A Formula for Successful Grant Writing: Four Proven Keys

By A.C. “Buddy” Himes

Like fund-raising, grant writing can be an effective means of acquiring resources beyond institutional allocations. Unlike fund-raising, however, grant writing is largely nonverbal, based instead on formal writing skills. So, if awards are made based on written proposals, what are reviewers looking for in these proposals? Here are four keys proven to enhance any proposal:

1) Focus on the Granting Agency
We work our hardest and make achievements within the profession. Then we see a request for proposals from a granting agency. We develop a list of needed equipment and submit this to the granting agency, but will the reviewers see this as a proposal competitive with other submissions or as a wish list?

According to Karsh and Fox in their 2003 The Only Grant-Writing Book You’ll Ever Need, “The grant maker does not care what you have in mind, unless it happens to mesh exactly with their guidelines.” It is human nature to feel that we deserve to be funded, but granting agencies want to know what we can do for them—not what we have done for ourselves. The key is not to focus on our program but to demonstrate how our program can further the funding agency’s mission.

2) Consider Grant Writing to be Research
Use standard research techniques. Karsh and Fox state that “the funder is going to want something concrete to go on. You can be certain that you’ll be competing with organizations that have carefully documented their proposals.” Avoid statements that may be perceived as “stretching” the criteria. For example, rather than stating that your proposal will have a particular effect, research articles closely related to your proposal and cite these to substantiate what you believe the effect of your project will be.

Next, dispel doubt or skepticism in reviewers’ minds. Substantiate your rationale by referring to national standards and find ways to include statistical data from professional organizations or accrediting agencies.

Above all, progress ideas logically. Reviewers should easily be able to follow a train of thought from the criteria, through your proposal, all the way to the budget justification. Eliminate redundancy, resolve ideas that may have been left hanging, and be as clear and succinct as possible.

3) Allow Enough Time
Writing a major grant may, at the outset, seem overwhelming. Find ways of breaking the task down into manageable parts. For example—a principal investigator should enlist the collaboration of coinvestigators. This conserves time by dividing responsibility among multiple writers and diversifies areas of expertise. Moreover, from an administrative leadership standpoint, this strengthens interpersonal relationships and contributes to growth in research skills for colleagues.

Karsh and Fox caution that “preparing a grant proposal is a process that should start long before a funding opportunity appears.” Establish a schedule for regular meetings of collaborators. Meeting once a week, even if only for 15 minutes at a time, is more effective than meeting for an hour once a month. Also, get an early start so as to allow time, while still in the writing process, to step back and look objectively at the proposal. Visualize possible indirect benefits and include them to demonstrate vision and forethought.

4) Satisfy Grant Criteria
Citing experiences of reviewers, Karsh and Fox report that “many applicants are so sure they’re the perfect partners for us . . . but they have no idea because they haven’t read the guidelines. It shouldn’t just be about asking everyone for money.”

Again, focus on the agency’s criteria—not your needs. As an example, my unit was eligible to write a grant under the rubric of education; however, the unit’s discipline was music—not education. We were interested in a new computer classroom—not in creating something for teachers and schoolchildren. Nevertheless, by conducting research for each grant criterion, the research yielded the needs as a by-product.

The criteria included:

The investigators then set about redesigning the music education curriculum. This infused current music software, already the standard in the industry, into curricula for music-teacher preparation. The grant was fully funded at $127,700.

Conclusion
A successful grant actually creates a symbiosis. The key is to create something highly desirable to the funding agency, and, in order for this to be realized, the agency has to provide funding.

Director of the School of Music at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Dr. Himes is a former member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). A grantsmanship presenter at national conferences, he has been awarded over $400,000 in grant funding since 1999.

The above article first appeared in Academic Leader, a monthly newsletter that helps deans, chairs, and other academic decision-makers provide effective leadership within their colleges or departments and fulfill their institutions' primary missions of teaching and scholarship. Click here for more information and to subscribe.