The erosion of informal relationships with federal agencies has fundamentally altered how universities assess risk. When routine questions go unanswered and faculty fear surveillance of their collaborations, innovation suffers as researchers retreat from proposals and international partnerships.

Faculty exhaustion has deepened beyond pandemic-era stress into permanent strain. At teaching-intensive institutions, even small seed grants require navigating weeks of bureaucratic obstacles. In the humanities, major NEH program cuts and shifting donor priorities toward immediate impact have left experienced scholars struggling to sustain long-term critical work.

Counter intuitively, the most stable research leaders practice restraint rather than bold transformation. By refusing to outpace federal guidance and clearly communicating realistic institutional capacity, they’ve maintained steadier operations. Many institutions have abandoned broad, small-scale bridge funding for targeted faculty cohorts receiving intensive support, while others invest in shared proposal development resources and grant-writing consultants. Yet leaders agree the critical factor isn’t funding, it is morale.

Research administrators increasingly spend time interpreting political signals and strategically reframing work. Some train faculty to avoid problematic keywords, while others align messaging with phrases like “Make America Healthy Again”. This strategic repositioning reflects a troubling reality: research is becoming a political act.

The shift toward industry partnerships to replace declining federal support raises fundamental questions about who determines research priorities and why. Leaders fear that political instability and funding volatility will force institutions to abandon long-term research strategies for short-term survival, undermining the patient cultivation necessary for transformative scholarship.

Despite these challenges, cautious optimism persists. Cross-institutional humanities collaborations are emerging, STEM fields are organizing around AI initiatives, and some leaders embrace moral clarity by honestly communicating what they cannot support. Many focus on strengthening internal collaboration rather than external competition.

The post Mounting Pressures Facing University Research appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Increased Competition:

As the demand for grant funding continues to rise, the competition among organizations and individuals seeking grants has become more intense. Currently, the funding levels for many federal grants is ranging around the 90^th percentile and above.

Evolving Donor Priorities:

Donor priorities may shift over time due to changes in political, economic, or social landscapes, which require grant writers to adapt their proposals accordingly. For example, as presidential administrations emphasize their research and educational priorities, funding also changes to reflect these interests.

Demonstrating Impact and Sustainability:

Funders increasingly expect grant applicants to demonstrate their projects’ potential impact and sustainability. Grant writers must develop strategies for effectively measuring and communicating the outcomes and institutionalization of their initiatives to secure funding and ensure long-term viability for their organizations.

Limited Resources and Capacity:

Many organizations that increasingly face internal budget cuts often reduce resources necessary for grant writing efforts, such as staff time and training. These cuts pose a significant challenge for grant writers, who must often juggle multiple responsibilities and priorities while pursuing funding opportunities.

Adapting to Digital Platforms

With the increasing digitization of grant application processes, grant writers need to adapt to numerous online platforms and technologies. This may require taking extra time to learn new software and digital communication strategies to effectively submit their project proposals to funders.

So, what must grant writers and organizations do in the face of these obstacles? First and foremost, institutions need to understand that internal cuts result in much larger consequences for external giving. Secondly, grant seekers must constantly stay current on evolving donor priorities, digital platforms and technologies. Thirdly, grant writers must ensure sustainability by institutionalizing their initial funding so that they become ongoing efforts, such as train the trainers programs, infusing student learning in existing courses, or creating focus groups that can continue to serve their communities after the donor’s funding ends.

The post Challenges Facing Grant Writers in Today`s Environment appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence training focuses on developing self-awareness, empathy, and effective communication skills. Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand and manage your own emotions and the emotions of others. Leaders who possess high emotional intelligence are better equipped to lead teams and create positive work environments.

2. Coaching and Mentoring

Coaching and mentoring are valuable tools for developing leadership skills. Coaching is a collaborative process where a coach helps a leader identify strengths and weaknesses and develop strategies to improve performance. Mentoring, on the other hand, is a relationship between a more experienced leader and a less experienced one. The mentor provides guidance and support to the mentee to help them develop their skills and reach their potential.

3. Team Building

Effective leadership requires strong teamwork. Team building activities help leaders build relationships with their team members, improve communication, and foster a positive work environment. These activities can be as simple as regular team meetings or as complex as offsite team-building retreats.

4. Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity and inclusion training is becoming increasingly important as institutions strive to create more diverse and inclusive work environments. Leaders who are knowledgeable about diversity and inclusion are better equipped to lead diverse teams and create a culture of inclusivity. This training focuses on developing skills like empathy, active listening, and cultural competency.

5. Resilience

Leadership can be a stressful and demanding role, and resilience training is becoming more important for leaders to develop. Resilience training helps leaders develop the ability to bounce back from setbacks and maintain their focus and productivity in challenging situations. This training typically includes techniques like mindfulness, positive thinking, and stress management.

6. Strategic Thinking

Leadership requires strategic thinking and planning. Strategic thinking training helps leaders develop the ability to think critically and strategically about their organization’s goals and objectives. This training includes skills like problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation.

7. Technology and Data Analysis

Leadership is becoming increasingly reliant on technology and data analysis. Leaders who are proficient in these areas are better equipped to make data-driven decisions and leverage technology to improve their organizations. Technology and data analysis training typically includes skills like data visualization, analytics, and project management tools.

8. Ethical Leadership

Leadership also requires ethical decision-making. Ethical leadership training fosters skills like integrity, honesty, and accountability. This helps leaders develop the ability to make decisions that are ethical and align with their organization’s values.

In conclusion, the state of the art training on leadership is constantly evolving, and institutions need to keep up with the latest trends and best practices to develop effective leaders. Emotional intelligence, coaching and mentoring, team building, diversity and inclusion, resilience, strategic thinking, technology and data analysis, and ethical leadership are some of the key areas of focus for leadership training. By investing in their leaders’ development, institutions can create a more productive and positive work environment and achieve their organizational goals.

Find out more about our upcoming Executive Leadership Workshop

The post Boost Your External Funding via Effective Leadership appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

When the faculty were asked to identify the causes of their dissatisfaction and what would improve their satisfaction, 53% percent of the sample said increased compensation, 46% said modifications to teaching schedules or loads, and 34% cited new technology or better access to technology support.

At the same time, the research efforts and consequent funding levels of faculty have been drastically reduced. Many faculty were unable to go to their labs, schedule meetings with colleagues and connect with donor agencies, which has resulted in difficulties which may have long term effects. More than almost two years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community is still feeling the effects of the vastly disruptive event — and may for many years to come.

Northwestern University led study found that although researchers’ productivity levels have mostly returned to pre-pandemic highs, scientists who did not pursue COVID-19 related research initiated 36% fewer new projects in 2021 compared to 2019. This dramatic decline in new projects suggests the pandemic’s impact on science may be longer lasting than commonly imagined (Dashung Wang – Nature Communications).

What Can Be Done?

Administrative support of faculty:

Although it is also true that the university administrators have been and continue to be at a loss of what to do, ongoing communication with faculty could begin to alleviate some of the problems. Faculty feedback that is taken seriously and implemented can greatly increase faculty confidence and reduce stress.

Rewarding faculty efforts in research:

Institutions throughout the US wish to stand-out as research institutions with high productivity on the part of their faculty; however, it is not unusual to want faculty to “produce” without a reward system in place. This is especially the case with teaching institutions where the teaching load is such that it does not allow time for productive research and for seeking funding.

Modifications of teaching schedules and loads:

Hybrid teaching approaches, now becoming more and more common, may increase faculty loads for some. While some faculty can easily adapt to these new approaches, others cannot, and as a consequence may lose the quality time they need to pursue research and grant funding.

Increasing support infrastructures for grant writing:

In the wake of COVID-19 many sponsored research offices have reduced staff and administrative support services previously given to faculty. Fortifying such services as team building, rewards for interdisciplinary research, training of faculty, and content reviews and editing of proposals can go a long-way toward alleviating the effects of COVID-19.

This is only the beginning of the introspection and creativity needed to address the post COVID-19 world for colleges and universities. Not only do institutions need to tackle the immediate concerns of faculty members, but broader issues such as tenure, promotion, and economic and philosophical support for faculty research need to be addressed.  At the end of the day, how institutions deal with the fallout of COVID-19 in the short and long term will define the recovery of the academic community.

The post How Can the Academic Community Recover from the Impact of COVID-19 appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Most US institutions of higher education encourage faculty to apply for external funding, but the assistance they provide varies extensively. Teaching institutions, now more than ever, stress the importance of research. Unfortunately, due to the heavy teaching loads, many provide little if any assistance to faculty, while at the same time expecting them to submit successful grant requests. Among the most well-funded institutions, including R1 Doctoral Universities (very high research activity) and R2 Doctoral Universities (high research activity), assistance given to faculty varies, but all financially support projects that lead to faculty success in procuring external funding.

The following, although not inclusive, are some of the necessary infrastructure support steps an institution needs to take to assure increased funding and faculty support:

• Institutional level: This includes development of an administrative unit, such as a Sponsored Research Office, which will support many grant-related activities such as grant searches, grant compliance with the Requests for Proposals (RFPs), budget development and grant submissions. The university should recruit and pay graduate research assistants and financially and philosophically support departments that encourage and assist faculty in their funding pursuits. Some of these areas might be content reviews, editing, evaluation and statistical services.
• Departmental level: On the departmental level, the key faculty incentives are salary increases and reduced teaching loads. Also, the departmental goals should include funding success in the tenure and promotion criteria. In addition, many departments hire support staff to assist faculty in grant seeking and writing.
• Individual level: Faculty should be encouraged to augment their grant writing skills by attending ongoing extensive workshops sponsored by their department or conducted by external contractors. Another essential activity is creating partnerships and mentorships between the established senior and junior faculty in order for the former to review proposals and recommend changes. Ongoing mock grant review panels, whereby senior faculty review and score junior faculty proposals, are extremely helpful in order for faculty to see how their proposals will be critiqued and scored by the donor agency panels.

Other key aspects are visits by grant program officers, sharing and dissecting of successful proposals, online tutorials, departmental writing retreats, centers of research excellence, and standing committees that can work with faculty on a continuous basis. All of these must be institutionalized and conducted throughout the year. Faculty need to be incentivized and encouraged to attend the training, mentoring and other related activities. Coordination between all areas of the institution is essential. In addition, the orientation for all newly entering faculty should stress the importance of research, grant procurement and the assistance that the university provides in those respects.

From my extensive experience in working with universities throughout the nation, those that implement a culture of grant procurement including as many as possible of the above activities are the institutions with the highest funding success rate.

The post University Support for Faculty Funding Success appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Once, when I worked for a small, under-resourced organization, we created a project that perfectly fit a community need, was structured for efficiency, and had a large return on investment from donors. I approached an eager donor who was familiar with our efforts, our successes, and our available resources. I asked him for $1.3M. He told me he loved the project, was thrilled with our design, and really wanted to give us the gift. Then, he said, “unfortunately, your organization doesn’t have the ability to receive a gift as large as $1.3M.” I was dumbfounded. We had done everything right in evaluating, justifying, and planning a strategy to meet an essential need in our community. Yet, as an organization, we didn’t have the operational structure to receive a large donation. In that instant of excitement and disappointment, I realized that all fundraising efforts should only start after a close examination of an organization’s situation, their board, their staff, their infrastructure and their standing in the community. Each of these will influence an organization’s potential for raising funds.

The key steps in the process of assessing your fundraising capacity are: understanding how your organization is perceived internally and externally, knowing your strengths and weaknesses, and prioritizing your efforts and resources. Likewise, a solid market analysis is essential in developing a diversified and successful fundraising strategy.

After these initial strategic considerations, the next level of capacity building is to determine the size of your potential donor database. Once you identify these donors, begin making the match between you and them and solicit funds to develop projects of mutual interest.

Specifically, the steps to build your organization into a financial success are:

1. Know your organization by creating:
   1. Strategic plan
   2. Market analysis
   3. Needs assessment
   4. Current assessment of potential donors
2. Build a successful board consisting of:
   1. Community leaders
   2. Business leaders
   3. Political leaders
   4. Philanthropic leaders
3. First level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Classic and contemporary media presence, from local news to social media
   2. Regularly scheduled newsletters and updates
   3. Direct solicitations to the donors you already know
   4. Building member databases
      1. Collect emails at public events
      2. Provide free membership while sharing emails
      3. Use current members to introduce new members
   5. Annual appeal letters to donors
      1. Tell a story
      2. Explain how the potential donor can help
      3. Ask for the money
   6. Exploring area philanthropies & corporate donors from
      1. Community foundations
      2. Local businesses
4. Second level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Grants
   2. Small to medium-sized special events
   3. Planned giving programs
5. Top level fundraising strategies consist of:
   1. Capital campaigns
   2. Large scale events

Fundraising strategies vary from one type of organization to another. If the organization is small, it is best to employ a strategy that builds your supporter database and directly solicits them for cash donations. In contrast, a large, established organization may be in the perfect position to host a sizable gala.

When your organization has a track record of successes, strategic efforts should be made to attract the most powerful and influential board members. These board members will bring credibility to your organization as you begin to seek larger donations. As your board stature grows, so will your options in fundraising.

An honest assessment of your organization and your place in the community will help you understand the best approach to take to effectively secure funds. Thus, with broad community recognition, a strong track record of success, financial efficiency, and influential board members, you’ll be able to employ a large diversity of effective fundraising strategies.

The post How to Build a Successful Nonprofit appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

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.

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.

My recent experience in writing an interdisciplinary collaborative research grant differed from my previous ones in that there were three rather than two of us involved in the process. In addition, my two collaborators were from a discipline far from my health science expertise: electrical and computer engineering. There were parts of the methods that I just couldn’t write because they were beyond my expertise. I had mixed feelings about this inability to write. While I had confidence in my collaborators, I felt totally dependent upon them. On the other hand, this feeling of dependence meant to me that we had formed a true interdisciplinary collaboration.

Through this experience, I have identified four key strategies that worked for us to complete and submit the grant application and feel a sense of accomplishment during the process.

1. Be clear about collaborators’ expertise and contributions.

Successful grant writing requires that collaborators are clear on what everyone’s expertise is and how this expertise fits with the project’s specific aims. Prior to this grant submission, we were asked to write a white paper. (For information about a white paper, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper). It wasn’t long into the writing process that I realized our good fortune of having written this paper: our research question and approach were solidified, our contributions and expertise were transparent, and our current effort was pure writing instead of conceptualizing as we were writing. But you and your collaborators don’t need to wait for an opportunity to write a white paper. Consider writing one as the collaboration is forming.

2. Communicate frequently with your collaborators.

During a four-week period, we were in constant communication about the grant. Initially, the three of us had one in-person meeting to review our scientific approach. Then we communicated almost on a daily basis via email. One week before the application, I had another in-person meeting with one collaborator. This meeting was helpful as the collaborator had specific questions about the context of this proposed work within the state of the science. Not only did these questions enhance the collaborator’s understanding of the scientific field, but these questions also helped me to identify areas that I needed to strengthen or clarify within the proposal.

It’s common sense that constant communication is critical to the success of writing a collaborative grant application; however, we are not always intentional about our communication plan, and we all have different approaches to checking and responding to email. So it doesn’t hurt to discuss communication approaches at the start of writing the grant. For example, try to schedule at least two in-person meetings in advance—one at the start and one near the deadline. If you don’t need the second or subsequent meetings, then you can always cancel. It’s easier to schedule in advance than later. Also, to prevent any communication breakdowns, ensure all collaborators are included in email traffic. It’s a simple way to keep everyone in the loop and to create a record of reference for you and your collaborators.

3. Outsource tasks when possible.

Because we only had four weeks to draft the grant, as the lead co-principal investigator (co-PI), I decided to seek assistance from others so I could focus on the science for the proposal. For example, in my department, we have one staff person who can create a budget table and prepare a budget justification and another staff person who provides guidance in creating National Institutes of Health (NIH) biographical sketches. In addition, I enlisted the assistance of an outside editor to do editing/proofing. This editor helped with ascertaining the strengths of our case, ensuring the grant application read as one voice and met the formatting and content guidelines, and writing mechanics were correct.

These support individuals made a huge difference in completing and submitting a polished grant application, so I highly recommend outsourcing these tasks to these experts. At a research university, staff who can advise about grant budgets are usually available. Also, for specific grant requirements (e.g., the NIH biographical sketch), reach out to colleagues who have completed a similar grant proposal or visit the institution’s website for guidance and/or samples. In terms of editing support, check with your institution’s research or sponsored programs office to learn if editorial assistance is available. Another viable—and valuable—option is to hire a graduate student as an hourly worker to help with these tasks. A graduate student with a particular expertise can be just as effective at creating budgets, drafting biosketches, and editing your proposal as a full-time employee.

4. Develop a strategic plan for writing the grant.

Finally, as the lead co-PI, I was strategic about the order in which the different application sections were completed. For our specific project, there were five required sections: the project narrative, the one-page summary for the future external grant application, the budget, the curriculum vitae (the NIH biographical sketch), and the description of current and pending support. I chose to complete the project narrative first because I wanted to ensure that I had the creative energy and time for multiple revisions, especially since this application involved three writers. Plus, I needed to complete the project narrative before starting the one-page summary since this would describe the subsequent project to be submitted to an external funding agency. The budget table and justification were also completed early because the budget affected the project timeline, which was part of the project narrative. I was intentional in waiting until the project narrative was almost done to complete the curriculum vitae and support sections because I knew I would be outsourcing this task and could complete these even after much of my creative energy had been used up.

So when writing this type of grant, develop a strategic plan. This plan needs to account for the high and low points of your creative energy, the order in which multiple writers will need to contribute, the order in which sections need to be written, and the availability of support individuals. Even as a collaborator who is not the lead co-PI, you can develop a strategic plan so that your creative energy is highest when you need to contribute to sections, such as the project narrative. Finally, don’t forget to set deadlines as part of this plan. If you are the lead co-PI, you may propose these. If you are a collaborator, you may offer counter deadlines. When you can’t meet these, give new ones to ensure that the work will get done in a timely manner.

Although writing an interdisciplinary research collaborative grant application can be intimidating, implementing these four strategies will likely reduce this feeling, allowing you to be more confident and composed throughout the entire writing process. Have you been a lead co-PI or collaborator in a similar situation? I’d love to hear what you think of our strategies and other strategies that worked for you!

The post How to Write Successful Collaborative Applications 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.