Webmaster
By: Ralph Nelsen
Some folks think the fall and early winter as being the Holiday
Season but those in the grant-seeking business
refer to it more often as the Writing Season.
From October through March, federal grant deadlines arrive,
especially those for the majority of the U.S. Department of
Education's grant programs. This gives new meanings to the fall
and winter holidays. (Halloween trick
= getting out three proposals between the program announcement
and application due date; Thanksgiving Blessing
= invention of computers; Christmas Wish
= hoping Santa will bring an expanded grammar check software
program; New Year's Resolution=
promising to get a "real" job next year.)
Since Writing Season is just ahead
and, also, since CEC regularly receives
requests for assistance from individuals and agencies interested
in applying for federal grants, we are devoting part of our CEC
web site to the subject of grants and how you might go about
getting them accepted for funding. We offer the following ideas
and suggestions (but no guarantees) to those setting out in
search of the elusive pot of gold.
Finding fortune (no pun intended) in the grants game is not
like the old Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movies where all you
had to do to be successful is to say, "Hey, gang, let's
put on a show!" Preparing a competitive funding
proposal is almost as tough as producing a successful Broadway
play. The federal funding scene in education is complex and
variable and, like the big business it is, calls for some pretty
sophisticated market analysis. To be rewarded with success, an
agency's search for funding can't be based on the
less-than-specific guesses of a teacher or administrator who
"knows" there has to be some outside money for his or
her good idea.
The first step in ANY successful grant application is to find
out where you can apply for what -- and this means research. CEC
makes research a priority function. We annually allocate money
for subscribing to publications that deal exclusively with grant
opportunity and also acknowledge that almost daily long distance
calls to Washington, DC are part of the overall proposal
development bill. And, providing time for a staff member,
generally me, to analyze publications and ask the right questions
of federal grant program officers is viewed as a critical
ingredient in the recipe for preparing successful funding
proposals.
Regularly reading through various funding publications -- such as those we
reference in the section entitled On-Line
and In-Print Resources -- will give you a very good idea of what
agencies are supporting what kinds of ideas and will even give you "inside
scoop" as to special priorities, levels of funding, and often even the
expected "odds" for any given proposal successfully making it through
the grant competition.
Note: Although this commentary deals with federal grant
opportunities, for many schools the best probable source would be
your State Department of Education and, for example, such funding
opportunities as the State Eisenhower
Mathematics and Science staff development
program. The feds annually give big bucks to state departments to
pass on to local districts for innovative staff development
projects. States hand out most "flow through"
Eisenhower grant monies on a "flat per-capita formula"
basis, but some funds are available for colleges and universities
on a competitive proposal basis (State Agency
for Higher Education program). This higher
education money must be spent on projects targeting local schools
and teachers. You should call your State
Department of Education or State
Agency for Higher Education to get details on
what funds are available, how the money is distributed, what
deadlines there may be, what priorities exist, etc.
Also, there is a "private side" to the grant business. Your local library should have a copy of a reference volume called Annual Register of Grant Support or one called Foundation Index These extensive works list private foundations and philanthropic organizations and give sketchy descriptions of funding interests and priorities. One caution, however: I have found the "private side" to be frustrating and, in the long run, not often worth my efforts. That's me, though, and you might find big success with such agencies as US West, K-Mart,Community Foundations, etc, etc, etc... or even a "biggie" like the Kellogg or Ford foundation. (Don't overlook your own community, either, because PTA groups will often fund a small project, as will Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Junior League, etc.
In the eyes of the unsuccessful applicant, grants always go to
someone else. Trying to figure out why some other person came
away with the goodies all too frequently leads the disappointed
proposal author to one of two thoroughly rationalized
conclusions: either: 1) some other applicant had an
"inside track"; or 2) it was a matter of bad
luck in drawing proposal reviewers who can't read or don't
understand what's really going on in the schools. "Therefore,"
asks the unsuccessful applicant, "What chance does a
newcomer have in the game of grantsmanship?"
This frustrated writer might well consider a third possibility
for rejection -- the proposal just wasn't good enough.
Contrary to some opinion, federal education grants -- such as National
Science Foundation, Fund for Improving Post-Secondary Education,
and Eisenhower awards -- are not
mysterious gifts given from on high. They come from public funds
appropriated by Congress to enable an institution or agency to
carry out an educational project or study of merit. The phrase
"of merit" suggests some genuine need. Federal dollars
generally find their way to institutions, school districts, and
project directors that have carefully developed a project
proposal built from substantiated need.
Accordingly, the needs-assessment part of the proposal process
is no mere embellishment. It ties a proposal to genuine
need and, thus, justifies its application.
For most federal grant competitions these days, "needs
assessment" should begin at the local level,
with an eye toward national goals, priorities, and standards.
Review, for example, Goals 2000 or the National
Science Education Standards and determine how they
might relate to the local scene. By calling or writing key people
(such as program officers at the national or regional offices of
the funding agency), the proposal writer can find out what these
priorities are. "National significance"
has become an almost automatic requirement for federal grant
success -- how much an applicant can reasonably relate the
proposed project to national priorities will be a cardinal point
to be weighed by the reviewers. The "local/national"
tie-in is legitimate as long as local needs are not distorted or
contrived to correlate with national ones.
Another caution involves the actual proposal preparation
process. Although it may sound like a good idea at first thought,
it is generally a mistake to have one person "do"
the whole process, from planning to final proposal.
(ONE PERSON, however, SHOULD DO ALL THE WRITING!)
The "one person does everything" proposal development approach too often turns out a proposal that is one-dimensional and too full of gaps to be persuasive. Even worse, if the proposal happens to be funded, the one person show is fated for difficulties later on because those who actually will implement the project may not have been involved in its planning. Entering the picture after the grant has been awarded, they will want to operate the project their way. It is better to have a TEAM work on the proposal, using many skills, ideas, and perspectives to round out the package. And it is always wise to involve the sponsoring institution's top-level administration -- for example, the district superintendent or School Board -- so that solid, informal support will be there when needed.
With the merit/need of the proposal established and the idea in mind that a team will work on specific development phases, the "proposal construction" process begins. At the outset you should order from the pertinent federal or state agency copies of the laws and regulations that govern the particular program under which the grant application will be made. The laws authorizing a grant program set forth general funding parameters but it is the grant regulations and proposal guidelines that are the heart of the whole matter, for they contain the bread-and-butter details -- who is eligible, how to apply, what is required under the program (for example, parent/ community representation, matching funds, etc.), what evaluation criteria will be applied, what deadlines need to be met, and whether any kinds of limitations have been stipulated. Without this information, a proposal team is working in the dark! Use the funding agency's guidelines and criteria as your "blueprint for action."
Note: The first step, in my opinion, is to write a four or five page Concept Statement which describes: 1) the needs you are addressing and what you want to do about them (objectives); 2) how you are going to go about reaching these objectives; 3) who is going to do the job and how much it will cost; and 4) how you will measure what you accomplish. Writing this up in just four or five pages forces you to clean up your foggy ideas and streamline your approach to writing a more extensive proposal. In the meantime, you can use the Concept Statement for "does this make sense to you" reality checks. If "outsiders" don't understand what you're saying or want to do, then no grant agency will, either.
Most veteran proposal writers know that an application begins
on solid ground if it has a full steering committee of
administrators, faculty, staff, and sometimes persons from
neighborhoods or communities. The committee decides what tasks
must be done, who will perform them, and what sort of timetable
can satisfy the proposal deadline. It may want to make some
changes in the original work breakdown. As goal-setters and
direction-finders, the committee members guide the proposal
through its formative stages. They also check out the different
parts of the proposal as they are completed by the writer: an
accurate needs-assessment study, the addressing of major
problems, some identification of alternatives, the specification
of priorities, and the overall logical coherence of the total
proposal package.
As mentioned above, a solid assessment of needs should be done
early in the planning stages. This involves much more than
warming over statistics or rehashing old problems. The assessment
should demonstrate a reasonable blend between the "perceived
needs" of faculty, students, and community and the
"objective needs" inferred from solid data. For
example, in order to establish sound, "fundable"
objectives, the proposal team must draw data from indicators such
as achievement levels, drop-out rates, number of students going
to high school or to post-secondary institutions, and attendance
rates -- whatever is relevant to the proposed activity.
If a proposal does not document underlying and stated needs, it fails to justify its existence. For proposal reviewers and evaluators, needs and objectives are the yardsticks for determining the degree to which an applicant understands and can document the current situation as well as how well he or she can translate it into a set of attainable and manageable goals and objectives.
Although the grant seeker's biggest resources are staff,
faculty, students, and representatives of the local community,
there may be occasions when seeking advice and assistance from
outside consultants at colleges or universities or even
consulting firms is wise. However, I believe it is unwise to
delegate the proposal writing itself to outside individuals or
groups because they generally lack the detailed grasp of a
situation or problem that produces a sound, "sparkling
with ownership" proposal based upon real needs. The
writing is best assigned to a staff member.
(This advice is from someone who HAS a laptop and does "hire out" as a grant consultant!)
Note: Not everyone can be or should be a proposal writer.
If you are not a VERY GOOD
writer, forget it! Be the planner, typist, copyreader, project
director -- anything, but not the writer! And, don't casually
assign the task of writing a proposal to someone already
overburdened by his/her regular job responsibilities-- a harried
vice principal or a multi-hatted department
head/teacher/coach/counselor/hall monitor. (Professional grant
writers eat up competition like that!)
Whoever writes your proposal should be given plenty of
time and support... maybe even a few weeks substitute time. IT
TAKES A COMMITMENT OF TIME, MONEY, AND OTHER RESOURCES TO PREPARE
AN APPLICATION THAT WILL BRING IN OUTSIDE DOLLARS.
No free lunch -- if you can't provide time and other support for one of your own people, then perhaps the next best thing is hire a knowledgeable consultant to do your proposal for you... but then you lose some of the "ownership" that comes with local people writing their own document.
There is much to be said for establishing "inside"
contacts with funding agencies. As public servants, officials and
staff persons within these agencies are expected to answer
requests for factual information. They are not expected to
provide comments about your specific program plans, but they can
and will clarify such details as program objectives, goals,
priorities, and budget questions.
Note: Agency personnel are, generally speaking, less than enthusiastic when it comes to dealing with "fishing expeditions" by grant seekers. Some speculators will throw out a line, of course, figuring that "We'll find the problems you want if you have the money." Such tactics are beyond the bounds of legitimate inquiry.
Some funding agencies offer preapplication workshops, mailouts, and other ways to clarify or interpret important items of information such as demographic data, recommended proposal length, estimated budget figures and scope, and rules about subcontracting. Applicants can inquire by letter or phone about these services.
One critical point that almost always separates a good
proposal from a mediocre one is how much time the team spent on
researching the subject. Many a proposal has lacked sound
background information because the necessary spade work was not
done. (Didn't you know that according to an article in last
September's Phi Delta Kappan,
your basic idea was successfully implemented in New Jersey last
year?)
Research should begin as soon as the program priorities are selected. The team researcher assigned to review the literature and select applicable research findings can do two good deeds: 1) he or she can arm the proposal writer with the facts; and 2) make facts available to those responsible for preliminary decisions on how the program will be set up when funded.
Once the proposal team has reviewed needs and cleared its recommendations, objectives, and budget considerations with the steering committee and pertinent information has been gathered, it is time to begin writing the proposal. While it's not recommended that one person take care of the proposal process from soup to nuts, it is wise to select one individual to write the proposal narrative. (And pick your best writer!) If parts are assigned piecemeal to a number of people, the end product is likely to be an untempered assortment of details and observations that lack unity and coherence -- remember the "horse/committee/camel" bromide. Again, having only one writer lets you avoid this pitfall. It is desirable that the person chosen to do your writing will have been involved with the project from the earliest planning stages.
The best proposals are written in clear, concise English and in straightforward style. Educational platitudes, excessive clauses and phrases, circumlocution, and obscure jargon are excess baggage. The writer has to resist the temptation to pad and, above all, he or she MUST USE THE GUIDELINES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA as an outline!
Note: When I review proposals for various granting agencies, I consider "pop" words and "ed-speak expressions" to be indications "fuzzy thinking" and "paucity of precise writing skills". For example:
"In order to maximize opportunities students and teachers, undertake a paradigm shift, seeking a systemic approach that allows each player to contribute his or her own unique piece and participate meaningfully in a collaborative endeavor focusing on reform challenges and opportunities."
When your first draft has been completed, the steering committee can review it and ask outside professionals (or non-professionals, as is sometimes even better) for their comments. The draft, following requirements for format and containing the application forms, should closely resemble the style of the final product.
While proposal formats vary, must include five essential points:
Most completed applications usually have three sections: 1) the various application forms; 2) the narrative, including the sub-parts mentioned above; and 3) and a budget that has been justified and related to the scope-of-work. Many an aspiring grantsman has missed the boat because of failure to understand or show in the proposal that each of these parts bears equal importance. If there is no logical and close relationship among the proposal's parts, its data, work tasks, and costs, and yet (somehow, defying all odds) the applicant is funded, some real problems can be anticipated during subsequent negotiations and later in the program period.
In the end, it often comes down to salesmanship that is based
on a sound (and attractively presented) product. If the proposal
team has paid attention to agency requirements, done all the
homework, and applied common sense, the proposal should stand on
its own merit.
Use a team approach in the proposal process rather than a one-person show.
Study pertinent guidelines and regulations drafted by the federal agency.
Consult the funding agency for information within
legitimate bounds and get to know its program staff.
Appoint a steering committee to oversee the
proposal project and to make up schedules and timetables for the
staff; and monitor their progress closely.
Assign tasks to staff members on the basis of
their skills, specialties, and willingness to cooperate.
Define needs clearly after a thorough appraisal of
the local picture; keep in mind the larger national scene.
Research the general topic in order to collect useful background data.
Involve professionals from the sponsoring institution and members of the community in the planning and development stages.
Ask outsiders to comment on the proposal's first
draft.
Select one person to write the proposal in clear
concise English without verbal padding or "Ed-speak."
Ensure that the total package addresses the key
proposal elements: justification, objectives, procedures,
evaluation, and budget.
Mail or hand carry the proposal to the funding office on time because a missed deadline means automatic rejection. (ALWAYS use certified mail and hang on to the receipt!)
Fortified with this checklist, the grantseeker can design a
good game plan for developing a proposal of substance and merit.
While these pointers cannot guarantee a successful proposal, they
can help take some of the guesswork out of grantsmanship.
OK, everyone together now, "Hey gang, let's put on a show!"