AI technologies, including natural language processing models like GPT-3, are capable of generating text content and assisting with various writing tasks. However, writing a grant proposal involves more than just generating text; it requires a deep understanding of the specific goals, objectives, and requirements of the proposal, as well as knowledge of the subject matter and the context in which the proposal will be submitted.

While AI can help with certain aspects of the writing process, such as generating introductory or background sections, it may not be able to fully replace human expertise in crafting a persuasive and well-structured grant proposal. Human input is crucial for understanding the unique aspects of a project, tailoring the proposal to the needs of the funding organization, and incorporating a compelling narrative. This involves a level of domain-specific knowledge and creativity that AI does not fully possess.

If you’re considering using AI to help with your grant request, it’s advisable to stay updated on the latest developments, particularly in the field of natural language processing. Additionally, always review and refine any AI-generated content to ensure it meets the specific requirements of your proposal and effectively communicates your project’s goals and significance.

That said, the field of AI is dynamic and advancements are made regularly. It’s possible that, in the future, more sophisticated AI models or dedicated tools could offer substantial assistance in writing grant requests.

The post Can AI Write your Grant Proposal? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Ingredients    

1. Excellent match between the grant proposal and the donor’s priorities
2. Answering the “so what” question of your research
3. Simple prose and white space on the paper
4. Examples of the approach
5. A clearly written proposal
6. The grand finale: the significance of the results

Preparation

Read the entire RFP, from top to bottom. Once you clearly understand the directions that the donor provided, you can begin to put the pieces of the proposal together. Double check that you and your organization are eligible for the grant you are seeking, and that your project or research aligns with the donor’s mission. This makes certain that the match is made between yourself and the donor, and preparation of the pieces of the proposal can begin. These segments will be the product of extensive research on your part to move in the right direction. The pieces are:

1. Abstract – This will take careful preparation since it is the most important part of the application. It is the first impression, the precise summary of the entire proposal, and the evidence that success is possible.
2. Introduction – This is where you will present the problem or question to be addressed. The “so what” question for your project or research must be apparent, and should begin or lead into the narrative.
3. Need Statement/Statement of Significance – This is where the convincing argument for the project takes place. You will tell your impressive story, citing research and examples with enthusiasm and clarity.
4. Plan of Operation/Methodology – This is the heart of the proposal. Your plan should be tightly structured and consist of the goal (or hypothesis), objectives (or Specific Aims), and activities. Each segment will clearly illustrate the way your proposal will unfold in a logical manner. The evaluation follows, which should be clearly outlined in the incremental measurements of each activity – and these will be used to ensure your success in meeting your goal.
5. Outcomes and deliverables– This will be the section that demonstrates how the outcomes have unfolded, and what you are delivering to your constituents and the donor. In short, this is the resulting product of your proposal.

Presentation

Your presentation should be memorable. Don’t assume that reviewers will overlook sloppiness because your idea is phenomenal. You can achieve a superior presentation with images, graphs, and Gantt charts, which are easy to understand and memorable. Most importantly, if your proposal will make a significant impact, it should be stated as such. For instance, provide examples of how your work will make a difference, change the field, save lives, or set the stage for future change. Whether the presentation necessitates the elegance of a fine dining restaurant or the simplicity of a well-prepared meal at home, the true mark of success lies in what was expected and what has been delivered in an impressive manner.

The post Three Essentials for Grant Success: Ingredients, Preparation, and Presentation appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Ultimately, manuscript writing is primarily individualistic, whereas grant writing is a team effort that can include colleagues across disciplines. The transition from one set of skills to the other is not an easy one, since most academics have not been trained in the art of selling a product. This certainly does not mean that learning grant writing skills is an insurmountable task. It simply implies that a transition needs to be made in the presentation and description of ideas.

The post A Fatal Error: Confusing Manuscript Writing with Grant Writing appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

The development of a competitive and winning bid takes time, proper planning, the identification of the right resources at the right time and place, and implementation of both art and science practices. Win strategies are devised, value propositions are offered, the science case is conceptualized, solutions are engineered, graphical depictions of funder visions are created, and win themes and discriminators are sprinkled throughout the proposal – all carefully developed from the issues surrounding the procurement. This is how the proposal becomes funder-focused, not just where the program office is now, but where they are going in the future.

Ultimately, a winning bid tells a story: “Michelangelo said that he did not sculpt marble; he discovered it in the sculpture that was already hidden in the stone that released it. In winning proposals, we discover the solution already hidden in the Request for Proposal (RFP) that released it, and finding a cost-effective way to create a larger market that may have discovered us, as we look to our projects to signal us of events to come. To win, we must invite the audience to reflect on what the future might look like in their eyes. There will be those who are persuaded by art, and those who are moved by pure science. The challenge is to offer both, affordably, and then to let those who released the RFP think they discovered it…”

The post The Development of Competitive Bids is an Art and Science appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Let’s begin with Joan Didion, who talked about the “infinite power” of grammar: “To shift the structure of a sentence alters the meaning as definitely and inflexibly as the position of a camera alters the meaning of the object photographed.”

She reminded me of Gopen and Swan’s seminal paper, “The Science of Scientific Writing,” which replaced the standard rule-focused approach to writing improvement with an interpretative approach focused on readers’ expectations.

Your readers — the reviewers of your proposal — are looking for answers to specific questions. But more importantly, they expect to find them in particular places. When the answers aren’t where they expect them, they’re more likely to miss your point entirely, or worse, assume that whatever they do find there is the real point.

Their first question is ”whose story is this”, and they look for that answer in the subject of your sentence. Consider these two sentences, which describe the same activity but have different subjects:

• Training in responsible conduct of research will be provided.
• Students will receive training in responsible conduct of research.

For the first sentence, reviewers are more likely to expect details about the curriculum; for the second, details about how many or which students will be trained.

Their second question is “what is this about”, and they look for the answer in a strong and active verb. Too much academic writing converts strong verbs into nouns — a process called nominalization. Usually, this requires adding a weak or auxiliary verb. Consider these sentences:

• The team will meet monthly.
• The team will have a monthly meeting.

Those two extra words seem negligible here… but if you nominalize just half your verbs, you’ll waste a full page in a 20-page proposal.

The reviewers’ third question is “how does the material link backward and forward?” They look for context and perspective at the start of a sentence or paragraph – what Gopen and Swan call the topic position. To maintain your proposal’s logical flow, reserve the topic position for old material and connect it to what follows. If you put new material here, you’ll change the focus of your story and increase the chance readers will follow the wrong trail.

Their final question is ”what material warrants my attention?” They expect to find new and important material at the end of a section, paragraph, sentence, or even a clause. This is the stress position – and Gopen and Swan claim that the misplacement of stress-worthy information is the number one writing/reading problem.

The topic and stress positions are especially important in panel reviews which have a mix of “expert” and “lay” readers. Even a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study section which appears to be populated by experts in your field will include people who are less attenuated to the fine points of your arguments.

The lay readers need context to understand where you’re headed. They’re more likely to parse the topic position closely but defer to the experts’ judgments about their details. The opposite holds for the experts — they’ll skim the topic position but read the stress position closely to evaluate your theory and methods.

You will win more grants if you align your points with reader expectations. This reader-oriented approach echoes Joan Didion’s thoughts about sentence structure. Rhetoric is like real estate: the three most important concerns are location, location, and location.

The post Critical Tips for Captivating Grant Writing appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

What does that mean in practical terms?

It turns out that professional writers—novelists, essayists, and journalists—have a lot to say about that. If you google “writers on writing” you’ll find hundreds of quotes. Here are five of my favorites and how they apply to proposal writing:

Elmore Leonard: “Leave out the parts the readers tend to skip.”

Simply put, most proposals have too much information. A Pew study showed TV weather reporters actually became more skeptical of climate change as they accumulated knowledge. Articles, book chapters, and books aim to inform; proposals are meant to persuade. To do so, give an expert audience only as much background as it needs to see that you’re grounded in best practice; focus on what you’re doing that’s new. Conversely, give lay readers only what they need to understand the elegance of what you’re proposing and what they’ll get from it.

Practically, this also alleviates the ubiquitous and crippling struggle against page limits.

Steven King: “Kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart”

This can apply in several ways. You might have a profound insight that puts a whole new wrinkle on the field but doesn’t change your work plan in any meaningful way. Discussing it here distracts the reader from other concepts. Save it for a book or article. Or, you want to do something that is really cool and are burning to share it… but there isn’t enough time or treasure in the budget to actually do it right. Leave it out of the proposal and talk about it with friends over a distilled beverage. The most common way this comes up is when you share your document with colleagues and there’s something that no one understands. Maybe that idea isn’t ready for prime time.

Joan Didion: “All I know about grammar is its infinite power. To shift the structure of a sentence alters the meaning as definitely and inflexibly as the position of a camera alters the meaning of the object photographed.”

Gopen and Swan’s seminal article “The Science of Scientific Writing” cites research showing that readers interpret your writing based on six expectations.² Among these: they expect to find any new or important information at the end of a discursive unit (i.e., a clause, sentence, paragraph, or section). If it’s elsewhere, they are likely to miss it and interpret what is there as your main point. Conversely, they expect to find context and perspective at the start of the unit. Violating these expectations increases the likelihood that your writing will be misinterpreted.

Kurt Vonnegut: “Give the reader at least one character he can root for.”

The most persuasive arguments use three rhetorical devices: logos (logic), ethos (authority), and pathos (emotion)—but the academic argument shuns pathos. Granted, it isn’t relevant for most single investigator research projects—but it is somewhat relevant for center grant proposals, more so for projects that include trainees, and highly relevant for fellowship applications. Even on single investigator research proposals, you can make an emotional connection with the reader using metaphors to bring your vision into their world. Effective use of pathos to augment strong arguments from logic and authority can provide a competitive edge.

George R.R. Martin: “There are two types of writers: architects and gardeners.”

Architects plan in advance – where will everything go, what each paragraph will say. Gardeners plant a seed but don’t know how the plant will develop. Martin is a proud gardener, but he doesn’t have to address formal review criteria. You, on the other hand, need architectural drawings—storyboards—that lay out the structure and content of each section (and even each paragraph). That’s how to ensure your proposal addresses all the review criteria, mirrors the language in the program announcement, and gives proportional attention to the factors that go into the evaluation.

The post How to Write Persuasive Proposals 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.

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.

The best way to collect information about the problem is for you to conduct and document both a formal and informal needs assessment for your program in the target or service area. The information you provide should be both factual and directly related to the problem addressed. Areas for you to document are:

• Purpose for developing the proposal – what need you identified or what problem will be solved. You also have to address why you identified this particular need and why you and your organization are credible and able to make a substantial difference in terms of the solution.

• Beneficiaries – who they are, how they will benefit, how they were chosen, how many were chosen and how you came up with this approach must be documented and specifically addressed.

• Social and economic costs – who and what will be affected and by how much. Here you will need to address the percentage of change you expect and why. Obviously, cost is always a consideration, and if you can demonstrate that your intervention will save institutional and individual costs, this will be to your benefit.

• The nature of the problem – provide as much hard evidence as possible. This will be accomplished via the literature review, your past experience, surveys, and past and present data that demonstrate your past and anticipated future success with the targeted beneficiaries.

• Objectives – the specific way you will solve the problem, including the resources needed, how they will be used, and to what end. The goal and objectives will be the “heart of your proposal” that together will constitute your plan of operation.

• Sustainability plan – explain what will happen to your project when funding has been exhausted. If there is a way to institutionalize the approach  (e.g. train the trainers), this will demonstrate that the donor’s funding will make an ongoing difference, not just a one-time intervention.

There are several types of data you might want to collect, depending on the project: historical, geographic, statistical, as well as studies completed in your field. Unless otherwise specified, a mix of qualitative and quantitative data usually works best.

The need statement will ultimately be about an area of concern, a condition to be improved upon, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question that exists in scholarly literature that requires understanding and deliberate intervention. Making the need and your credibility to solve the problem clear to the donor, will make the difference between being funded and rejected.

The post The Core of Your Proposal: The Problem Statement appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

How to prepare

How well do you know the donors? What is their culture and language? With whom will you communicate even before you write the first word? Unless you understand what the donors want, you will not know how to communicate with them. Unfortunately, many grant writers I come across believe that the donor will give them money as long as they have a good idea. In reality, grants are awarded to those who have the ability to deliver on the donor’s interests.

How to persuade

Once you understand the donor, you can then seek to be understood. Your grant must be an idea that the donor wants to fund, and it will need to be explained precisely. This idea will best be captured by its simplicity and not its complexity. It is important, however, not to misconstrue simplicity as a “dumbing down” of ideas, but rather as complexity that is easily understandable. Next, you need to persuasively demonstrate the difference your idea will make in the lives of your constituents. Your introductory paragraph should have a strong impact statement that catches the reader’s attention. Open with the importance of the problem in terms of numbers or a forceful statement. For example: “Driving while talking on a cell phone, even hands-free, results in as many accidents as drunk driving.” This will awaken the interest of the reader and will provoke him/her to think seriously about your proposal.

How to connect

Now you are ready to invite the reader on an adventure using the art of storytelling. Competence alone is not enough to connect. When the message relies only on competence, writers become rigid and often get caught up trying to prove why their thoughts, ideas, or messages are the “right” ones. They focus only on themselves and they miss small moments to meaningfully connect and build trust with their audiences. Facts don’t change people; stories change people. The most successful grant writers are the best storytellers. They realize that stories bring facts to life.

Your goal is to capture the hearts and minds of grant reviewers. You will need to utilize an empathic grant writing style – your proposal cannot be a sterile, robotic document. The basis of your proposal is your good idea, which should be strong, innovative, well-thought out, and sincere. Your research will demonstrate that the problem you are addressing can be solved and your story will convey the overall impact of resolving a difficult problem for your constituents.

How to address the key parts of your proposal

The first impression: You will begin this process on the introductory page – your abstract. There, you will make the first impression of who you are, what you want and how you are going to achieve it. This first page will be a work of art, the snapshot of your entire proposal and the roadmap of your grant. It should never be an afterthought, since you never get a second chance to create a first impression.

The need: The need statement, which will be about thirty percent of the total proposal score, will be a persuasive argument that will include research, data, illustrations, and possibly well-structured anecdotes and specific examples. If your idea is solid, even though there may be some flaws in the approach, you stand a good chance of being funded. Your statement of need will include interventions that are innovative, make a real and tangible difference, and touch the lives of your beneficiaries.

The plan of operation: This section is the cornerstone of the strategic approach you need to take to execute your proposal. You will define the roadmap of your grant via the goal, measurable objectives, activities, timelines, personnel, evaluation, and budget. The direction of your proposal will now become immediately clear. You will speak as a person who fully understands the execution of your grant, tying every piece of the puzzle together.

At the end of the day, you will need to conceive of the grant package as an artistic endeavor. Be aware of the flow or the “music”, the visual rhythm via the illustrations you include, and assure that you have a mutual ethos, conversation, and communication with the funder. Be conscious of the ultimate gestalt of the package. Your goal – WOW!

The post Grant Success: Stop Stating, Start Connecting appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.