On Grant Proposals and Human Empathy
With their rigorous guidelines, onerous instructions, and rapid turnaround times, government Requests for Proposals (RFPs) inspire dread among even the most stalwart nonprofit staffers. That's understandable given the countless hoops you have to jump through to get the application out the door.
But if you think writing a 40-page government grant application and assembling another 100 pages worth of detailed attachments is a drag, imagine having to evaluate a dozen of them. That's the unhappy fate of proposal reviewers—the folks who hold your program's fate in their hands.
Often, these anonymous individuals are the last thing on our minds as we struggle to achieve the Herculean task of getting the proposal written, assembled, photocopied, and off to FEDEX on time. That's unfortunate, because the happier you make your readers, the better your chances of getting a fair reading and a funded proposal.
Here's some advice for creating proposals that will keep reviewers awake, interested, and on your side. These ideas apply whether you're responding to a government RFP or writing a grant proposal for a corporate or foundation funder.
Practice Empathy. Imagine that you've just been handed a mountain of funding proposals to review over a few short days. Will you favor those proposals with convoluted answers, repetitive phrasing, typos, and confusing inconsistencies? Or will you champion those with clearly written language presented neatly on the page? The answer is obvious. Empathize with your audience and write every word of your proposal with that audience in mind.
Engage in Reality-based Grantwriting. Like you, the people who will review your application are busy and don't have time to waste. Don't make your readers hunt for answers to the RFP's questions or scratch their heads wondering how one idea relates to another. Connect the dots for your readers and religiously follow the guidelines for numbering, lettering, and titling the subsections.
Answer the Question Being Asked. It's surprisingly easy to veer off track when answering dozens of RFP questions (including multi-part questions). To stay on target, begin each answer by incorporating the question itself. Once you've responded fully to the question, you can add any additional information you think it strategically important to include. After finishing the first draft of your application, go back and systematically re-read all the questions—and your answers—to make sure each response is on point and represents your program in the best possible light.
Keep it Simple. With boldface, italics, underlining, and a galaxy of fonts just a mouse click away, the temptation to overuse these tools is great. Don't succumb. Select one easy-to-read font for the entire document. Use boldface, underlined, and italic formats for headings and subheadings only. Minimize the use of bold, italic and underlined text within the narrative itself; overusing these tools creates a visual "mish-mash" in which your message gets lost.
Don't Get Your Footnotes Muddy. If your application includes footnotes, provide the full citation for every footnote, avoiding the use of "ibid" and "op cit." Here's why: If, during the editing process, you remove certain footnotes from your document, you might accidentally delete the "lead" footnote and lose track of where the remaining citations came from.
Spell it Out. Not everyone will know what you mean when you write:
Our CBO got RW funding through SCSS to deliver CM services at the following sites: PK, STC, and MP, Inc.
A sentence like this will frustrate a reader who isn't schooled in the many abbreviations that seem like second nature to you. While certain acronyms (like HIV/AIDS) are now so commonly recognized that they don't need to be spelled out, most should be defined the first time they appear in your document. To maximize clarity and minimize aggravation, here's how our acronym-packed sentence should have been handled:
Our community-based organization (CBO) got Ryan White (RW) funding through Sullivan County Social Services (SCSS) to deliver case management (CM) services at the following sites: Promises Kept (PK), Services That Count (STC), and Maximized Potential, Inc. (MP, Inc.).
Yes, that's a lot more words, but it's a direct investment in your proposal being understood by the persons assigned to rate your application. After defining an acronym the first time, you can use just the acronym from there on in.
The overarching message here is clear: Show empathy for your fellow human being, for there is indeed a thinking, feeling person at the other end of your funding proposal. Every sentence in your application is a communiqué to a stranger—a chance to inspire interest in your proposed endeavor and belief in the value of your project. Don't waste this golden opportunity by neglecting the most important ingredient of your application's success—your audience.