The Art of Grant Writing

1
The Art of Grant Writing

• Jason M. McGlothlin, Ph.D.
• CHDS 77584
• Writing for Professional Publications
• Kent State University

2
A grant writer should be somewhat of a

• Gambler taking chances that what you produce
  will hit a jackpot somewhere. (Ill bet my life
  on this!)
• Masochist resubmitting proposals after being
  rejected over and over again. (One mo time.)
• Diplomat standing by silently while someone
  else takes the credit for a successful proposal
  you wrote. (Im biting my lip because it itches.)

3
A grant writer should be somewhat of a

• Miser hoarding information and materials and
  refusing to share them because you know you will
  never get them back. (I lost it!)
• Gangster threatening people with dire
  consequences if they dont give you the
  information you need. (Talk or else!)
• Hermit keeping to oneself because youre not
  invited to participate in other agency
  activities. (All alone by the telephone.)

4
A grant writer should be somewhat of a

• Squirrel saving every scrap of paper on which
  notes are written just in case they might be
  useful someday. (You never know.)
• Rhinoceros so that the insults you receive
  bounce off your hide. (See if I care.)
• Idiot asking for clarification on what appear
  to be innocuous requirements. (Can the deadline
  be extended a week?)

5
If you can successfully answer the following
questions, you have a good chance of getting a
grant funded.

• What's the problem we are addressing?
• Remember - the problem is not your need - it's
  the community's need!
• Who else is addressing, and what are the gaps in
  how it is being addressed?
• Gaps can be programmatic, population,
  time/seasonal, or material. Gaps are the reason
  that you have a need!
• How are we proposing to address the problem?
• Paint a clear and specific picture of your
  program! Can your prospect see it in action in
  their mind?

6
If you can successfully answer the following
questions, you have a good chance of getting a
grant funded.

• How will things be different/will the problem be
  solved or improved, when you are done?
• How will you know that you are succeeding?
• What will you measure in order to understand how
  you are doing and what needs to change or be
  adjusted?
• What do you need in order to try to solve the
  problem?
• This must tie to the approach you have described
  above. It's an opportunity to once again paint a
  picture of what you will be doing!

7
If you can successfully answer the following
questions, you have a good chance of getting a
grant funded.

• What resources do you already have? From whom?
• Don't forget volunteers, donations and in kind
  services. Show the community participation in
  your project. Project the image that the funder
  is joining a winning team, not boarding a sinking
  boat!
• What are the qualifications and experience that
  make your program the right one to take on this
  work?
• History, key accomplishments, qualifications of
  staff and volunteers, relationships in the
  community....as they relate to this project.

8
If you can successfully answer the following
questions, you have a good chance of getting a
grant funded.

• Are there problems or barriers that you can
  foresee?
• How will you overcome them?
• We all run into roadblocks when we try something
  new.
• Think through what you are going to do carefully.
  What's likely to trip you up?
• How can you anticipate these problems?
• Who will you turn to for help?
• Recognizing the possibility of problems is the
  sign of a sophisticated and professional program!

9
Guidelines for Effective Grant Writing

• Match your expertise with the needs of various
  audiences
• Add a unique angle
• Make a convincing commitment
• Be flexible
• Use every opportunity to gather information about
  available money

10
Guidelines for Effective Grant Writing

• Make your request economically responsible
• Make the proposal easy to read
• Follow the RFP guidelines precisely
• Develop a project evaluation process
• Test the budget against the narrative

11
Grant Writing Refresher

• Start with an outline.
• Write a topic sentence for each main topic.
• Then write a topic sentence for each sub topic in
  the outline.
• Make one point in each paragraph.
• This is key to creating text that's easy to read.
  
• State the point in the topic sentence, usually
  the first sentence, and support it with
  additional information in the subsequent
  sentences.
• Paragraphs have two functions they aggregate
  information point by point and they break up the
  page, creating much-needed white space. Keep them
  short.

12
Grant Writing Refresher

• Divide the document into sections and
  subsections.
• This organizes your text and, together with
  paragraph headers, creates white space.
• Reviewers are human.
• If it looks too hard to read, they're much less
  likely to read it.
• Huge blocks of uninterrupted text are depressing
  to look at.
• Include bullets and lists.
• They draw attention to key facts and create a
  visual break.

13
Grant Writing Refresher

• Use short sentences with a basic structure
  subject, verb, object.
• Breakup long, involved sentences and paragraphs.
• Keep sentence average to 20 words or less.
• Keep subject, verb, and object together at the
  beginning of the sentence.
• Include transitions.
• At the beginning of a new paragraph or concept,
  make a transition to your next point by relating
  it to your previous discussion.
• Use words such as furthermore, additionally, in
  other words, in another area, in contrast,
  following the same path, and moving to the next
  stage to show some relationship between the ideas.

14
Grant Writing Refresher

• Keep related ideas and information together
• e.g., put clauses and phrases as close as
  possible to-preferably right after the words they
  modify.
• Use strong, active verbs
• they are the workhorses of effective sentences.
• For example, write "We will develop a cell line,"
  not "A cell line will be developed."
• Use verbals instead of abstract nouns
• Turn abstract nouns ending in 'ion' and 'ment'
  into verbs.
• For example, say 'creating the assay leads to...'
  rather than 'the creation of the assay leads
  to...'

15
Grant Application Basics

• What is the funding source looking for?
• Do you qualify for the grant?
• Review the Application Process
• When are the application deadlines?
• Who are the stakeholders in this grant?
• Does the grant go to you or your institution?

16
Grant Application Basics

• Large grants get identification numbers.
• Initial peer review assessment of quality of the
  application.
• Who peer reviews your application?
• What is the review criteria?
• Reviews are fair, but not always right.
• Foreign applications have more review criteria.

17
Elements of a Grant ProposalCOVER LETTER

• No more than one page.
• Organization (who you are and your background
  briefly), purpose of funding, and the amount of
  your request should appear in the first
  paragraph.
• Include a contact name, phone number and address.

18
Elements of a Grant ProposalPROPOSAL SUMMARY

• Limit to one page.
• State the organization making the request and
  link organizational background to the proposal
  purpose.
• State your project purpose.
• Briefly state how your project will be
  implemented.

19
Elements of a Grant ProposalPROPOSAL SUMMARY

• State the results you expect from your project.
• Include your total budget amount, other funds
  that are committed and the amount of your
  request.
• 90 of funding decisions by private donors and
  foundations will be made by the time the funder
  finishes reading this page. It must be concise,
  compelling, and clear!

20
Elements of a Grant ProposalINTRODUCTION

• History
• General Purpose
• Goals and objectives as they relate to this
  project, and in overview, as they provide a
  context for the work you want to undertake.
• Accomplishments, especially as they relate to
  this project or to your capacity to provide this
  project.
• Service areas and population served.

21
Elements of a Grant ProposalSTATEMENT OF PROBLEM
/ NEED

• Use a funnel approach.
• Start with the generalized problem as it occurs
  in your community.
• Move to the conditions which make this a problem.
  
• Outline current resources that address this
  problem and identify gaps in those resources.
• Identify how your proposal will fill these gaps.

22
Elements of a Grant ProposalGOALS AND OBJECTIVES

• What specific goals are you trying to achieve?
• What measurable milestones will you reach in
  meeting those goals?
• How will you and the funder know that you are
  making progress towards your goals?

23
Elements of a Grant ProposalMETHODS AND SCHEDULE

• What actions will you take to achieve your goals?
  
• What steps must you take to achieve success?
• Who will do what? (Include here job descriptions
  and background statements of staff or the
  qualifications you will seek in staff for the
  project. This is true even if "staff" will
  actually be volunteers.)
• When will these actions take place?

24
Elements of a Grant ProposalEVALUATION CRITERIA
AND PROCESS

• How will you know whether you are achieving your
  goals?
• What will you measure to evaluate your progress?
• What records and information will you keep to
  allow you to measure your progress?

25
Elements of a Grant ProposalBUDGET

• More detail is better than less.
• Don't round out if possible. Use bids and
  estimates whenever you can get them - even if
  they are informal quotes.
• Don't pad your budget.
• Competent reviewers will know the cost of goods
  and services, and will understand prevailing
  wages.
• If they know you are trying to deceive them on
  budget, what else will they suspect you of trying
  to deceive them about?

26
Elements of a Grant ProposalBUDGET

• Do include all sources of support - including
  volunteer time, donated space and borrowed
  equipment.
• Don't shortchange the contribution your community
  is making to your project.

27
Tips for New Grant ApplicantsFIRST STEPS

• Find out about the institutional support that is
  available to you (such as a startup package).
• Broaden your vision beyond that which you had as
  a student.
• Seek mentoring.

28
Tips for New Grant ApplicantsFIRST STEPS

• Instead of feedback, try "feed forward.
• This approach, put forth by Dr. Keith Yamamoto of
  the University of California, San Francisco,
  involves asking three senior colleagues to act as
  your "grant committee" and discussing your ideas
  for the application with them before starting the
  writing process.
• Next, write one page of three to five specific
  aims and discuss these with the committee before
  beginning to write the body of the application.
• Thus, by the time you tackle the bulk of the
  writing, the organization and content of your
  proposal have received fairly detailed scrutiny
  and critical consideration.

29
Tips for New Grant ApplicantsSTART WORKING

• Have a good idea! Generate preliminary data.
• Establish your independence as an investigator.
• Enlist collaborators and include letters that
  clearly spell out the collaborations in your
  proposal.
• Look at successful proposals of colleagues in
  your field.
• Consult with the funding source.

30
Tips for New Grant ApplicantsSTART WRITING

• Prepare your proposal early--well before the
  deadline. Do not rush!
• Make your first proposal your best proposal.
  Convey your confidence and enthusiasm for the
  project.
• Do your homework and know the literature and
  issues, questions, and controversies in your
  area.

31
Tips for New Grant ApplicantsSTART WRITING

• Place your work in perspective. Cite others. If
  there are two camps, make sure you cite both
  sides.
• Make your priorities clear. Provide a timeline.
• Be focused.
• Discuss potential problems and pitfalls. Describe
  alternate strategies.

32
Tips for New Grant ApplicantsSTART WRITING

• Carefully consider your funding needs. Start with
  personnel--you will need to explain fully the
  role of each person on the grant.
• Use a clear and concise writing style.
• Proofread! Have zero tolerance for typographical
  errors, misspellings, or sloppy formatting.
• Critique your own proposal.
• Have others read your final draft, as well.

33
Tips for New Grant ApplicantsAFTER REVIEW

• Remember that reviewers usually try to give new
  investigators a break.
• If you are not funded the first time around,
  revise your application carefully.
• Consult your program director for advice.
• If you are funded, be sure to talk with your
  program director at least once a year to discuss
  your progress.

34
Preparation of the Grant Application

• Contact the funding source.
• Follow the directions provided with the grant
  application.
• Be brief, concise, and clear.
• Be organized and logical.
• Show how your work goes beyond previous research.

35
Preparation of the Grant Application

• Be complete!
• Provide background on pilot instruments and data
  whenever possible.
• Be careful in the use of appendices. Do not place
  essential information in an Appendix.
• Multiple submissions are allowed and encouraged
• submit your application to other funding sources.
• Be prepared to revise and resubmit.

36
How to Write a Grant Application

• Focus your application.
• Dont propose too much.
• Address the review criteria.
• Write a Strong Application.
• Write to your audience.

37
How to Write a Grant Application

• Be persuasive, but be careful of being too
  innovative
• Balance the technical and non-technical
• Make life easy for reviewers
• Label all materials clearly
• Keep it short and simple
• Guide reviewers with graphics
• Edit and proof carefully
• Make sure you follow specific formatting and
  writing requirements (e.g., font size, spacing,
  etc.)

38
How to Write a Grant Application

• Plan and organize effectively
• Write, edit, and proof like a pro!
• Edit at least three times before sending out your
  application.

39
Preparing for the Peer Review Meeting

• Know what is expected.
• Know the players and reviewers.
• Most reviewers scan each application you know
  more than they do.
• Noncompetitive applications get a streamlined
  review

40
At the Peer Review Meeting

• Basic layout of the initial peer review
• Primary and secondary reviewers make a case
• Revised applications are reviewed differently

41
After the Peer Review Meeting

• How long till you get the grant?
• What to do if you are not happy with the outcome?
• How is funding decided?
• Are there negotiations?
• Are there second-level reviews?
• Know budgetary restraints.

42
Starting to Manage a Grant

• Completing the application process. Send in your
  just in time information (e.g., Human Subjects
  documentation, Animal Research Documentation,
  etc.)
• Be highly aware of the Notice of Grant Award
• Make sure your institution has negotiated
  facilities and administrative costs.

43
Grantee Obligations

• Read the terms and conditions of your award
  before you begin your research.
• A federal grant has ramifications if you screw
  up all federal funding could be taken away from
  your institution.
• Know what actions you can take independently.
• Know what actions require approval.

44
Grantee Obligations

• What constitutes a change in the scope of your
  research?
• Pay attention to how you spend your money.
• What are your reporting requirements? What,
  where, when, how, and why?
• Keep your records accessible.
• You may have to submit financial status reports.
• When is your final report due and what need to be
  in it?

45
National Institute of Health Broad Review Criteria

• Significance
• ability of the project to improve health
• Approach
• feasibility of your methods and appropriateness
  of the budget
• Innovation
• originality of your approach
• Investigator
• training and experience of investigators
• Environment
• suitability of facilities and adequacy of support
  from your institution

46
Know These Review Problems and Solutions

• Problem They may not get the significance of
  your proposed research.
• Solution Write a compelling argument.
• Problem They may not be familiar with all your
  methods.
• Solution Write to the nonexpert in the field.

47
Know These Review Problems and Solutions

• Problem They may not be familiar with your lab.
• Solution Show them you can do the job.
• Problem They may get worn out by having to read
  10 to 15 applications in detail.
• Solution Write clearly and concisely, and make
  sure your application is neat, well organized,
  and visually appealing.

48
More Common Problems Cited by Peer Reviewers

• Problem not important enough.
• Study not likely to produce useful information.
• Studies based on a shaky hypothesis or data.
• Alternative hypotheses not considered.
• Methods unsuited to the objective.
• Problem more complex than investigator appears to
  realize.

49
More Common Problems Cited by Peer Reviewers

• Not significant to health-related research.
• Too little detail in the research plan to
  convince reviewers the investigator knows what he
  or she is doing, i.e., no recognition of
  potential problems and pitfalls.
• Issue is scientifically premature.
• Over-ambitious research plan with an
  unrealistically large amount of work.

50
More Common Problems Cited by Peer Reviewers

• Direction or sense of priority not clearly
  defined, i.e., experiments do not follow from one
  another and lack a clear starting or finishing
  point.
• Lack of focus in hypotheses, aims, and or
  research plan.
• Lack of original or new ideas.
• Investigator too inexperienced with the proposed
  techniques.

51
More Common Problems Cited by Peer Reviewers

• Proposed project a fishing expedition lacking
  solid scientific basis, i.e., no basic scientific
  question being addressed.
• Proposal driven by technology, i.e., a method in
  search of a problem.
• Rationale for experiments not provided, i.e., why
  they are important or how they are relevant to
  the hypothesis.

52
More Common Problems Cited by Peer Reviewers

• Experiments too dependent on success of an
  initial proposed experiment. Lack of alternative
  methods in case the primary approach does not
  work out.
• Proposed model system not appropriate to address
  the proposed questions.
• Relevant controls not included.

53
More Common Problems Cited by Peer Reviewers

• Proposal lacking enough preliminary data or
  preliminary data do not support project's
  feasibility.
• Insufficient consideration of statistical needs.
• Not clear which data were obtained by the
  investigator and which reported by others.

54
Common Fixable Problems

• Problem Poor writing.
• Solution Rewrite, get help.
• Problem Insufficient information, experimental
  details, or preliminary data.
• Solution Assess what's missing add it to the
  research plan.
• Problem Significance not convincingly stated.
• Solution Beef up that section show importance
  to funding source mission, public health.

55
Common Fixable Problems

• Problem Research not shown to be feasible by the
  proposed staff.
• Solution Get consultants with the required
  expertise.
• Problem Insufficient discussion of obstacles and
  alternatives approaches.
• Solution Write what you'll do if you get
  negative results or an approach doesn't pan out
  include decision trees.
• Problem Reviewers are not interested in the
  subject.
• Solution They are not the proper peers request
  a different review group.

56
Not Fixable or More Difficult Problems

• Philosophical issues, e.g., the reviewers do not
  believe the work is important (assuming they are
  qualified to make that decision).
• Hypothesis is not sound or not supported by data
  presented.
• Work has already been done.
• Methods proposed were not suitable for testing
  the hypothesis.

57
If Problems Are Fixable, You Have Several Options

• Revise the application and resubmit it to the
  same study section.
• Revise the application and resubmit it to a
  different study section.
• Create a "new" application out of the original
  one and request a new study section.
• Create a truly new application.

58
The End