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.

The following is how grant writing know-how can help you stand out and secure a job:

Strong Communication Skills:

Grant writing requires clear and persuasive writing, which is a highly sought-after skill in many job roles. Your ability to communicate effectively can set you apart from other candidates during the application process and in the workplace.

Attention to Detail:

Grant writing involves meticulous attention to detail to ensure that proposals are accurate and well-organized. This skill is valued in many positions, especially those that involve data analysis, quality control, or project management.

Project Management Abilities:

Grant writing often entails creating project plans, budgets, and timelines. These skills are transferable to roles that require effective project management, whether you’re leading a team, coordinating tasks, or ensuring deadlines are met.

Research Proficiency:

Successful grant writing involves thorough research to understand funding opportunities and tailor proposals to specific requirements. This research skill is applicable to various jobs that involve data gathering, analysis, and strategic planning.

Strategic Thinking:

Crafting grant proposals requires strategic thinking to align your organization’s goals with potential funders’ priorities. This ability can be valuable in roles that involve business development, marketing, or sales.

Financial Literacy:

Grant writers often work on budget development and financial projections. This financial literacy is relevant to jobs in finance, accounting, and budget management.

Collaboration and Networking:

Grant writers often collaborate with colleagues, partners, and funders. This experience can be advantageous in roles that require teamwork, relationship-building, and networking.

Innovation and Creativity:

Developing unique and innovative proposals to secure funding highlights your creativity and problem-solving abilities. These traits are attractive to employers looking for candidates who can bring fresh ideas to their teams.

Results-Oriented Approach:

Successfully securing grants demonstrates your ability to achieve tangible results. Employers appreciate candidates who can showcase their track record of achieving goals and driving positive outcomes.

Industry Relevance:

If you’re applying for a job in a nonprofit, research, or academic setting, having grant writing expertise can demonstrate your understanding of funding processes and your ability to contribute to securing resources for the organization.

Higher Education Advancement:

Faculty promotion, advancement, and tenure are often directly tied to your success in grant procurement.  This in turn relates to your reputation as a researcher and the prestige of your institution.

When applying for jobs, be certain to highlight your grant writing experience on your resume, cover letter, and during interviews. Emphasize the transferable skills and qualities you’ve developed through grant writing that make you a well-rounded and capable candidate. Even if the job doesn’t involve grant writing directly, your expertise can make you a more attractive candidate by showcasing your ability to bring valuable skills to the table.

The post How Does Grant Writing Experience Help Me Get a Job? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

• Strong Research Skills:

Can identify relevant funding opportunities, understand the funding organization’s priorities and requirements, and gather supporting data and evidence for their proposals.

• Clear and Concise Communication:

Are able to communicate their ideas and proposals clearly and concisely. The best writers effectively convey complex concepts in a straightforward manner, making the proposal easy to understand for both technical and non-technical readers.

• Attention to Detail:

Pay close attention to guidelines, formatting requirements, and deadlines. They meticulously review their proposals for errors, inconsistencies, and clarity before submission. The end result is a well developed and polished proposal.

• Grant Writing Expertise:

Possess a strong understanding of the grant writing process. They are familiar with best practices, strategies, and common pitfalls in grant writing. They know how to structure a proposal, tell a good story, use persuasive language, and address evaluation criteria effectively.

• Strategic Thinking:

Align their proposals with the funding organization’s priorities; thus creating an effective match and partnership. In addition, they emphasize the project’s significance and impact, address potential challenges and risks, and consider long-term sustainability and potential collaborations.

• Collaboration and Networking:

Are skilled at building relationships, seeking input and expertise from others, and incorporating diverse perspectives into their proposals. They understand the value of partnerships and collaborations in strengthening grant applications.

• Time and Project Management:

Are adept at managing their time and resources efficiently. They can prioritize tasks, meet deadlines, and handle multiple projects simultaneously. They have strong organizational skills and can effectively coordinate with team members and stakeholders.

• Continuous Learning:

Understand the importance of continuous learning and improvement. They stay updated on funding trends, policy changes, and best practices in grant writing. They actively seek feedback on their proposals and incorporate lessons learned from previous applications.

• Persistence and Resilience:

Understand that grant writing can be a competitive and challenging process. Successful grant writers exhibit persistence, resilience, and a positive mindset. They do not get discouraged by rejections or setbacks and continue to refine and improve their proposals.

These characteristics are extremely valuable, and it’s important to note that grant writing is a skill that can be developed and refined over time. When combined with the universal ingredient of enthusiasm for their project and it’s positive outcomes, a grant writer becomes truly successful.

The post What Makes a Successful Grant Writer? 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.

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 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.

Some of the most dramatic cuts by category are:

Arts and Humanities:

The budget plan proposes to eliminate entirely the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and severely cut the existing $148 million budget of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). This will mean that 40% of the NEA funds that are channeled to states and matched will no longer offer real participation to those who otherwise have no avenue to music and the arts in their communities. “The hope that comes from creativity in these low-income communities will be obliterated.” (Washington Post, 3/23/2017).

“One common comparison we’ve seen says that Melania Trump’s security detail at Trump Tower costs more than the annual budget for the National Endowment for the Arts.” (Linda Qiu on Wednesday, February 8th, 2017, PUNDITFACT).

Sciences and Higher Education:

• The Agriculture Department budget eliminates the $500 million Water and Wastewater loan and grant program.
• The Commerce Department budget eliminates the $73 million Sea Grant program, which operates in conjunction with universities in 33 states.
• The Department of Energy is to eliminate $900 million in Office of Science funding.
• The Environmental Protection Agency is to cut the Office of Research and Development funding in half.

A drastic cut of 18% or $5.8 billion is looming over the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This would severely reduce the funding NIH gives out to researchers around the globe, and reductions are slated for intramural and extramural research, and complete elimination the Fogarty International Center, which builds partnerships between the US and international institutions.

Although NASA will take a small cut of 1%, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which supports science and technology research and development at colleges and universities in areas such as remote sensing, nanotechnology, astrophysics and aeronautics, will be eliminated.

These cuts range from higher education, to research and innovation, to incentives for younger researchers who are beginning their careers. It is the young investigators who will be most affected. As competition increases they will be pitted against their older and more experienced colleagues. Most importantly, the research that makes the US competitive on the world stage will not take place, eventually affecting national security.

The thinking behind these cuts is that industry will pick up the slack. This will have broad implications for our colleges and universities that teach and train new generations of scientists and educators. Plainly, their potential will be impaired and creativity and exploration will be limited.

Education and Nonprofit groups:

The Education Department is targeted for a 14% reduction, which will downsize or eliminate grants for teacher training, afterschool programs, and aid to low-income and minority college students, currently amounting to $3.7 billion in funding.

Cuts to nonprofit groups and public agencies are epitomized by the 21% or 2.5 billion cut to the Department of Labor, which will eliminate grants that help nonprofit groups and public agencies that fund safety and health training.

Cultural Exchange Programs:

The Department of State is slated for $10.9 billion cut or 29% of its budget. That will reduce most cultural exchange programs. Many bilateral educational programs and agreements under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will either be severely cut or completely eliminated.

Hopefully these changes will not pass Congress since some agencies, such as NIH and NSF, have strong bipartisan support. However, according to Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the Association of American Universities, which represents major research institutions, “If Congress goes along with deep overall cuts in non-defense discretionary funding, significant cuts to research spending are almost inevitable.”

Solutions are difficult to anticipate. What is certain, however, is that competition will increase and those submitting proposals will have to be equipped with all the tools that will make their proposals competitive, such as training, mentors, partnerships, collaboration and interdisciplinarity.

The post What the Trump Budget Means for Grant Funding 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.