The pre-review steps are:

• A rigorous review of your grant by one or more of your trusted colleagues, who are equally knowledgeable in your discipline.
• Comments from a naïve reader, who is a professional outside your field. If that person does not understand 50% of what you are trying to say, your grant is in trouble. The reason for this is that often, the donor reviewers who score your proposal are not necessarily knowledgeable in your area of expertise.
• Proofreading by a professional editor, who will check for correct grammar, transitions, effective language, and the fit for the audience you will be addressing.

Alternatively, you can enlist the services of an organization that conducts professional grant reviews for a small investment. This type of grant review will encompass all three colleague reviews described above in one package.

Following is the pre-review process further broken down into key elements:

The Content Reviewer(s)

Experts in your field should be your first reviewers. My recommendation is that you select one or more trusted colleagues, who will be critical, have received grants in your area, and who serve on review panels on an ongoing basis. They will give you invaluable information about the strengths and weaknesses of your proposal, and how to address any problems.

We follow this process at the Grant Training Center. In many cases, our pre-reviews are more extensive than the donor review process your grant will undergo. We rigorously address each sentence and paragraph, along with the totality of the proposal, according to the RFP/RFA directions and the review guidelines. Once you receive this methodical feedback, you will be in a much better position to assess what needs to be changed and proceed accordingly.

The Naïve Reviewer

It is a good practice to have your grant reviewed and scored by those who may not be in your field. Consequently, you will be able to gauge how much of your grant can be understood by an educated layperson through their comments. They could be professionals who have been funded in the past, but in other areas of expertise. As is the case with most foundations, you might not know who the reviewers of your grant will be; it could be the program officer or perhaps some of the board members, who may not necessarily be knowledgeable in your specific discipline. Thus, it is essential that when you write, you write for a broad audience that will need your assistance in understanding your proposal. I have seen very complicated research grants that were written so effectively that they could be understood on a variety of expertise levels.

The Editor

Editing the proposal is the last phase of polishing your final product. Editing should take place after you have made all content changes and simplified your concepts for a larger audience. This phase is much more extensive than just grammar corrections. The editor should address effective transitions, make sure sentences are short and meaningful, and ensure the overall professional appearance of your grant. This person may not need to share your area of expertise, but should be a professional editor/writer who does editing on an ongoing basis. Editors can be found at your institution, through professional associations of editors, or through organizations such as ours.

You may wonder if money spent on review services could be better utilized in other ways. The reality is that the pre-review process dramatically improves your chances of being funded the first time. Thus, the time and resources that you will save more than justify the cost.

Even if you chose to hire an external organization, the amount of money you will spend on a grant review should be a small fraction of the grant budget. Hence, my strong recommendation is that you include this pre-review step in your timeline for preparing your proposal.

The post The Final Step to Avoid Grant Rejection appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Should I apply to one donor or multiple donors at one time?

The short answer is, it depends on the project size. A small project will likely mean applying to a single donor for a single grant. Meanwhile, a large project will probably have room for multiple donors and grants. If your request is going to a foundation, chances are that you want to secure support from several foundations or other sources for your funding.

2. If I find a donor that looks good, should I call first or just start writing the proposal?

While it is a good idea to meet with the donor, you should do your homework before you call. Begin with reading the Request for Proposals (RFP) for answers on eligibility, deadlines, objectives of the project, and instructions. If you are writing to a foundation, most of the information you will need will be on their home page. Check out the tax returns of the foundation, and research the makeup of the leadership. After completing these tasks, you can write your abstract or summary page and call the donor to discuss your idea.

3. How important are networking and partnerships?

In today’s funding environment, partnerships and collaboration are requirements. In some cases, extra points are awarded for collaboration. In higher education, interdisciplinarity is often a requirement or strong recommendation. Impact – and the understanding that several disciplines are necessary to solve complicated problems – is what donors want to see.

4. What type of writing style is the most effective?

Use a direct and clear writing style. Wayfinding measures like headings and bulleted lists will help the reader find important information. Avoid using jargon, and wordy explanations. Focus on depicting the positive impact your project will have.

5. Should we hire a grant writer to write our proposal?

I have always been opposed to hiring an outside consultant to write a proposal. If you receive the grant, ownership and the expertise to implement the grant will be lacking. It is better to train internal staff on how to write proposals. Your ultimate cost will be reduced, and you would not need to hire a grant writer every time you write or renew a proposal.

6. Where do I find examples of winning proposals?

For Federal project proposals, ask the agency to give you a copy. However, be aware that research grants are notoriously difficult to find until after the research has been published. Some good sources are the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Department of Defense (DOD), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foundation proposal examples may be available through the organization. Generally, however, you will not be able to secure a full proposal.

7. What are some options if we do not have the money to hire an external writer?

One good option would be to write a draft, then give it to an experienced grant writer or organization to review and edit. For example, we at the Grant Training Center review and edit proposals for all types of donors, research, and projects. This step is available for a fraction of the cost of an external writer, and gives your staff the proposal writing experience necessary to manage the grant.

8. Do I need a team to put my proposal together or should I just write it?

Proposal writing is a team effort, not a solitary activity. One of the best ways to get buy-in for what you are doing within your institution is to have a team collaborate on the project. This also demonstrates to the donor that more than one person is committed to the work.

9. Where can we find statistics that support our project?

This will depend, of course, on your subject matter and literature. The U.S. Census Bureau, State Statistics, Pub Med, and the U.S. Department of Education are some examples that apply to many fields. Additionally, talk to experienced colleagues to find out from which sources they have pulled data and literature.

10. How will I know if my proposal is ready for submission?

Once you are done writing your proposal, give it to a few people for feedback. First, have your colleagues – who are experts in the field – critique it. Then, ask a naïve reader to tell you what he or she did not understand about your proposal and revise those portions. Reviewers will not always be experts in your field, and your writing is the only way to help them understand what you are requesting. Finally, ensure that all the editing will be done by an expert editor who has not previously reviewed your proposal.

There are many more questions that I am regularly asked. The common denominator tends to be that most grant writers ask questions about how their proposal can be understood. I would say that it would be best for you to understand first, then seek to be understood. The more you know about the process and the donor, and can apply it to your grant request, the better your chances for success.

The post Top 10 Grant FAQs appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

My tenure depends on this grant, and my team has been working nonstop for the last three days to get the proposal written. We’re pretty sure we did a good job because we have a great idea, but we want to make sure the agency understands what we want. Could you take a look and tell us what we need to do to win the grant? By the way, the grant is due tomorrow.

After this happened to me a few times, I began my interventions. I started to ask people in this situation a simple question: “Can you please give me an example of how you have succeeded under these circumstances in the past?” Inevitably, there is a pause and I wonder if they are still on the other end of the line. Finally, the answer: no. The chance for winning this grant is not difficult to calculate. In determining a submitter’s likelihood of successfully wining grant funding, I look for the following signs:

1. Reason for submission

Your reason for submission should be confidence that you will be competitive due to your well-prepared proposal. This is true when you and your team have been working on your proposal for several weeks, leading to a very good chance of being funded.

2. Timing

The timing of your proposal should be based on how well you understand what needs to be done, and how much your idea is needed at this juncture. You and your organization need to stay updated on funding trends, and adjust your strategies and approaches accordingly.

3. Making the Match

Your project and the program to which you are applying must align. Ensure that the donor’s mission and the program’s description both fit with the goals of your organization.

4. Donor’s list of requirements

Grant writers often believe they should emphasize their great idea because they are confident their proposal will be reviewed by peers in the same field. Donors charge reviewers not just with determining the excellence and innovation of the idea, but also so much more. Attention must be given to each of the review criteria for the proposal to succeed.

5. Contact with the Donor

Contacting the donor in advance yields a number of benefits. For example, you can determine the degree of interest in your project, improve your proposal’s targeting, and enhance receptivity to your application. These can all increase your chance for success.

6. Existing Relationships

If you are applying to a foundation, maximize existing personal relationships between your organization’s staff or board members and the foundation’s staff or trustees. Such relationships can pave the way for informal contacts that may support your request. For a federal grant, you can capitalize on funded requests from the same agency, your organization’s standing, and your reputation. Federal agencies are especially interested in good stewardship and success of previous grants.

7. Determining Expectations

Your job consists of presenting your thoughts and ideas in a clear, concise, and logical way, so the donor will have a thorough understanding of what you want and will do. This ensures that both the grantor and the grantee are absolutely clear about the expectations they have of each other. When expectations are managed, the result is a win-win situation where everyone is satisfied.

8. Compelling, Clear Case

Making a compelling and clear case for receiving the funds rests on three important pillars. Foremost, seek first to understand, then to be understood. Second, establish rapport with the donor. Third, wear the hats of the requester and evaluator.

When I ask grant writers about their readiness to submit a proposal, their answers reveal their true chances. These eight indicators demonstrate a clear distinction between those who are ready to submit their proposals, and those who need to further prepare and wait for the next competition.

The post 8 Signs You`re Ready to Submit Your Proposal appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The Change

The NIH policy on resubmissions previously required substantial changes to the Specific Aims, scope, and design of the project after an unsuccessful A1 application. As of April 2014, a twice unfunded resubmission (A1) can be presented in a new grant application (A0) without substantial changes to the content and scope of the proposal. The new application will not include an introduction or response to prior reviews, although using feedback to strengthen your new application is highly recommended. For more information see NIH Notice Number NOT-OD-14-074.

The Bottom Line

Your proposal has been through two rounds of review, but hasn’t received funding. Reworking your approach should be your first priority. For those of you whose proposal writing skills are not as sharp as your research ability, this is an opportunity to tap resources that you may not have had time to utilize. Have an experienced colleague look at your proposal to identify potential trouble areas, and heed the advice from the two panels – look for common points from both sources. With this change in policy, your good research idea will have another chance at getting funded when you improve the quality of your proposal.

The Change

A change to the NIH biosketch is being piloted now and will be fully implemented in early 2015. The new format focuses on your accomplishments and includes these major differences:

• five pages total (compared to four)
• descriptions of your five most significant contributions to science
• list up to four supporting peer-reviewed publications for each description
• influence of your contributions on your scientific area
• effects of your contributions on health or technology
• discussion of your role in these discoveries, when part of a team
• include a link to your full body of published works via SciENcv or My Bibliography

For more information see NIH Notice NOT-OD-14-091.

The Bottom Line

You have an opportunity to paint a more robust picture of your body of research, with a focus on your role and contributions. The additional page allows more room to discuss the significance of your contributions, along with any context or background information. You should include both team efforts and individual research when describing your role, including specific titles and positions held. The link to your body of published works will eliminate the need to provide citations in the biosketch. This change means you can provide more details than before about your research contributions and roles.

As the NIH and other federal agencies and organizations shift their policies and practices to fit budget, personnel, and time constraints, we will keep you updated. From time to time, we will also review changes to ensure you remember the important differences prior to submission of your proposal.

The post NIH Updates: The Bottom Line appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.