Chapter 7

Grant-Writing Tips and Potential Errors to Avoid

In This Chapter

  • Detailed writing suggestions for making your grant proposal the best it can be
  • Tips for professionalizing the proposal package
  • Common errors in grant-writing—and how to avoid them
  • Strategies for editing, securing approvals, and packaging proposals

This chapter presents a collection of recommendations for ensuring that a proposal is well received by reviewers. Because writing and preparing grant proposal packages is different from other types of writing, it is important to be aware of what works and what does not. Proposals written by novice grant-writers often can be easily identified during the review process, and this can hurt a proposal’s chances of being awarded. The overall intent of a proposal is to cumulatively build the reviewer’s confidence in the applicant’s project quality and capacity to complete the project successfully within the grant period. If for some reason the quality of the proposal is compromised, then of course the reviewer’s confidence is likely to be diminished.

Writing Suggestions

Affirmative Verbs

Grant applications, by their nature, are presenting information about activities that will take place in the future. Unfortunately, writing in the conditional tense gives the reviewer a sense that the applicant may be uncertain that activities will occur as described. Words such as “should,” “could,” “would,” or “may” can contribute to a perception of insecurity, or a lack of commitment. They tend to weaken any case for support or any plan to execute a project, and therefore should be avoided whenever possible.

Some grant-writers may feel that using active verbs such as “will” presents an inaccurate image of the future. During the project team’s discussions, questions may arise that can prevent them from being assertive about planned activities or project results, such as:

None of these types of questions or concerns about the future of proposed activities should inhibit grant-writers from using affirmative verbs throughout every proposal narrative. The more uncertain the language, the less likely reviewers will feel confident about the project and its applicant.

Here is an example of how uncertainty can creep into a proposal. Suppose a librarian is requesting funds for the purchase of ten iPads for short-term loans to students and faculty. The librarian knows that the library hosts classes for a few professors. Rather than using the conditional verb to suggest that students attending these classes “would” be able to access the iPads, the librarian should emphasize that the project “will” make these tablets accessible to students in classes hosted by the library, and that professors “will” be informed about how to reserve tablets to ensure their awareness of this opportunity. If the librarian is uncertain that students will have access to the iPads during classes hosted by the librarians, then this information should be excluded from the proposal.

Pronoun Usage

It can be quite annoying for a reviewer to have to read proposals loaded with pronouns. The overuse of pronouns such as “we,” “our,” and “I” can turn a perfectly good proposal into a monotonous and confusing document. Consider the issues that might arise when using the pronoun “we.” The project being proposed identifies several different groups: the project team with only members from the applicant library, on-campus partners, and external organization partners. In this case, if the writer uses “we” to identify only the project team members, and the reviewer assumes “we” is being used to identify all participants, then confusion results. Each of these groups should be defined by the writer and consistently used throughout the proposal to ensure the reviewer is not making incorrect assumptions.

Overusing “our,” for instance, creates other issues. It prevents reviewers from branding the application with the name of the applicant organization or the title of the project. Consider the situation that occurs if all applicants use “our” in their narratives. How difficult will it be for reviewers to recall which applicant applied for which project?

When writing proposals for fellowship opportunities (grants to individuals versus organizations) applicants often use “I” throughout their narratives. Imagine the degree of monotony this might create for reviewers. Those applicants that invest time in devising alternate ways of presenting information about themselves in these types of proposals often pay more attention to other details within their applications that make them stand out among the competition.

Appropriate Tenses

Writing in the appropriate tense can be challenging. The problem with ambiguous or inconsistent tenses that arises for reviewers is that it can be difficult to discern whether activities described in the narrative already have occurred, are occurring while the application is being prepared, have not yet occurred but will occur prior to the grant period, or that the activities will take place during the grant period for which the applicant is applying.

Consider the case where a librarian is requesting funds to collaborate with a software developer. The developer already has been testing the software prior to working with the librarian. While the librarian is preparing the application, the developer and the librarian are collaborating on training library users to test the software. The partners also are planning additional testing prior to the grant period. During the grant period they plan to expand the project to train new groups of students, create tutorials, and codify the software for wider distribution.

Writing the narrative for such a project will require consistent reference to time frames and the use of the correct tense to describe activities. For instance, in this case if the developer is describing the project in the present tense, because many of the software developments already are functional, then reviewers may wonder why an application was submitted for work that already has been completed. Essentially, the problem is that grant-writers prepare applications months in advance of the actual review process. If this factor is ignored during the proposal preparation period, then it is likely that the narrative will not specify time frames, will use incorrect tenses, and may thereby ultimately confuse reviewers.

Identifying the project’s many phases can provide some remediation. The librarian can describe current activities under the heading of startup phase, planning phase, or phase I. Activities that will take place prior to the grant period can be described as project testing phase or phase II. And activities planned during the project grant period can be identified as the implementation phase or phase III. For reviewers, this shows a progression of activities that strengthens the proposal. It gives the librarian credit for all the work that has occurred previously and that will occur prior to the grant period. Such a proposal gives reviewers increased confidence in the collaborators. The proposal provides evidence of their combined investment of time and effort, which produces a proposal that poses fewer risks than other “new” projects.

Generalities, Superlatives, and Salesmanship

If the goal of the library applicant is to create a mental movie of the project, then the lack of detailed information provided in the application will inhibit this desired result. A declination, if it occurs, should result from reasons other than a lack of proposal specificity. If you have a great idea and paint an invisible picture on the application canvass, then the idea has no value.

The same holds true for applicants who feel the need to sell their project by using language that generalizes and exaggerates the quality of the project, its history, and past results. A phrase such as “The website has been overwhelmingly successful at serving patrons” provides no evidence of traffic to the website. Or consider this phrase: “Past presentations have been popular beyond the team’s expectations,” which lacks a definition for popular, and the team’s original expectations may not be relevant to reviewers. These statements lack any credible evidence. In fact, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation’s grant proposal guidelines state “that the Foundation expects concision and few, if any superlatives in proposal narratives” (Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 2014: 1).

Words such as “some” or “many” only leave reviewers with questions about how many. These words may indicate that the applicant library lacks statistical information about its programs, and its patrons and audiences served.

Another offense, often committed by novice grant-writers, is the use of salesmanship. Consider the situation where a proposal narrative briefly describes a project in general terms and then populates the next few pages with the project’s potential benefits to various constituent groups. The reviewer hasn’t been able to grasp the full description of the project and instead is being bombarded with information about all of its various benefits and potentially wonderful results. The truth may be that the librarian feels insecure about the quality or eligibility of the proposed project and, instead of providing a feasible description, is trying to use up valuable real estate by elaborating on the project’s benefits.

Another example of salesmanship is when the project title alludes to the creation of a model for others to follow, without having completed a proof-of-concept or pilot project. In this situation, the applicant is trying to convince reviewers that a new idea, yet to be tested, is such a terrific idea that simply funding its initial activities will automatically result in an exemplary project for others to replicate. In this case, rather than including the word “model” in the title, the applicant can posit that, if successful, a result of the initial project will be a model for other libraries to follow. To strengthen the potential “model” aspect of the proposal, the applicant can propose to produce and widely distribute a step-by-step guide of how to replicate the project as part of the project’s activities work plan and dissemination plan.

Librarians should use restraint when it comes to using superlatives and salesmanship. Instead, providing attendance or website usage statistics, testimonial language quoted from a survey, interview or letter of support, or other factual information allows the library’s project team to take full credit for its level of success. The facts will speak for themselves—in volumes.

Tips for Professionalizing the Presentation

Use the Entire Grant Period

The sponsor’s guidelines will include the date that funding will become available to start a new project, and the end date by which all funds must be expended. This is known as the grant period. A common mistake made by novice grant-writers is not to use the entire grant period to the project team’s advantage. For instance, the project may be a festival to showcase a library’s services. The project team plans to present a scavenger hunt for patrons of all ages to learn about the library’s collections and to meet its librarians. The event will take place on July 10 and 11. The project team may determine that the start of the project should be July 1 and the end date should be July 30. One month seems a reasonable amount of time to start and complete the project. But the guidelines may state that projects must be no longer than one year, beginning January 1 and ending December 31.

The project team actually is shooting itself in the foot by not taking advantage of the entire year as offered by the sponsor. Selecting a shorter time frame tells the reviewers that the team is inexperienced and may be overly optimistic. There’s so much more that can be accomplished with this type of project if given a year to execute a more sophisticated plan, which might include building an online scavenger hunt, video-recording contestants for uploading to the library’s YouTube presence, and other ideas for marketing and promoting the event and the collections themselves. One month doesn’t allow for fully planning, coordinating, promoting, evaluating, and sustaining methods for exposing a library’s collections to its local community and to the world.

Granted, if the sponsor offers three-year grant periods, the project team should determine the adequate amount of time necessary to complete the project, which may be less than two years. In almost all cases, the project team should not elect to complete projects in less than one year if a year is the grant period offered by the sponsor.

Use Headings That Match the Sponsor’s Guidelines

Within the sponsor’s guidelines you will see a variety of headings for separating the narrative content. These headings usually match up with one or more criteria for evaluating the proposal. Mirroring the headings provided in the guidelines helps reviewers easily find where the proposal content is located. If most of the applicants use the same or similar headings, as outlined in the guidelines, then the reviewer’s job will be more streamlined and time efficient.

Another approach to this straightforward method is to be inventive and create your own headings. Yes, this will set you apart from the field of competing proposals. Some applicants change the headings to make them correlate with the project idea. Or they believe the application will be boring to reviewers who have to read the same headings over and over again.

But being inventive with headings may send some other messages or create questions for the reviewers, such as:

Inserting too many headings also can be an unfortunate option; not only has the applicant mirrored the headings contained within the guidelines, but every few paragraphs the application presents additional headings ostensibly to assist the reviewers. This strategy can convey too much information. During the evaluation process, reviewers match the narrative content to the guidelines, not to the ideas presented in the proposal. A few additional headings may be just right. But going beyond can show an applicant’s insecurity or inexperience.

The worst alternative would be to eliminate all headings. This can occur if the applicant runs out of space and decides to remove all the headings, thus generating more space to complete the narrative. Or, it may be that the applicant assumes that reviewers know what narrative content is required and have no need for headings.

Removing all the headings simply gives reviewers headaches. Try to visualize a road map to get from your house to Guatemala without the advantage of demarking the cities, highways, states, and street names. It can be done, but the experience will be painful.

Use Headers, Bullets, Numbers, White Space, and Hyperlinks

These structural enhancements to narrative content can go a long way in helping reviewers in their task of evaluating your proposal package. Inserting a header that includes the title of the project and the name of the applicant library, or parent institution applicant associated with the library, helps to remind reviewers of the applicant without having to turn to the first page of the narrative. Every page of the application package benefits by identifying the applicant and title in the top right corner. As the reviewer turns each page, he or she can see the name of the applicant organization and be reminded of the project title.

This is particularly important when applicants choose to refer to the project as “the project” rather than using the title or a portion of the title throughout the proposal. It is best to try to infuse the project title throughout the proposal narrative. If this isn’t possible, then the information included in the header may suffice.

Using bullets or numbers helps to break down complex descriptions of a project idea and other components of the narrative. It is particularly helpful when outlining the project’s SMART goals and objectives; in describing plans for project activities, evaluation, or promotion; or for identifying the various types of audiences that the project plans to attract or serve.

Cramming too much information into a proposal by eliminating all the white space can be very hard on the eyes. Reviewers need the benefit of white space whenever it can be included.

Using hyperlinks is one way to create more space on the page. It gives the applicant the option of allowing existing online content to speak on behalf of the applicant. Now that proposals are ubiquitously submitted to sponsors electronically, hyperlinks should be used as a tool to embed additional contextual information in the proposal. Hyperlinks can

Pay Attention to Real Estate

Narrative content is expected to be unbalanced. Most of a proposal’s real estate should be used to describe the project and its significance, impact, or the need to be addressed. Guidelines vary widely. Some will specify the number of pages, or the number of words or characters for describing specific sections in the proposal. Others will simply provide the maximum number of pages to be used in order to complete the narrative. In this last instance, the applicant must pay attention to the length of each section to ensure the content takes into account the reviewers’ needs for sufficient information.

For instance, a dissemination plan that is longer than three-quarters of a page may be preventing the adequate description of the evaluation plan, which is only one-quarter of a page—due to a lack of available space. This could be because the project team has strengths in marketing and promotion, but lacks know-how in project evaluation methodology. A proposal should try to remedy this type of disparity. The bottom line here is to use the available space wisely in order to ensure that the reviewers have sufficient information to determine the degree to which evaluation criteria have been met.

Tell a Story

From a reviewer’s viewpoint, stories are welcome additions to any proposal. Telling a story can be the most effective way for reviewers to learn about a collection, a project’s needs, or the potential for raising matching funds. When reviewers feel satisfied that a proposal has enlightened them in some way, especially unexpectedly, then the project team has achieved an enviable result.

For instance, the National Endowment for the Humanities Challenge Grant Program, initiated in the 1970s, is a unique federal program that provides applicants with the opportunity to request $1 for every $3 in new funds raised for an important humanities-related fund-raising project. It might be for the purpose of improving facilities for humanities collections or endowing a new humanities position in a library. The best way to compete for these matching awards that each average $500,000 is to convey the story behind the development of the humanities need or opportunity, the timing for the fund-raising effort, and the potential for successful funding initiatives. Reviewers must feel compelled to support the project in the same way that donors who are made aware of the fund-raising campaign will become convinced of the project’s future impact on the humanities, and decide to contribute to the cause.

Stories should be filled with facts to create the fullest impact on the reviewer. They should contain some surprising and unexpected details that reviewers will be grateful to learn. And they should build cumulatively from one enlightening piece of information to another.

Methods for Avoiding Common Errors

Making Assumptions about the Reviewers’ Knowledge

Reviewers are most often strangers to the applicants, except in the case of private foundations where sometimes reviewers are working collaboratively with applicants in the development of the project and budget. Government sponsors may share the names of reviewers or describe typical characteristics of those who will be selected to complete the review process. Board members of major foundations are often those who serve as reviewers. For United Way and community foundations, reviewers are sometimes members of the board of directors or community representatives. For local government and CRA funding, reviewers are typically county commissioners, or boards represented by a mix of commissioners and community representatives.

To ensure that reviewers completely understand all aspects of your proposal, it is best to write proposal narratives from the viewpoint that reviewers are completely unfamiliar with the project, including its partners, personnel, technology, and budget. Taking this approach prevents applicants from inadvertently making reviewers feel unprepared or at the very least, confused. It also prevents reviewers from making erroneous assumptions about the project.

Reviewers are entitled to have the opportunity to completely and thoroughly understand a project’s content. But if the applicant uses acronyms, technical terms, jargon, and other shortcuts, then it puts the application at risk of being difficult to understand. It also may appear condescending to the reviewers.

Specialized language works well when the applicant is absolutely certain that all the reviewers are versed in the same language. For instance, if a librarian is applying for a Project Ceres grant award allocated by the U.S. Agricultural Information Network (USAIN), it can be assumed that specialized language related to libraries and agricultural collections would be acceptable. The USAIN members evaluating proposals are knowledgeable about this specific field.

But the same logic does not apply to applications for the Council on Library and Information Resources Hidden Collections Programs. The reviewers for this program are likely to be a mix of scholars from a variety of disciplines, not necessarily librarians. Reviewers for the National Endowment for the Humanities also are quite diverse in their backgrounds, geographic roots, and expertise.

An effective antidote to apply so as to avoid making assumptions about the reviewer’s knowledge is to have a non-library professional read the proposal. Have the reader ask you as many questions as he or she can about the project; you’ll see how much clarity of language is missing from the proposal. The outside professional’s questions should be viewed as a gift and accepted with grace without defensive posturing. Rewriting these sections will elevate the quality of the proposal.

Presenting Narrative Content Chronologically

Another challenge for novice grant-writers is to describe a project without using a chronological framework. The problem often arises when a librarian has been integrally involved in the project’s development over a period of a few years. Because so much has occurred from the time the project began, the librarian believes there is much to communicate to reviewers. To explain this complex project, some librarians may feel obligated to take a chronological approach to describing the project. In this situation, the librarian may think that it is impossible to convey the project description without first describing its entire history, including all project activities, issues, participants, decisions, and rationale presented in an organized manner chronologically so as to prepare reviewers for learning about the proposed project.

If this has been your strategy, then it is important to work to overcome the impulse of telling all. Application guidelines form the container for all narrative responses. If the first section of the narrative instructions does not include a “Project Background and History” section, then this information should not be imparted until later in the proposal, if the guidelines provide a provision for including the project’s history. Not all guidelines include a project history section.

This means that the librarian and the project team must practice describing the project as it will look in the future, beginning the first day of the funded grant period. To get credit for all the previous planning, testing, activities, events, partnerships, and personnel efforts that came prior to the grant period, the project team will need to determine where some of the most important slices of the project development story will fit best. When the project team prefers to impart a complete chronological description, this preference should raise a red flag. Of course, if a chronological representation is prescribed by the guidelines, then these recommendations would not apply.

Abusing or Ignoring the Appendixes’ Content

The inclusion of appendixes is not universally allowed. Check the guidelines to find a provision for appendix items. Also, verify the types and file size limitation for digital content of items that are acceptable for inclusion in the appendixes.

Problems can arise when appendixes are populated incorrectly. This scenario provides an example. The guidelines require a work plan or an evaluation plan, but you have failed to reserve sufficient space in the narrative to include this content. As a remedy, your project team opts to include the required narrative section as an appendix item. They may rationalize this strategy by determining that the application will not be penalized for being “incomplete.” Although this may be a correct assumption, consider the reviewers’ point of view here. Suppose that all of the other applicants have included the work plan in the narrative as instructed, and your application is the only one where reviewers must hunt for the work plan or the evaluation plan within the appendixes. This takes extra time and can easily cause frustration.

These situations arise when applicants find themselves trapped by a narrative that is too long. Making the decision to cut portions of the narrative for inclusion in the appendixes can be dangerous. Reviewers expect to see required narrative material in the prescribed narrative section. Appendixes are intended to supplement the narrative with additional information. They are not intended to substitute for required narrative content.

Regardless, whatever content gets delegated to the appendixes should be referred to in the narrative. You might have all kinds of terrific visual or informative content within the application appendixes that none of the reviewers will ever see. Imagine spending hours finding, formatting, labeling, and organizing this section without a plan to motivate reviewers to go there. A solution is to refer to the specific or applicable appendixes whenever possible.

For instance, you have quoted from a letter of commitment in the narrative. Take the opportunity to add: “(see Letter of Commitment, appendix B).” Or the project team has secured estimates from vendors for converting microfilm to digital content. Make sure to include a statement such as “(see Vendor Estimates, appendixes A, B, and C)” within the budget narrative section. And in the case where you have attached the Gantt chart as a visual representation of the narrative work plan, then you should add “(see the Gantt chart, appendix F)” at the end of the work plan narrative.

Finally, too many documents—such as more than three letters of support, résumés for those other than key project personnel, or excessive numbers of reports—can make your proposal package look and feel like overkill. If the proposal itself has insufficient merit, then regardless of the volume of appendix items, it will be declined. Your choice of what to include or exclude in the appendixes will contribute to showing your respect and consideration for the reviewers charged with evaluating many applications. Keeping the reviewers’ needs in mind throughout the proposal preparation process will contribute immeasurably to your efforts to create fundable proposals.

Strategies for Editing, Securing Approvals, and Packaging Proposals

Librarians generally do not allot sufficient time for editing, securing approvals, and packaging proposals. As service providers, librarians and library project team members are often preoccupied serving patrons and other types of customers. Being unable to predict a typical day’s workload makes it challenging to commit enough time to edit, secure approval signatures, and package applications for submission. Multiply these challenges by the number of collaborating partners involved in the proposal submission process (such as time needed by partners to secure cost share commitment letters as required by their academic institutions), and you’ll find that the challenge may appear to be insurmountable.

The first recommendation is to block out at least four days prior to the deadline for these purposes. Making appointments with copyeditors and approvers well in advance helps to segregate the necessary time to complete these tasks. Why do you need four days?

(1) Editing, making corrections, and rereading a full grant proposal can take time and multiple iterations in working with a variety of people. For instance, the budget if prepared by an accountant should be reviewed by the project team and the accountant’s supervisor. The narrative should be read aloud slowly to most efficiently catch grammatical errors. A copyeditor should review a penultimate version for consistency in terms of tenses, project description content, time frames, and formatting, as well as typos, punctuation, and spell-checking. Also ensure that margins and font sizes meet the sponsors’ requirements by sharing these specifications with your copyeditor. Such activities will take longer than one day to complete, especially if each collaborating partner also is charged with reviewing a penultimate version.

(2) Seeking approvals can be a lengthy process, especially if an approver wants to read the entire proposal. If this is the case, then be prepared to add time to make the required changes offered by the approver(s).

(3) Packaging the content of a proposal can take at least one full day. Federal grants require submission using http://www.grants.gov, and include the completion of forms that will require time to prepare. Additionally, time is needed to check the pagination of the proposal content, create the table of contents if applicable, and label the appendixes so that reviewers will easily be able to identify each appendix item.

For instance, if a résumé is included for the project director, then this label, “Project Director,” should appear at the top of the résumé. If the appendix item is a letter, it should be labeled at the top as “Letter of Support” or “Letter of Commitment.” Each appendix item should be labeled at the top of the page. Because these items may be PDF documents, Word or Excel documents, or screen shots, they each will require time to format and label. Adding page numbers to the entire proposal also will consume time. Once the page numbers are added, the entire document should be printed and verified along with the table of contents to ensure accuracy. Errors may occur at any time during this packaging process, so make sure you reexamine all content after completing this process.

The packaging issue of entering information into an online application format is important to address. Rather than simply uploading file attachments for each application component, these online applications require that the applicant type or cut and paste directly into prescribed delimited containers. An applicant should not assume that the space limitations for the number of words or characters within these online applications match up with their own content calculations. Sufficient time should be allocated to test space availability when cutting and pasting content into online containers, or uploading files or images restricted by size.

Since the advent of the Internet for widely promoting the availability of grant opportunities, compounded by the ease by which proposals can be submitted electronically, competition for grant funds has risen and continues to grow. The increase in applications has impacted reviewers’ evaluation processes. Finding reasons to eliminate an applicant early in the review process allows reviewers more time to focus on those applications that are complete, well organized, well edited, and professionally presented. These indicators, which are readily discernable, can send messages to reviewers that the applicant respects the process, and the time that reviewers will invest in their evaluation.

Consequently, regardless of how many hours have been invested by a project team and its collaborating partners in preparing all of the various components of the application package, it is worth investing at least four days to complete your team’s editing, approving, and final packaging activities. Doing so will contribute to a more gratifying experience for your future grant reviewers.

Key Points

It is important to consider how the quality of the written proposal package will impact the reviewers. Remembering these key points will produce a proposal of professional quality.

Employing the collaborative grant-seeking guidance in this book will contribute to the possibility of exciting new learning and pioneering grant awards for your library and your communities. Perhaps you have never attempted it, or maybe you have years of grant-seeking experience. Regardless, the journey into grantsmanship can happen at any time. The practice of grant-seeking is certain to become more prevalent and important in libraries. As this discipline continues to evolve, grow, and mature, your participation can make a profound contribution to improving people’s lives. Just imagine the future opportunities for philanthropic grant funding that the aging baby boomer generation will create. The future looks promising; the adventure awaits. . . .

Reference

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. 2014. “Grant Proposal Guidelines, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation: Scholarly Communications.” October 6. https://mellon.org/media/filer_public/24/e0/24e0b0e7-c8a3-4b2a-983f-decfacb8e26a/grantproposalguidelines_sc100614.pdf.