1. Planning Ahead: “What are the steps I need to take before I write?”

Grant writing takes time. This includes excellent research, exceptional writing, understanding the donor’s mission, making the match, collaborating with colleagues, planning strategically, and developing an outstanding business plan. If your proposal is prepared correctly, it will have higher chances of rising to the top of the competition and receiving the funds. In the planning process, laying out proposal steps clearly and realistically can be achieved by organizing the activities in terms of the time it will take to effectively accomplish them.

2. Matching the Idea With the Donor: “How can you assure that you found the right donor?”

 One of the most fatal mistakes any grant writer can make is to ignore the interests of the donor. “Making the match” means aligning your mission and your funding request with the donor’s mission. The closer both of you are in what you wish to accomplish, the more likely you will be funded. Also, looking at funded projects will give you a very good idea of the donor’s interests and focus. Ultimately, donors do not care what you need or want funded; they care about what they wish to fund.

3.  Being Concise and to the Point: “What steps will narrow the scope of my proposal?”     

 One of the major reasons for proposal rejection is that the request is overly ambitious and tries to tackle far more than can be accomplished within the timeline of the grant. Rather than trying to solve every problem related to your request, focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within budget and time constraints of the proposal. Also, many grants require the consideration of various potential factors before concluding that the idea is doable, focused, and promising. You need to envision as many of these elements as possible to be certain that you are on the right path. Narrowing the scope of your idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

4. Knowing the Review Process: “How do I understand the proposal review process?”

To successfully survive the review process, you must know the review criteria by which you will be judged and who is reviewing your proposal. In some cases this is easy, but in others, where the process is blind, it is extremely difficult. In the latter case, you can ask the administrator in charge of the process what the experience and expertise of the reviewers will be. Your reviewers have a very short window to review your proposal and worse yet, an even shorter window for the panel discussion. The easier you make it for the reviewers to understand your idea, the greater your chances of being funded.

5. Networking and Collaboration: “How do I identify collaborators to strengthen my proposal?”

Creating effective partnerships requires collective vision, purpose, buy-in, and mutual respect. Without these elements, it is difficult to maintain the momentum of true collaboration. Each partner must be able to contribute knowledge and expertise that would be missing without their involvement. The complexity of many projects requires interdisciplinary efforts and networking. Understanding this, funding agencies now believe in the power of partnerships; and so should you.

At the end of the day, there are many components to a grant proposal. The first and most important is spending the time to understand the donor, then positioning all the pieces of the puzzle effectively together, and finally writing a stellar request. The pieces must include careful planning, focus, and collaboration.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers – Part II appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Timelines: “We can never find the time to dedicate to writing grant proposals.”

The most important solution is to work proactively rather than reactively. One participant said that her not-for-profit developed a yearly timeline of the grants they wished to submit, rather than waiting for the announcements, which can come late as 10 days prior to the submission deadline. This may sound like a difficult undertaking, but once done, it will be easy to match the amount of labor to available personnel and understand the capacity of the organization.

2. Rejections: “We fear rejections and when we get them, we often feel angry and frustrated, almost to the point of not wanting to rewrite the proposal.”

The answer is to understand that a grant should be viewed as an opportunity, and not taken personally. If the team has a strategic and broad picture of the funding landscape for which they apply throughout the year, it will be understood that some grants will fail. Ultimately, when it comes to requests for funding, one has to place their ego in their pocket.

3. Telling a good story: “The reviewers said that we need to tell an enthusiastic story, but it was difficult for us to understand what they meant.”

The universal answer is to engage the donor. Thus, as a proposal writer, one must know how grants will be evaluated and, if possible, who the evaluators will be. Connecting with donors and reviewers is vital to successfully getting funded. The more one knows about them, the more effectively one can spark their interest with the story.

4. Innovation: “We had a difficult time understanding what the donor meant by innovation.”

The answer here is that innovative concepts emerge from preliminary data, pilot studies, and extensive research. In almost all cases, donors are looking for innovative approaches that will solve an existing problem or contribute to advancement in the field.

5. Overambitious idea: “Our grant was rejected because the idea was overambitious. How do we narrow the focus?”

Rather than trying to solve every problem related to the project at hand, it is best to focus on one or two issues that can realistically be resolved within the budgetary and time constraints of the proposal. Narrowing the scope of the idea to a smaller scale is often a much safer and more successful approach.

The participants chose these key obstacles, for it takes time to narrow ideas, assure innovation and write a good story. In the following blog, I will discuss other obstacles that my audience brought to the table.

The post Five Common Problems Facing Grant Writers appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Rigor

Rigor encompasses a whole host of practices. In research, it’s the belief that your field demands constant improvement by closing existing gaps in knowledge, which may exist because of inaccurate methods and measurements, or completely non-existing ones. In order to fill these voids, a commitment to addressing all aspects of the research and careful attention to detail will be required. Rigor also implies that your methodology is conducted systematically, and that your research design addresses your questions, hypotheses, variables, and data collection methods.

Focus

One of the most common mistakes is an overly ambitious proposal. For example, a proposal to research the general effects of obesity in the entire population would be unrealistic and, needless to say, impossible. In contrast, a proposal to examine health related improvements of severely obese men and women between the ages of 45 – 55, who begin a three times per week exercise regiment, would be a much more focused study. You should assure that your hypothesis is precise and that your specific aims can be accomplished in the amount of time allotted for the grant.

Preliminary Data

One of the surest ways to kill a promising proposal is with a lack of preliminary data. Once you have identified the problem you wish to address, you will need to have preliminary data to support your hypothesis and aims. The more preliminary data you have, the more you will be considered a serious investigator, who has taken the time to develop a hypothesis that is well rooted. Research grants of course vary, and some are geared for new investigators and therefore may not require extensive preliminary studies and data. Nevertheless, for any investigator, the more preliminary data you have to support your research, the better.

Communication

As a proposal writer, your audience (reviewers) will want to find candidates who are the most likely to succeed. Walk them through your plan and how it will be implemented (activities/methodology) and demonstrate that your outcomes will match their measures for success (evaluation criteria). Your goal should always be to write about the importance of your intervention in a way that moves the readers and makes them want to fund your project. The difference between a good story and a superficial one is that the latter provides too easy a solution. To avoid this, your interventions should be innovative, and should make a real and tangible difference in your field. Your story should convey the overall impact of resolving difficult problems.

Persistence

It is important to remember that the success rate for many research grants can be in the teens. Thus, some lucky people will get funded the first time, but chances are that it will not happen so easily. If your proposal is rejected the first time, you should take the comments from the reviewers seriously and address them appropriately and politely in your next submission. If the reviewers thought that your idea was strong, but that there were flaws in other areas, your chances for success in the second submission are excellent. At the end of the day, your persistence will pay off.

Believing in your idea, a specific hypothesis constructed via your preliminary data, and outlining an innovative and transformative approach will get you eighty percent of the way to being funded. You will also need to tell the story in a persuasive way that highlights the need for and importance of your idea in the field and for the people who will be served.

The post Five Crucial Facets of Successful Research 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.

• An idea that is clearly defined and focused, is well researched, is needed, has a broad impact, and can be accomplished within the lifetime of the grant should be the main focus of your proposal.

• A Statement of Need/Significance that makes a strong argument for funding is an integral component proposal component. You will need to specify how this need for was identified. If you are writing a research grant, your preliminary data should justify your argument for further research. If you are writing a project grant, utilize your literature review and experience to make the case for why you should be funded.

• Examples of how your project will unfold and how your team will work together are of critical importance for the donor to understand the specific implications of your project. Also, describing real-life scenarios is an approach that gives emphasis and meaning to the project you are undertaking.

• A Plan of Operation that presents the specifics of your proposal in a logical manner is your business plan. The donor must understand what you intend to do throughout the lifetime of the proposal. You should include a clear goal, measurable objectives, activities that can easily be budgeted, and outcomes that clearly parallel and are related to the objectives.

• A narrative that is written in positive terms should be utilized throughout the proposal. Some writers believe that if they describe how bleak a situation is, someone will give them money to solve the problem. This is not true. Funders prefer backing proposals that describe worthwhile programs that will meet identified needs and match the criteria set forth by the granting agency.

• Clearly written prose that does not overuse jargon or acronyms is a key ingredient for success. The use of language that is unknown to the reader is a distraction that could easily work against you. After all, you may use terminology that is specific to you on a daily basis, but that may not be the case for the reviewer.

• A budget that matches each activity of the proposal will demonstrate that you paid close attention to detail. All bases must be covered. If you are going to purchase hardware, have you purchased software? If you plan to offer training, how long will it be, who will conduct it, how much will it cost?

• Strong dissemination components signal that you will give back to your community what you learned throughout the lifespan your grant. This section is often extensive in some proposals that require broader impacts to address education, while in others it might be a presentation at a conference or a publication.

• Directions that are followed precisely will ensure your stewardship. If a scoring rubric or evaluation checklist is given to you, read it and follow those directions. Also, ensure that the margins, font size, and formatting are exactly as requested in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

• Professional presentation requires excellent grammar, concise sentences, a mixture of graphics and narrative and well constructed arguments for funding. It will translate into the impression you make on the reviewers.

Extensive preparation should take place before you begin writing a proposal. You need to determine exactly what you want to do, describe why your project is important, make the match with the donor’s interests, and then decide what should be included in your grant. This will be the conceptualization of your grant, and will initially involve the design of your project, not the writing. By carefully designing your project first and writing second, you will set in place the key elements that will make for a winning proposal.

The post 10 Key Ingredients of Winning Proposals appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. What is the goal of your project?

This will be stated in your introductory paragraph. The goal will address the gap that your research will undertake to fill. You will also address the importance of your research via the “so what question”.

Example:

The development of the mammalian immune system is typically thought to occur in a linear fashion, from immaturity to maturity as a function of antigen exposure. Previous findings in birds and in mice, however, indicate that this view is oversimplified. Thus, in these species, the developing immune system appears to be “layered” in a manner that is independent of antigen exposure, beginning as a multilineage fetal system that is replaced by an anatomically and biologically distinct multilineage system after birth. If so, then developmentally ordered and unique hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC) could give rise to distinct lymphocyte lineages at different stages of development.

2. What data or advances are you bringing to the table?

Your preliminary data will set the stage for your credibility, which helps convince reviewers that you are able to undertake this proposal. The more preliminary results of previous findings you have, the more convincing your case will be.

Example:

In ongoing experiments, we have found that such immune system “layering” occurs in humans. Our preliminary data show that: (1) the human fetus can mount a vigorous immune response to exogenous antigens;⁴ (2) the human fetal immune response to exogenous antigens can be actively suppressed by antigen-specific Tregs;^4,5 (3) fetal Tregs are derived from a fetal-specific lineage of T cells; (4) fetal and adult HSPCs give rise to distinct populations of T cells; and (5) fetal HSPC-derived T cells show an enhanced ability to generate

Tregs during thymic maturation and upon exposure to foreign antigens in vitro.⁶ These data suggest that the human immune system is comprised of two distinct waves: one generated from a “fetal” HSPC that exists in utero in the fetal liver and bone marrow, and another generated from a superseding “adult” HSPC that resides in the bone marrow at later time points. The former gives rise to an immune system that is prone to deliver a tolerogenic response to foregin antigens. The latter gives rise to an immune system that is more likely to generate an immunoreactive responses (e.g., one including cytotoxic T cells and neutralizing antibodies).

3. What is your central hypothesis?

Your hypothesis embodies the critical need for your research and is the central part of your proposal. It is the solution that solves the problem. Your hypothesis is the reason for your project and must be specific.

Example:

Given these findings, we hypothesize that physiologic layering of immune system ontogeny leads to a normal range in the ratio of fetal- to adult-type T cells at birth, with some neonates exhibiting a higher fraction of fetal T cells than others; and that those with a high ratio of fetal/adult T cells will generate predominant Th2 responses to routine childhood immunizations.

4. What are your specific aims?

Your aims will test the hypothesis and need to be detailed. They should result in something that you can measure. In other words, they are exactly what its name implies – specific. They should also be independent of each other, and should not be overly ambitious. The above hypothesis will be tested via the following specific aims, which are specific and independent of one another:

Example:

Specific Aim 1. To determine the normal range of fetal to adult T cells in the umbilical cord blood of the full term neonate.

Specific Aim 2. To determine whether those full-term neonates with a high ratio of fetal/adult T cells are more likely to generate a Th2-polarized immune response to routine childhood immunizations.

5. What will be the ultimate results of your study?

The Specific Aims page will end with the benefits that are expected from your study. It is the outcome section of your proposal and the major reason you received the funding to undertake your study.

Example:

We anticipate that this study will reveal normal variation in the ratio of fetal to adult T cells at birth and that such variability in this ratio will be directly related to – and possibly causal of – a Th2 skew that results in a poor response to childhood vaccines and a heightened predisposition to childhood infections and to atopic disorders. If so, these modalities aimed at changing this ratio more towards the adult lineage at birth may provide benefit to a substantial number of newborns.

Your goal, data, hypothesis and specific aims will be the central focal points for your entire proposal. These are the most difficult to write, and you will probably revise them many times before you settle on the final submission. Ultimately, this is the page that will determine the fate of your proposal because it demonstrates how all the pieces will fit together to develop a paradigm shift in the field.

Examples excerpted from:

McCune, Joseph. “Human immune system layering and the neonatal response to vaccines.” National Institute of Allergies and Diseases Sample Grant Application. 14 Jun 2010. Web. 2 Jul 2015.

Full text of the sample proposal by Joseph McCune of The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, posted online by the National Institute of Allergies and Diseases is available at: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/Documents/McCunefull.pdf

The post The Most Important Part of Your Application: The Specific Aims Page appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Certain important qualities in a business plan make it far more likely to find financial backing. Here are some of those qualities which are equally important for grant proposals as well.

1. It fits the business need

You have to start with whether or not the plan is going to achieve its business purpose. Some plans will sell an idea and a team, others will sell a research plan, and yet others will sell a service that will be undertaken for constituents. A good business plan fits the business need. Equally, your grant proposal should parallel the institutional mission. It should achieve the objectives or the goal in systematic and measurable increments.

2. It’s realistic and can be implemented  

You do not get points for ideas that cannot be implemented. You may have a brilliantly written and excellently researched business plan for a grant. However, if it does not have a management plan or team to manage implementation, it will not get funded. This proposal will not fare well with the donor, and the lack of feasibility may be the fatal flaw that will get it rejected.

3. It’s specific – you can track results against the plan

Measurable objectives are driven by outcomes and can be tracked against your goal. They will keep you on track to achieve your tasks, deadlines, budgets, and evaluation. Good planning requires specifics about who, what, when, and how much. Your plan of operation will include activities, timelines, personnel, outcomes, evaluation, and budgets. In other words, it will be specific and all the pieces will fit together like a puzzle.

4. It clearly defines responsibilities for implementation

You have to be able to identify a single person who will be responsible for every significant task and function. A task that doesn’t have an owner isn’t likely to be implemented. In a good business plan or a grant proposal, you can distinguish a specific person responsible for implementation at every point.

5. It clearly identifies assumptions

Since a proposal and a business plan are both guessing the future, they must clearly show assumptions and discuss alternative plans. Not thinking about the unexpected may lead to failed plans along the way. You will need to identify assumptions and outline alternative paths, in case the original plan does not unfold as initially envisioned. This demonstrates that you have projected into the future and developed plans that will lead to your ultimate goal, which is the effective completion of the project.

6. It’s kept alive by a regular review and follow-up

The evaluation process must be ongoing and measure the effectiveness of the activities at various stages. It has to bring the planning process with it, meaning regular review and course correction. This demonstrates that accountability will take place during all stages of the proposed plan. A large percentage of your success depends on regular review.

A plan that is simple, easy to read, and reflects the above qualities can sell even the most complex research grant ideas. The common denominator for both grant requests and business plans is that they are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. At the end of your proposal, you should ask the following questions: Is the plan realistic? Is the budget reasonable? Are the milestone dates feasible? If the answers are yes, then you have created a proposal with a sound and cost effective business plan.

The post Write Your Proposal like a Business Plan appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Unless the directions in the Request for Proposal (RFP) specify otherwise, you will probably have three objectives that will answer the following questions:

• Who will benefit? Who will be the target population that will benefit most from the program? If, for example, your objective is to reduce obesity by 10% in a certain population, you will have to be precise about the level of obesity, the age of the population, and other exact factors that relate to your group.

• Who will participate? Explaining the criteria you’ll use to select participants and how you will handle those who must be turned away, will further define and clarify your population. If your selection is mandatory, then there is no need for an explanation, but if it is not, your choice will need to be justified.

• How many will participate? Describing how many will participate and benefit from your intervention adds an additional component to the objective. It is important to state the sample size of your target population and why you decided on that number.

• What is the time period of your intervention? How long it takes to achieve your objective will be determined by your approach, sample size, and number of activities

• What is the approach you will use? Evidence-based approaches are most desirable for they are validated by substantial evidence derived from rigorous research. For example, what evidence demonstrates the relationship between exercise and reducing fatigue as a side effect of cancer treatment?

Below are three illustrations of incomplete and complete objectives:

Example 1

Incomplete objective: Increase the mentoring of students who do not meet the standardized reading criteria.

Complete Objective: Increase the reading level of 500 students to meet the state level of standardized reading via three one-on-one, two hour per week mentoring programs, over a six month period. By the end of the grant, 500 children will be able to read at the standardized state level for their age group.

Example 2

Incomplete objective: Develop an environmental health data management plan.

Complete Objective: Develop an information management plan by July 31, 2016 that describes how to identify, store, analyze, and collect environmental health data.

Example 3

Incomplete learning objective: Reduce the obesity rate of all adults enrolled in the obese reduction program at Good Samaritan Hospital by 10%.

Complete learning objective: Reduce the obesity rate of disabled adults ages 18 years and older, who are enrolled in the obese reduction program at Good Samaritan Hospital by 10% by December 31, 2016.

Setting measurable objectives is the cornerstone of the strategic approach you need to take to execute your proposal. These objectives will be developed following research and situation analysis and will determine your activities, timeline, personnel, and budget. All too often, incomplete objectives lead to incomplete evaluations and outcomes. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART) objectives define the direction of your proposal.

The post Developing SMART Objectives appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.