• Every funding opportunity is different. You can “cannibalize” your own writing but every grant proposal should be distinct and tailored. #BePrecise #MakeItUnique #BobcatsNotVultures

Every funding opportunity and grant proposal is different.  While I always recommend cannibalizing your own previous writings for any new writing project, it’s highly unlikely you can use basically the same proposal narrative for more than one specific opportunity.  Each program is looking for proposals that help them meet their own unique set of goals, so every proposal needs to speak to a unique agenda.  Think of your project as a puzzle piece, and each funding opportunity as a different puzzle.  First you need to decide if your puzzle piece bears a strong resemblance to the gaps identified by the funder.  When it does, then your job is to tweak your piece to fit with the funder’s unique picture.  A successful grant meets the funder’s needs while also meeting your own.

 

  • The best way to learn how to write effective public sector grant proposals is by serving as a proposal reviewer. It’s time well spent! #SmartService #TrainingasService

The best way to learn how to write effective grant proposals is by serving as a proposal reviewer.  Most public agencies utilize peer reviewers, some for on-site review panels (generally in the nation’s capital), and some as external/ad-hoc reviewers (where you work from home or office).  A list of strategies for getting on a funder’s list of reviewers is available at “How to Serve as a Proposal Reviewer.”  What you learn from reviewing is what effective proposals look like, and, if you’re part of a panel, the culture of the funding institution (how they frame their funding interests, common jargon you might want to use in your next proposal, proposal aspects that get the most critical attention, etc.).  The group process also teaches you how arbitrary decisions can be (the most vocal critic can swamp a broader positive consensus), and the size of the workload reviewers face (putting a premium on the most succinct, clear and easy-to-navigate proposals).  Hint: because of the load, reviewers are incentivized to find quick and easy reasons to reject proposals that are convoluted or don’t follow the rules.

 

  • Start a narrative by making an outline based on the Request for Proposals and you’ll stay sane and on track. #ForSanity’sSake #OutlinesAreYourFriend

Most funders spell out the components they expect to see in your proposal narrative (project description).  You can make it easy for reviewers to find these elements by simply using them as your headers and sub-headers throughout.  Sometimes evaluation criteria are given separately.  It’s also helpful to incorporate these criteria into your headers and sub-headers, to make sure you’ve addressed them and also to help reviewers in applying the evaluation criteria by easily identifying where you’ve addressed them.  The outline you generate with these headers/sub-headers will make it much easier to write the narrative by clarifying what you need to say and in what order.

 

  • Format your headers and sub-headers to make it easy for reviewers to follow the flow of your argument. #ClarityIsCritical

Section headers and sub-headers help readers understand where they are in the flow of your argument, and how one section relates to another.  Make sure the formatting of these headings is consistent and clear.  There are no hard and fast rules about when to use boldface, underlining or italics, but the more modalities you use, the higher the level of header.  I tend to like using boldface for an upper level header, followed by underlining for a mid-level and italics for the lowest level (that is, italicized headers are sub-heads within a section led by an underlined header, and the underlined headers are sub-heads within bolded sections).  Placement of a section title can also be a clue to readers.  Centering a bolded header might serve as a title, or to tell a reader that this is the top level of sections.  Indenting a bolded header might tell the reader this is a big next section, but within a broader heading with left-justified boldface.  To help distinguish them you could also underline the higher level of boldface titles.  Similarly, starting a paragraph with an italicized title, with just a period and no line-spacing following the heading, can indicate the lowest level of sub-headers.

 

  • Logic models can be fun to write – they encapsulate what you want to do, for whom, and why it’s important. #FunWithLogic #NutshellYourPurpose

A logic model is a way to summarize and coherently depict the arc of your project.  As you read a logic model, it goes (left to right) from the condition you aim to address, to describing the resources you have and need to address it.  Then it describes the activities you plan to conduct, and the “outputs” that will result from those activities.  Finally it shows the “outcomes” you’ll generate with these activities and outputs, outcomes that relate back to the condition and reflect the change you hope to help make in the world.  In writing a logic model, it can be useful to start with condition, then go straight to the outcomes (in knowledge, behaviors, and/or systems and structures), because your head is probably already jumping ahead to the difference you hope to make.  Then you can back up to articulating the outputs needed to achieve those changes, and thinking through the activities (and engagement of stakeholders) that will generate those outputs.  Once you’ve clarified what you want to actually do, it’s easier to see exactly what kinds of resources will be needed (existing and proposed) to conduct the activities.  Key to the logic model is that it forces you to think beyond what you want to do (activities) to what you want to create (outcomes), and helps you to clarify the logic for how the activities will generate the outcomes.  Working backward from outcomes to activities will help you clarify your strategy and ensure that the activities you have in mind at the outset are the right activities to actually reach the outcomes.  It counteracts the natural human tendency to jump into action when we see a problem, without fully thinking through which among the many possible actions will be the right one for you to make a difference.

 

  • Funders will tell you what they want to hear from you, so listen and read carefully. Use the funder’s language and outline. #TellThemWhatTheyWantToHear

Read the RFP thoroughly in order to understand who you’re talking to and what they’re bringing to the conversation.  How many times has someone excitedly told you about their work but you really didn’t follow the gist of it because of their jargon?  Funders have jargon that should be familiar to you – use it and repeat it back to them in your own narrative (Uri Hasson, Princeton neuroscientist says that the more commonalities between writer and reader, the better the understanding – see Alda p.178).  That way you’re a little bit surer they’ll understand what you’re aiming to do.  But more than that, as with any persuasive writing, try to imagine yourself in the reviewers’ shoes.  Avoid your own jargon, or at least explain it.  And explain your assumptions (remember the reviewer isn’t inside your head); make everything super explicit and easy to understand (start by thinking about how you’d explain your project to a child, or your mother).

 

  • Grant writing is persuasive writing – you must attend to both the heart and head of your reviewer. #NevermindtheLungs&Liver #ClarityisCritical

A good proposal engages the reviewer’s mind, with logical argument and clear structure, but also their values.  It’s critical to paint a picture of the why your proposed work matters – what problem do you intend to solve, and what change you expect to make in the world.  This usually means beginning with a needs statement: what is the problem, who is affected, why it matters to them, and why it matters to the country (or world).  Then the investigation or solution you want to undertake to address this condition (your methods) should show clear links to how it’s going to help generate an improved condition.  These proposal elements help the reviewer to care about your work, get on board with your “mission.”  A reviewer who believes your work is important to the world will make more effort in reading your proposal, and will score it higher.

 

  • In general, your proposal story will convey why, what, how, where, when and who. #NewsyProposals

In general, your proposal story will convey why, what, where, when, how and who.  Most proposals should start by explaining why the condition you want to address is important and what makes your approach/solution to this condition significant.  Then you’ll explain what you intend to do (strategy), and then describe how, where and when you’ll do it (methods and timeline).  Finally you’ll need to persuade reviewers that you’re the right person to do this work and you have the skills and resources required to be successful (the “who”).

 

  • The hardest part of writing is getting outside your own head to be able to recognize what may be unclear to others. A reader will see what you say with different eyes.#LosetheEgo #ClarityIsCritical

Recruit a diverse group of colleagues to assess your proposal drafts at multiple stages.  Proposal reviewers don’t live inside your head!  You may be making assumptions or leaps of logic that are perfectly sensible to you but can lose your reviewers.  Critical readers will help you identify where more explanation or examples are needed, or how a paragraph doesn’t hang together.  They’ll tell you where they get lost in the overall organization, or in a single sentence.  They’ll help you see what you’ve assumed that you need to make explicit.  The more folks you can have read drafts, the more you’ll simulate the reactions you might get from reviewers.  But choose your readers well, provide them with ample time to respond, and think ahead to choose who you’d like to review your work at which stage of its development.  And like in a writing group, tell your readers what you need from them at the stage of writing you’re sharing.  Is it early in your process, with time for them to critically assess your basic program model?  Or are you at the final stage where you only need a proofreader?

 

  • Separating your Self from your Writing is a key challenge in becoming an effective writer.  #ClarityIsCritical “LosetheEgo #StepOutsideYourBrain

Let your words be just something you’re working on (like building a rock wall), not your babies.  Each rock can be replaced by another; there’s no perfect way to put it together.  It’s just that some will fit better in the open space, and fit better with what is to follow.  Good writing usually requires scribbling down more than you will need (collecting a larger supply of rocks than you’ll use), and then removing and rearranging till you have the puzzle worked out to your satisfaction.  The goal is not to include every rock, no matter how much you might like them all, but to construct a wall (a text) that’s stable and functional (and hopefully attractive in its own way).  You might find the leftover passages (and rocks) useful in constructing something else, or maybe not, but what’s important is if you get your idea across and the reader doesn’t have to work hard to understand it.  Let go of what you’ve written and read it dispassionately as if you occupied another’s shoes  You’ll need to get your ego out of the way if you aspire to edit your own work (or accept editing from another) to achieve clarity, precision and beauty.  And remember this: no matter how good you get at reviewing your own writing, you’ll never see everything that might get in a reader’s way.  That’s why the best way to learn how to write well, as well as to become an effective critic of your own work (develop that objective eye), is by allowing editors help you.  A good editor is anyone who can help you see your product as others might see it, and correct it in order to convey your desired impression.

 

  • Use charts, tables and graphics to help make your case and keep your reviewer’s mind fresh. #DetailsMatter #ClarityIsCritical #APictureIsWorthAThousandWords

Strategic use of graphs, charts and white space lets your reviewers breathe.  You want reviewers to stay alive to your work and read all the way through!  Charts, tables and graphics should be self-explanatory (possibly by including a legend) and easily legible (not too tiny).  They should help you sell your story and clearly align with the logic of your document.  Depending on the funder (read the RFP!) your tables may have to use the same fonts and line-spacing as required overall, so these special features may not save you space.

 

  • Most good writing requires 3 to a dozen re-writes. Never submit a proposal that only you have read! #EveryWriterNeedsAnEditor

ALWAYS have someone besides yourself review important writing.  These might be a writing group member, a colleague, a relative or a professional Every person who has been funded appreciates early comments and reactions from critical readers.  No matter how good a writer you might be, you can always improve.  Good editors won’t judge your writing, they’ll just help you express yourself more clearly.  Everyone starts the process somewhere, so don’t worry if you feel like you didn’t leave school an effective writer.  Fear of judgment will never help you build that skill! 
If others are going to see and benefit from your writing, then getting another’s perspective, and critiquing your own writing by putting yourself in the critical reader’s shoes, will only make it easier for readers to grasp your intent.