellent example of collaboration between the donor and the grantee. A quotation from their website succinctly states: “We do all of our work in collaboration with grantees and other partners, who join with us in taking risks, pushing for new solutions, and harnessing the transformative power of science and technology. We strive to engage with our grantees and partners in a spirit of trust, candid communication, and transparency.”

Successful Foundation Searching for Reliable Nonprofit

In turn, a nonprofit should prove its strength to the donor through its governance structure, transparency, accountability, ethical fundraising, careful planning, civic engagement, public policy, and strategic alliances. A reliable grantee has a clear mission, with a proven record of faithfulness to its philosophy. Further, the nonprofit’s past successes should clearly demonstrate a path to achieving the promised goals. Once the match has been established, the results of the collaboration are greater than the sum of its parts.

Shared Goals

The strategic planning cycle below is an example of what the foundation and nonprofit should have in common.

A shared mission and goal between the foundation and nonprofit strengthens the relationship. The strategic approach for both will revolve around the following basic questions: Where do we want to go? How do we get there? How do we measure success? How did we do? How can we improve? This is the key to each organization choosing the other.

The Path to a Successful Match

From the outset of the grant making process, the donor should have a clear idea of the overall results they want from a nonprofit. These should be clearly communicated to the grantee, and there must be flexibility to achieve those results. At the end of the day, a good marriage will depend on making the match and having the vision and passion to make the difference for the beneficiaries they both wish to serve.

The post The Ideal Marriage: Foundations and You appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.