Focus On: Grants

“You only get one chance to make a first impression.” It’s important to remember that when you submit a grant proposal.

The proposal frequently is an agency’s first contact with a potential funder, so a lot rides on your written request. We’ve identified 10 common flaws found in proposals. Eliminate them, and your grant applications will be more competitive.

1. Doesn’t match funder’s priorities. This sounds so obvious, and yet many proposals are fatally flawed from the get-go because they don’t meet the funder’s specific grantmaking priorities. Applicants either fail to read the funder’s guidelines or ignore them. Some justify their submission by reasoning that “more submissions are better” or, “They should fund our cause.”

But it’s more strategic and much more effective to submit proposals only to those funders most likely to support your program. Further, it’s essential that you show, not just tell, the grantmaker why your request is a strong fit with its funding priorities. In other words: Don’t just “parrot back” the funder’s guidelines.

2. No logical order. The problem with a disorganized proposal is that it could cause the grantmaker to think that the applicant agency is equally disorganized.

Disorganized proposals tend to be overly long because they repeat information. Therefore, your proposal narrative must follow a logical sequence, from A to B to C, so to speak. If the funder has given you an outline or a list of questions, follow its format to the letter. That’s the order the funder is expecting.

In the absence of clear directives, follow the standard format that has a near universal following in the grantmaking field: summary, history/mission, needs or problem statement, objectives/outcomes, methods, evaluation, future funding and conclusion.

3. It does not demonstrate the need. Without a documented need that your program is addressing, there’s no justifiable reason for seeking grant funding. Yet all too frequently, applicants fail to fully describe the need, usually because they assume the funder already knows what that need is.

That probably is true: A grantmaker funding a particular area probably has a staff that is knowledgeable about the trends and challenges in that field. What the funder wants to see is that your agency also is aware of those trends and challenges, that you are familiar with the field’s current landscape, and that you know which other agencies are doing similar work. This “needs” section in your proposal is where it’s most appropriate to quote authorities and cite supporting statistics. Statistics that will bolster your case for support are those that are relevant and recent.

4. Too many statistics. When including statistics, keep in mind that less is more. Rather than impressing the reader, proposals that are chock-full of numbers, charts and data can have the opposite effect. Too many statistics can dilute the impact of data that is truly important and compelling.

Use local statistics for local programs. Use statewide or national statistics only for their comparative value.

5. Too many client stories and/or testimonials. Writing a proposal is a delicate operation that must balance factual content with emotional appeal. Proposals are not dissertations, nor are they appeal letters. Use one or two client stories and/or testimonials, only if they are the best way to illustrate your case and you know the funder is likely to respond favorably to them.

As a sweeping generality, it’s more likely that large, institutional grantmakers fund with their heads and prefer “just the facts,” while small, family foundations follow their hearts and welcome an illustrative story or two.

6. Poor objectives and/or evaluation. Too often, proposals don’t tell the reader what the program intends to accomplish, but rather they focus on what the program will do. There’s a critical distinction between objectives/outcomes and methods. Strong objectives indicate the desired level of change (e.g., “a 15 percent increase in the number of people securing stable employment within one year of graduation from our job training program”), while strong evaluation measures the change (e.g., follow-up mailed questionnaires and phone survey of each graduate). The method simply is the path you’ll take to implement change (e.g., a job training program). Make sure you fully describe each element in your proposal.

7. A “bad budget.” Funders pay lots of attention to your accompanying budget. Budget flaws can sink your proposal. First, the figures in your budget must be consistent with the numbers in your proposal narrative. Second, those figures must add up correctly! Third, a real budget shows expected income as well as expenses. Finally, use budget notes or a budget narrative to explain formulas used and also large, otherwise unexplained line items.

For example, it’s unwise for a “miscellaneous” line item to equal, say, 30 percent of the budget total, unless you include a thorough explanation as to what’s included in that “miscellaneous” category. As a general guideline, think about including an explanatory note when any single line item equals or exceeds 5 percent of the budget total.

8. Written by committee. There are two problems with proposals written by committee. First, since each of us has a distinct “voice” when writing, proposals written by multiple writers often have a Frankenstein feel about them — you can practically see the stitches connecting the various sections. Funders indicate that this alone is not fatal. But the second problem is. Proposals written by committee (a common experience in collaborations) are at risk for inconsistencies among their different sections. Sometimes one wonders if the writers are even talking about the same program. To eliminate this flaw, choose your very best writer to assemble and edit the final document.

9. Overblown, florid language. Adjectives and adverbs are effective communicators, but work best when used sparingly. Proposals littered with too many superlatives can plant doubt in the reader’s mind about the agency’s credibility.

Also, stating that your agency’s work is “unique” and/or “innovative” does not make it so. As with “fit,” proposals must demonstrate their program’s “uniqueness” and “innovation.” Therefore, be selective and choose only the best words to present your case.

10. Vague, abstract, pontificating language. Why use a $1 word when a 50-cent one will do? Usually, it’s because you want to sound intelligent and knowledgeable to the funder. However, when you adopt an overly intellectual writing style, your requests end up sounding vague and abstract. The reader won’t have a clear idea of what your agency plans to accomplish. You can fix this by using language that is specific, not general; concrete, not abstract.

We’re not sure the “perfect grant proposal” has been written, yet. But we are sure of one thing: It’s highly unlikely that it will be achieved on the very first draft. The best writing always is the result of good editing, polishing and rewriting. Use the tips described above to transform your first drafts into real winners.

Cheryl A. Clarke and Susan P. Fox are fundraising consultants and trainers.