How to Write Grant Proposals That Get Results

My friend Mike is head of a county Workforce Development Board, a business-led planning and oversight body created by the federal Workforce Investment Act. This legislation — now known as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act — is amended from time to time, and local Workforce Boards are then required to update any existing requests for proposals to reflect the changes.

Even with the help of experienced board members, reformulating an RFP is not one of my friend’s favorite activities. But when he finished his most recent job, Mike was quite pleased with the outcome. He told me, “We crafted an RFP so functional that it deserves nomination for the RFP Hall of Fame!”

Or so he thought until the proposals flooded in. Countless applications either did not meet the criteria or were off target of the intention. It seemed like the drawing board was howling for a do-over. But is it possible to improve on perfection? Mike asked me to review his RFP’s latest iteration. From my perspective, it had good bones. The document:

• succinctly stated the history and mission of the funding body.
• clearly explained the intent of the competition and funding priorities.
• outlined applicant eligibility.
• listed award sizes (floor and ceiling) in words and numbers.
• stated the number of awards to be made in unmistakable terms.
• required a problem statement/demonstration of need, project description, management plan, and logic model (with word counts noted).
• highlighted budget items that were prohibited (no operating funds).
• stressed no-nonsense deadlines in boldface.

So, what went wrong? The grant proposals Mike received were written by human beings.

“There is no truth. There is only perception.”

As an evaluator, I’d seen it all before ...

A small nonprofit in Pennsylvania with a mission to rescue and repurpose perishable food applied for and failed to receive funding from a number of sources. The group turned these denied applications over to me for analysis:

• One grant maker — whose traditional awards ranged from $1,000 to $2,500 — refused the nonprofit’s request for $18,000.
• Another funder, which supported discrete, time-limited programs, rejected the group’s proposal to “expand the organization with additional staff and interns, acquire another 10 sustainable food donors, and coordinate 50 food drives.”
• A foundation with a focus on cultural diversity, civic leadership, and citizen education turned down the charity’s request for “$10,000 or some portion thereof to fund a staff member for one year to onboard potential new donors, track opportunities, and measure outcomes.”

The diagnoses: In the first case, the organization ignored the award ceiling. The second instance shows a misjudgment of project scope and duration. The third demonstrates a faulty self-interpretation of the nonprofit’s own nature.

The Highmark Foundation’s Challenge for Healthier Schools grant program required all applicants to address one or more of the following: student nutrition education, physical education curricula or evidence-based programs, implementation of wellness policies relating to nutrition services, professional development relating to nutrition services, or physical and health education. A school nurse proposed purchasing defibrillation equipment and training staff and students to use it. The proposal was not on target. The reason: The concept was fine but lacked any real link to nutrition or physical or health education. The nurse had focused on a subject relevant to her own departmental needs.

A special-education teacher targeted a Community Development Block Grant as his resource to fund the upgrade of a playground used during lunch and after-school hours by students with disabilities. Why? Because CDBG grants can be used to assist schools in achieving ADA compliance. The result: rejection. The reason: The school was leasing its facilities from a Catholic church. A school cannot upgrade, remediate, or otherwise expend funds on facilities it doesn’t own (or have permission from the landlord to alter).

Such myopia is common to many nonprofits pursuing grant support: The applicants perceive that the funding opportunity a grant presents in its RFP fits their need despite evidence to the contrary. This perception is highly dependent on who is doing the looking. Smaller nonprofits and K-12 school districts rarely have a dedicated grant writer on staff. Most of their grant seeking and writing are done by department heads, administrators, teachers, school psychologists, committee members, or other volunteers. Professional consultants get the occasional crack at it.

“You get what you need.”

Grant applicants often skew their presentation of the local problem/need. To some, the simple absence of a thing creates the need for it. But lack is not need. In household terms: You live in a condo with hardwood floors — no carpeting. Do you need a vacuum cleaner? In welfare terms: Having insufficient staff to address teen pregnancy does not create the need to address the issue — pregnant teenagers create the need for a programmatic response. One novice grant writer, responding to the question of why her agency provided services in its region, wrote: “Because we live here.” The funder, of course, wanted an environmental analysis related to the funding focuses.

Which brings us to the flip side of the problem/need coin: What is the grant applicant not telling the funder? Whether through ignorance or intentional omission, applicants often fail to identify existing resources and/or other players in their field. Some statistics (e.g., socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities), although minor, may be overtly showcased. Then there is the ebullient edifier who identifies gaps in services that are outside the scope of his or her organization’s mission.

“How do you do what you do ...”

With the problem/need statement clarifying (or not) the why of the request, the project description/management plan calls for the who, what, when, and where of things. It is helpful, if not downright lifesaving, if this chapter of an RFP is spliced into selection criteria. For example, it could have separate sections (with score points noted) that identify the basic nature of the program, population served, lead organization and partners if any, name and qualifications of the project coordinator, and staff required to get the job done. Selection criteria help applicants to keep their responses focused.

That said, if the applicant is proposing a new program or service, the grant competition could be his or her first opportunity to frame its structure. Novelty can be nebulous. At first draft, the scope of the program may outweigh its delivery mechanism, partner agencies can appear unequal to assigned tasks, under- or overqualified staff may be indicated, the number of people to benefit could dwarf the funding amount (a $2,500 award targeted to 1,000 students = $2.50 per person. Not useful ...).

The “Logic Model” (aka “Activities and Timeline Chart”) distills the project description into a bullet format — daunting even for the most experienced grant writers. To set an overarching goal is to make a statement of outcome. In simple terms: I will lose weight. Objectives are strategies used to achieve that outcome: Objective 1: Eat less. Objective 2: Exercise more. But good objectives are stated in measurable terms: Eat less by cutting 500 calories per day; exercise three times per week. This kind of measurement, whether using a number, percentage, or time frame is far more challenging when detailing an expansive program or complex service.

To find surprises in the budget is also unsurprising to evaluators. Questionable items often include unrelated travel, equipment purchases, vehicle maintenance costs, and salaries for staff not mentioned in the narrative. Why such mismatches? This can happen when Person A prepares the narrative portion of the application and Person B prepares the budget. If separate individuals or groups do the writing and budgeting chores, the result will resemble what would happen if one person planned a dinner party and someone else did the food shopping for it … without a list. Errors are inevitable.

“What ye sow ...”

Where consistency may be lacking in a grant proposal, it must be present and undeniable in an evaluation process. Proposal reviewers often accomplish this by creating and adhering to an evaluation rubric, which virtually eliminates personal bias.

I advised the Workforce Development Board that the anatomy of its RFP was just fine. The responses it received had simply been filtered through unique perspectives. Grant makers, on the whole, must also remember this: When you expect a po-tay-to and get a po-tah-to, it’s still a vegetable. If you cannot make an award, you can still cultivate an applicant. Grant makers are, after all, offering grant funds, not a Ph.D. in literature.

Members of the unfunded club must remember this: There is always a next time.