Writing The Grant Narrative – The Basics

Grant writing is part science, part art. While most people prefer dental surgery to grant writing, the process is fairly painless if you follow a few of the simple steps discussed in this article. While this article focuses on federal grant applications, the same process can apply to state, foundation, corporate or other types of response.
The most important thing any organization can do is to examine funding with a critical eye. Far too often, people salivate at the larger dollars often available in a federal grant and blindly chase the money. While such an approach is understandable, especially in these challenging times, it is the completely wrong strategy. Chasing money that does not fit the mission of your organization has at least two problems. First, you are unlikely to win the grant because the application will read as if you are chasing the money. Second, even if the organization wins the money, it will have to execute a project that is outside the mission and scope of the group. This type of exercise can lead to a loss of credibility. In extreme cases, it can lead to unfortunate consequences with the federal government. (Picture a federal auditor at your door or a negative article in a local newspaper).
Once an RFP is determined to be a good fit, you have gathered your data, and have your partners in place, the writing process begins. The RFP often provides an exact guide as to the preparation of an application. They are typically so detailed as to specify page, spacing, font, and margin requirements. Not following these directions will means that the application will be deemed non-responsive and eliminated from the competition. A recent tweet from Proposal Caf highlights this sentiment… “If your proposal is to lose, lose because it didn’t offer the best product/service, not because you didn’t follow the RFP instruction(@proposal cafe- February 1, 2011). A fair percentage of applications in each competition are deemed unresponsive and thus never read. The scoring criteria also serve as a proposal outline. All of the questions, sub questions, and points assigned each section are usually listed in this area of the RFP. It is useful to cut and paste this information into the grant narrative documents before the writing actually begins. One determines how many pages one should use for each section based on the number of points. For example, if 40 points of the application is based on the work plan, then a writer should allocate roughly 40% of available narrative. Grant reviewers usually receive a stack of applications that they must review in a very limited time based on a score sheet they are given. This score sheet usually tracks the scoring criteria. Organizing the narrative based on the scoring criteria thus allows the reviewer to quickly find your answer and assign points. In fact, when I write a grant, I typically leave the questions in there so that my internal review person (more on that later) can see that the question being answered. At the same time, it is very easy for the grant reviewer to find the answer to the question.
Making a grant application easy to review makes it easy for the reviewer to assign points. As someone with experience reviewing proposals, I was more generous to applications that made it easy for me to find the information. In all honesty, about half-way through the review process, if an application made me search for the relevant information, I simply stopped looking because I did not have the time (or the patience). Finally, it is important to note that federal grants especially fund programs not just things. It is difficult to get a grant for new computers. Funding is more likely if one asks for computers as part of a program that an organization has developed. The focus is on the program, the things make the program possible.
My 12 rules to good grant writing are listed below (I know it should be a top 10 list, but life is rarely that simple). There are a variety of subsets to these rules but I will stick with the basics here. The next article will deal with issues such goals and objectives, evaluation and budgeting.
1. Good Writing is Good Writing: I am truly getting old. I say that because I often appalled at what passes for quality writing today. All those things your junior high and high school English teachers stressed actually matter. This is not a tweet or a text message. A poorly written application tells a reviewer that this application is not an organizational priority. Take your time and make sure your application is written in plain, properly punctuated English.
2. Simpler is better: Grant applications are an opportunity to show the mastery an organization has of the subject matter. It is not an opportunity for the grant writer to highlight his or her intelligence. This is a not a college research project; it is a documented story. A good grant application is written in the active voice with a simple sentence structure (subject, verb, object). Yes, I know it is boring to read a 20 page document written only with this kind of sentence. However, such an approach should serve as a default mechanism.
3.The funder knows nothing about your organization: At the federal level, organizations often have limited or no relationships with the funding organization. The grant writer must ensure that the application provides information that makes the reader feel they have a good grip on your organization. Even when organizations have an established relationship with the program officer or other agency personnel, there is no guarantee that they will be the first reader. I have personally seen applications die at the preliminary stage even when the agency was interested in the application. Federal agencies (and large foundations) are complex organizations with lots of moving parts.