Proposal Writing and Grantseeking

Accurately identifying the problem or need your organization wants to tackle is the single most important factor in developing a powerful grant proposal.

Is your organization’s grants specialist constantly frazzled, working nights and weekends and juggling a schedule bulging with proposal deadlines, program development meetings, and report due dates? Do other staff members tip-toe around the specialist’s desk, forgiving occasional expletives, ignoring the candy wrappers and dirty coffee cups, and excusing missed calls and meetings. If so, that’s a big red flag.

A successful grant proposal sorts the details and moving parts of a complex plan into a precise description of how things will work. It’s somewhat like writing a brief explanation of how a Rube Goldberg machine works! Each piece of the plan must be distinctly articulated and the connections between pieces must be clear.

Grants are social investments that are intended to produce positive change. Defining intended change is easier for some types of programs than others. If you’re working to improve the health of diabetics, the proposed outcome may be a specific degree of decrease in blood sugar levels of participants. But grantseekers often get confused when developing outcomes for programs that are intended to stop something from happening in the first place.

The field of grant development is dynamic. The basic elements of a strong proposal don’t change, but the environment in which funding decisions are made is in constant flux. The trends below remain current. Although not new, they point towards grantseeking realities we’ll be contending with over the coming year.

The grant application guidelines allow 15 pages of attachments, with ten consumed by required documents (IRS determination letter, board list, etc.). You’ve got 15 letters of commitment from diverse community groups pledging resources, volunteers, facilities, transportation, and other significant benefits. It’s a conundrum! The letters are powerful. Which do you use? Which do you leave out?

One organization can’t do everything, and go-it-alone grant proposals that don’t make good use of community networks and resources are not convincing. The most effective proposals include authentic collaborations where participating organizations pursue their own missions while also contributing to a common goal. Unless the "usual-suspect" groups are involved as partners, funders will have questions. For example, if an early childhood agency wants to improve child health through better nutrition, it only makes sense to work with the food bank and the community health center.

There are many decisions involved in planning programs and developing grant proposals. While there are a lot of people involved in planning: program managers, financial staff, community members....They're each providing their input, their viewpoints, and contributing to decision-making. With all of the decisions and all of the people involved, it's easy to see how there can be misunderstandings.

It's finally happened: the funder has made a decision on your grant proposal. They may respond in one of several ways. But what should you do after they’ve informed you of their decision? Let’s look at four different scenarios.

Thousands of federal grant proposals are submitted each year. Around 80% will be rejected and around 20% on average will get funded. The required signatures on the federal Standard Form 424 face sheet and the companion “Standard Assurances” bind your organization to comply with each of the 23 assurances associated with receipt of federal funding.