This article was downloaded by: [Eastern Michigan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 03:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Writing Competitive Federal GrantProposals: Advice for Novice GrantWritersSusan B. Evans aa University of San Francisco , USAPublished online: 10 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Susan B. Evans (2000) Writing Competitive Federal Grant Proposals:Advice for Novice Grant Writers, Action in Teacher Education, 22:2A, 134-141, DOI:10.1080/01626620.2000.10463047

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2000.10463047

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Writing Competitive Federal Grant Proposals: Advice for Novice Grant Writers

Susan B. Evans University of Sun Francisco

Abstract

How does a novice grant writer produce a well-written proposal that stands out among the competition? Many teacher educators do not write federal grants because they do not know how to identify finding sources or how to prepare grant proposals. The purpose of this article is twofold: ( I ) to provide useful advice to first-time grant seekers about how to ensure that their proposal is competitive, and (2) to help grant writers avoid common pitfalls frequently seen by those who review and evaluate grant proposals. A list of federal grant resources and web sites is included.

Introduction

Last year, the Department of Education (DOE) rejected a grant request from a blind physicist seeking federal funding to advance a Braille system for computers, because he did not double-space his application and the font he used was too small. The professor, an expert in new information technologies for the disabled who has received millions of dollars in federal grants over the years, claimed he was being punished, because of a minor technicality. In fact, the selection criteria for DOE competitions are explicit and clearly stated with regard to narrative length line spacing, margin width, and font size. Proposals that are too long, use the wrong font, or are not double-spaced will not be reviewed for funding. In the case of the physicist, he was notified that his grant was being returned without consideration because it did not meet the specified criteria. Is this an unusual case? The answer is- not anymore. In one recent DOE competition, one third of the submitted proposals were returned to the applicants unread for failure to comply with selection criteria.

Federal government, private foundations, and corporations award an estimated $36.5 billion in grants annually, but federal government agencies award several times more money than foundations and corporations combined (Heezen, 1991). Every year, federal agencies hold competitions for research, demonstration projects, personnel preparation, and product development, as well as other professional activities.

The federal government awards money through either discretionary or block grants. Block grants are awarded to states which in turn award grants to local jurisdictions. States set their own priorities for block grants and can draft additional requirements and restrictions that specify how funds can be used. Discretionary grants are awarded by various federal agencies under congressionally authorized programs. These funds are announced through requests for proposals (RFPs) with accompanying guidelines. Within the broad category of discretionary funds, there are competitive grant programs (e.g., Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services), each with its own set of rules and application requirements (Brooks, 1997).

In the face of decreasing local and state revenues, universities, schools, and professional organizations can benefit considerably from the acquisition of federal money. But the situation has changed since the 1960s when the award rate for federal grants was almost 80%. That figure dropped to 50% in the 1970s and 37% in the 1980s. Today, with the number of funded projects half of what it was a decade ago, the competition for federal grants is considerable. As funding levels decrease and the conditions which grants have to satisfy become more stringent, teacher educators and researchers are spending more time writing proposals. Even highly successful grant writers submit more proposals than they receive for funding (Moffatt, 1994).

134

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Teacher educators write grants in order to: develop projects that ordinarily would not be funded; try new approaches which might be effective; search for ways to solve problems in the field; or train personnel entering the profession. Almost every educator who chooses an academic career will, at some point, want to seek grant support, yet relatively few graduate schools prepare their students in the basics of grant writing. As a result, many educators do not write proposals because they do not have the training needed to compete for outside funding and do not know how to identify funding sources (Oring, 1993).

Grant writing is highly competitive. When a proposal is submitted to a federal agency, it is reviewed by panels of peer reviewers. They evaluate whether the proposal meets the purpose of the funding agency, demonstrates a need for the project, links the operational plan to the identified need, delineates a realistic budget and evaluation plan, and documents the availability of personnel and resources to support the project. It has been estimated that only one proposal in seven gets unanimous approval from the reviewers (Shubird, 1997). Grant writing is also time consuming. Preparing a grant proposal can take three to four months or longer. Even the resubmission of a previously unfunded proposal can be extremely labor intensive. The good news is that grant seekers can learn to use their grant preparation time wisely and avoid some common mistakes.

How does a novice grant writer produce a proposal that stands out among formidable competition? It takes more than a good idea to get a proposal funded. In addition to understanding basic principles of good writing, it is also necessary to be current about professional issues in the funding area and to know the audience (the federal agency sponsoring the competition). The purpose of this article is twofold: (1) to provide useful advice to first-time grant seekers about how to ensure that their proposal is competitive, and (2) to help grant writers avoid common pitfalls frequently seen by those who review and evaluate grant proposals.

Gettiny Started

Five planning stage activities will enable grant writers to produce more effective proposals. Remember that grants are awarded based on the quality and merit of the proposal as well as on the likelihood that the project will impact the community and serve as a model for others.

The first activity is reviewing the literature related to the proposed project. This is more than assembling a bibliography. Each proposal must demonstrate that the writer has done the necessary background work (McShane, 1996). The review must be current and reflect best practices. This preliminary activity pushes the grant seeker to define the need for the project and examine how the project extends or builds on what is already known. Because some of this extensive analysis must be done outside the library (e.g., on the web, talking to federal agency representatives and colleagues, etc.), the grant seeker must start well in advance of the due date. It has been said that successful applicants are those who do the necessary homework (Fields, 1991).

The second activity is to get assistance in grant preparation. Some institutions have in-house staff who can help prepare a proposal. This is an excellent asset for novice grant writers, but be careful that the proposal does not read like a public relations brochure or is too nonspecific. In-house grant preparers may not understand either the project or the program’s needs. If your institution does not provide assistance ask for help. Many federal agencies have technical assistance offices which can help grant seekers avoid errors (Peterson, 1991). Also, there are workshops and classes offered in grant writing. Training in proposal development benefits the entire staff by enhancing their skills and fostering a cooperative team effort.

The third activity is to identify the appropriate source of funding. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (see the list of resources at the end of this article) lists the various agencies administering particular programs, the current appropriation, a description of the funding program, and a contact name. Evaluate the guidelines carefully to see if the project fits that grant’s requirements. The key is to produce a match between what the funding source wants and what the project can

135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

provide--this should be the main focus in writing federal grant proposals. Funding sources are not interested in projects that do not match their needs (DeTienne & Alder, 1994). RFPs are very explicit about their priorities for a given funding period. A project or new program must specifically address one or more of these priorities. The best written proposal will be rejected if it does not have its purpose aligned with the funding agency’s aim (Schnitzer, 1995).

The fourth activity is to follow directions. The regulations which accompany government requests for proposals describe details which must be included in the various sections of the proposal. When applying for a federal grant, the writer must comply with the government’s highly regulated system for grant applications and accounting procedures. A surprising number of grant writers don’t follow these guidelines and their proposals are rejected for this reason. Get the latest, most up-to- date RFP and follow the selection criteria exactly. Fill in all the blanks, double-check all the figures and repeat anything that is asked for, even if it appears to be redundant. If the printed guidelines use Roman numerals followed by headings, make sure that the sections use Roman numerals and the same headings (Chase, 1989). If resubmitting a proposal that was previously rejected for funding, make sure it is rewritten using the latest guidelines, not one from a previous year. In the 1980s, only 5- 10% of applications were resubmits. Today revisions of previously rejected proposals are quite common with a rate in excess of 30% (Moffatt, 1994).

The fifth activity is to write with the reviewers in mind. Federal agencies cannot fund every proposal they receive (Horton, 1996). Reviewers are selected who are familiar with the aredtopic and the related literature. In turn, reviewers expect the grant writer to be knowledgeable, up-to-date, and aware of what has been done in an area as well as what needs to be done. Reviewers read and rank proposals based on a checklist with specific criteria allocating points for each section. The closer the match between the proposal’s language and the checklist criteria, the more points will be awarded (Chase, 1989). Have the grant looked at by a colleague who is just outside the project area to ensure that terminology and jargon are clear and familiar to reviewers. Make sure the application has been edited and proofread, that all cited references are in the bibliography, and that clear tables and figures have been provided. These failings are imtating to those reviewing proposals. Finally, parsimony applies to grant applications -- if the work is substantiated, reviewers do not complained that a proposal is too short (Moffatt, 1994).

Writing the ProDosal

Even the most inexperienced writer can develop convincing proposals. The best proposals have two features in common: they tackle timely issues and present them forcefully. Determine the outcomes you anticipate and then work back to the beginning (Turner, 1996). In the first paragraph, outline the objectives and state simply and clearly what the project is about, how the aims will be achieved, and any relevant philosophies. Explicitly state the project’s objectives, the hoped-for results, and the goals that will be attained from the project’s activities. Provide precise information about the project’s target group and who will benefit. Clearly state the need for this project and bolster that need with real facts and figures that are clearly cited. Describe who will work on the project and what their roles will be, including relevant information on their expertise or previous grant management experience. Finally, clearly spell out the methods that will be used to achieve the objectives, create a time line, and use attractive, highly readable figures or tables to augment the narrative (Miller, 1989).

Do not overlook the importance of a strong evaluation plan. Assure the reviewers that ongoing evaluation mechanisms are infused throughout the project. Include a self-evaluation component that looks at the project critically and modifies direction where needed. Reviewers consistently report that the weakest section of the proposals they read is the evaluation section (McShane, 1996).

136

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Closely estimate costs and prepare a readable budget with explicit budget notes describing all expenditures. Include costs that are part of the project, but are not part of the grant request. Indicate if additional funds have been secured or are anticipated. Be sure to specify any matching support (in-kind) from the grant seeker's own organization (e.g., donations of staff services, use of equipment or space, etc.). In-kind contributions are regarded as a very attractive feature to anyone reviewing a proposal, because it shows the project can support itself after the funding period ends and that the organization is committed to the project.

Put all the important information in the narrative, not the appendices. Some grant writers make the mistake of including essential information in the appendix assuming that reviewers will read the 40 page narrative plus all the addendum materials. Often, reviewers have only two days to read seven to nine proposals, score them numerically, and either recommend or reject the request for funding. It is the grant seeker's responsibility to make sure the story is told fully within the application narrative. DOE guidelines state that reviewers are not required to review information provided in addition to the narrative.

Allow enough time for necessary institutional clearances within the grant seeker's organization as well as unique in-house requirements for grant submission (Hirsch & Cline-Love, 1990). Administrators and institutional offices (e.g., budget, human subjects, etc.) must review and sign the proposal before it can be submitted. Make sure to mail the required number of copies in a sturdy envelope or box to prevent damage and send return receipt requested to assure that it arrived. Guidelines are uncompromising on the fact that proposals must be validly postmarked or hand delivered before the deadline. Federal agencies normally request one original and three copies, each separately collated and secured with a thick rubber band. Do not fail to include the required number of copies. Do not bind the application copies or staple them. Within a few weeks, expect some kind of acknowledgment that the proposal has been received. An ID number will be assigned to the proposal during the review process. Once the application is mailed, do not contact program officers about the status of the proposal. Most prefer not to talk to applicants while their proposal is under consideration.

Tim for novice grant writers. Novice grant writers make common mistakes which are frequently seen by reviewers. If the following recommendations are observed, some of the most common errors in proposal writing can be avoided.

1. Read the RFP carefully: Requests for proposals (RFPs) specify particular formats and strict procedural details including font size, page limits, margin width, abstract length, etc. Follow all directions exactly. Most application narratives are limited to 30 to 40 double-spaced, 8% x 11" pages (one side only), with one inch margins and a minimum 12-point font. This page limit also applies to charts and graphs included within the narrative. If the RFP says resumes should not exceed two pages, do not include 15 page resumes thinking this will impress the reviewers.

2. Do not wait until the last minute to prepare a proposal: Grant writing is a recursive process. A good proposal requires many rewrites before it is ready to be submitted. Allow twice the amount of time anticipated. Factor in the time needed to get institutional clearances and budget approval within the grant seeker's own organization.

3. Include all the requisite information in the appropriate section: RFPs specify sections which must be included. Reviewers award points for each section. Do not omit any of the required sections. For example, completing the budget form and providing accompanying budget notes to clarify the amounts listed on that form does not replace the budget section in the narrative.

4. Request funds for projects that are within the scope of the criteria for that competition:

137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Make sure the grant is submitted to the correct competition. If the RFP says the competition can only be used to prepare leadership personnel at the doctoral level, do not request support for a project that trains pre-doctoral students.

Make sure costs are reasonable and justified: Budget red flags include: excessive requests for travel, personnel, or planning during the first year of funding; unwarranted expenditures for camcorders, computers, printers, and office supplies; and math errors in the budget. Don’t guess about budget expenditures.

Write well: Good writing won’t save a bad idea, but bad writing can kill a good one. After the document is word processed, check for errors in spelling, syntax, punctuation, and grammar as well as typographical errors, omitted citations, and missing references. Enlist someone who writes well to proofread and edit the proposal.

Keep the reader in mind: Reviewers work under pressure. Make it easy for them to understand the proposal the first time through. Use existing terminology. Define terms in context. Do not use jargon or ambiguous terms. Avoid fuzzy statements like “attitudes will improve” or “learning will increase” or “professionally recognized standards will be applied”. Avoid cliches and buzz words.

Include best practices data and research citations to support the project: Use the research literature to cite best practices upon which the project will draw. If a study is cited, make sure it is in the bibliography. Do not include a huge bibliography which contains references that are not in the narrative. Use current citations.

Make sure the proposal is reviewed by an insider: Some schools hire consultants or use in-house grant writers to prepare proposals who are only superficially informed about the specific needs of the program. Make sure whoever writes the final proposal can convey a substantive insiders’ view of the proposed project.

10. Use good visuals: Make the document look professional. Packaging and appearance are important. Do not include unclear or visually poor tables or figures.

11. Be positive about the project: Strongly emphasize the need for the project and show confidence in the project’s ideas. Convey that the work will have an impact. State the significance of the planned work. Satisfy the grantor that the money will be in good hands, that the personnel are well qualified, and that the personnel can accomplish what they propose to do.

12. State specific outcomes: Include quantifiable goals and objectives. State needs in terms of outcomes. Align objectives with the expected outcomes.

13. Demonstrate the match between the agencies needs and the project: Federal agencies have their own agenda for social change or improvement. See their vision, then present the project as one way to help them close the gap between what exists and what they know should be. In other words, help them achieve their goal.

14. Do not accept failure: The best way to increase the odds of finding funding is steadfast determination. When notified of the decision, if the proposal is rejected ask the funding official for a critique of the proposal and ask for a copy of the reviews. Keep information from previous proposals so the grant writing team doesn’t have to start from scratch every time. (We wrote federal grants for three years without success before getting two major federal grants funded in the fourth year for $1.4 million dollars.)

138

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Summary

Grant writing can be a satisfying and creative endeavor. It can also be very demanding. Successful grant writers operate with a positive attitude that their grant will be funded. Persist when others do not. Only those who are willing to submit and resubmit proposals have a chance of being funded. If the grant seeker has a better way to educate children or serve the community and is committed to persevere in the grant seeking process, the proposal can funded.

Resources

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402

(This is a comprehensive listing of all financial assistance programs administered by the federal government. It can be found in the reference room of the university library or ordered by mail. Don’t be discouraged if certain programs are purported to have zero dollars appropriated for this year. Most of these programs will be funded this year and next at the same levels as before. This publication is on-line at www.gsa.gov/fdoc)

Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration Washington, DC 20402

(A good resource for keeping up with newly announced grants. The Register includes program titles, deadlines, information on the administering agency, etc. It can be found on-line at cos . gdb . org/repos/fr/frintro . h tml)

U.S. Department of Education 600 Maryland Ave, SW Washington, DC 20202

(The DOE web site is located at www.ed.gov and includes not only a full text of the DOE’S programs, but also offers information about other federal programs of interest to educators. The DOE Bulletin Board is located at http:/www.ed.gov/money.html)

Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540

(This is an excellent source for books in the field of grants and fundraising. The site can also be accessed at www.ed.gov)

Research Guide to Federal Funding in Technology in Education U.S. Department of Education 600 Maryland Ave, SW Washington, DC 20202

(This site lists information technology grants and information on other funding sources at www.ed.gov.Technology/tec-guid.htm1)

139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Education Grants Alert Education Daily Capitol Publications P.O. Box 1453 Alexandria VA 223 13

(This site provides both grant notices and timely reports and breaking news on federal policy, funding and research affecting schools, colleges, and universities at www.lrp.com/ed)

FEDM is a free on-line source of federal grant information that can be accessed at www.rams-fie.com/index.htm. This site also includes a grants key word thesaurus which can be very useful for grant writers.

Yahoo! Offers recent grant info at www. yahoo.com/education/financial-aid/grants

Susan Evans is Professor in the Learning and Instruction Department, School of Education, at the University of San Francisco. She is the project director for two federally funded grants.

140

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

References

Brooks, S. (1997). The ins and outs of government funding: What’s in the pipeline for 1997

Chase, L. (1989). Getting funded (or why I find so many golf balls).

DeTienne, K. B. & Alder, G. S. (1994). Developing winning proposals.

Fields, J. S. (1991). Writing successful grants. The Police Chiej 58(1), 53-55. Heezen, R. (1991). Take money for granted: Grant proposals that work.

Library Journal, II6( 18). 62-64. Hirsch, R. & Cline-Love, L. J. (1990). How to get a grant for research or teaching.

Journal of Chemical Education, 67(2), 127-30. Horton, R. (1996). Luck, lotteries, and loopholes of grant reviews.

The Lancet, 347(9037), 1255-57 Miller, C. (1989). Grants: A teacher’s perspective.

Vocational Education Journal, 64( l), 29-3 1. McShane, M.D. (1996). Producing a successful grant proposal.

Corrections To&y, 58(4), 144-48. Moffatt, A.S. (1994). Grantsmanship: What makes proposals work? Science, 265(5 180), 1921-23. Oring, K. E. (1993). Integrating research and grant writing in an undergraduate dietetics program.

Peterson, M. B. (1991). The care and feeding of federal dollars. The Police Chiej 58(1), 55-57. Schnitzer, D. K. (1995). How to fund technology projects. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 71-73. Shubird, E. (1997). How to make a living asking for money. Writer’s Digest, 77(4), 27-32. Turner, S. 0. (1996). How to write a winning proposal: Turn your ideas into changes in the

and beyond. Technology and Learning, 17,6-3 1.

Vocational Education Journal, 64( l), 25-29.

Mechanical Engineering-CIME, 116(6), 65-67.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 93( 1 l), 1293-1296.

workplace. American Journal of Nursing, 96(7), 64-66.

141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014