Good, Better, Best: Three Tips for Transforming a Mediocre Grant Proposal into a Great One
January 01, 2023
Like many of you, we’ve worked on grant proposals that have not come together easily, and the final product feels mediocre at best. Despite their weaknesses, sometimes the proposals still get funded, but that’s the exception, not the rule.
Is there a way to avoid the risk of submitting a weak proposal that has little chance of getting funded?
After seeing a few proposal turnarounds, where mediocre proposals have been transformed into much stronger ones, we’ve found three steps that can work wonders. These three steps, while distinct, are interconnected in that they all relate to refining your message at different stages of the proposal process. They can be summarized as (1) making a clear case for the need for your project, (2) getting specific about how the work will be done, and (3) using plain language (e.g., avoiding jargon).
MAKING A CASE FOR YOUR PROJECT
A big part of any grant proposal comes down to making a case that your proposed project will help address one of the funder’s priorities, whether that is solving a problem, providing a service, or advancing a field of study.
If the proposal fails to connect the dots between the funder’s priorities and the proposed project, the proposal can come across as flat because it doesn’t answer the larger questions of why this specific project should be funded.
Sometimes organizations attempt to speak to the funder’s interests by inserting lines such as “our proposal directly relates to the funder’s interests in XYZ.” However, this is telling the funder that your proposed project fits within their interests. To be persuasive, you need to show the funder how your project addresses their priorities and broader interests. It’s the funder’s job to determine whether your proposed project fits within their areas of interest and would be a good investment of their money. As the applicant, it is your job to show the funder that your organization understands the central issues, possesses the knowledge and resources to carry out the project, and has the resources to measure the project’s progress and results (i.e., can communicate to the funder the outcome of their investment).
Making a strong case for your proposed project does not mean emphasizing your organization’s need for funding. We see this come up frequently. Telling the funder that you are doing much-needed work and are in dire need of money to realize your goals is not compelling. All organizations need money. What makes a proposal compelling is its ability to demonstrate an understanding of the issues and present a convincing solution. If you view grant proposals primarily as a way to request money to do what your organization has already decided it wants to do, your mindset is more aligned with requesting cash donations from individuals than submitting a proposal to a formal entity like a foundation or government agency.
To shift your perspective from “grants are a way to request money to fund what we want to do” to “grants represent a negotiated agreement between the funder and our organization to perform a project of mutual benefit and interest,” it can help to think of the grant process from the funder’s perspective. When a funder awards a grant to your organization, it is investing in your organization, and that investment usually comes with expectations regarding how the money will be used. The funder is expecting certain things to be done and certain results to be achieved as a result of their investment. So beyond explaining the issue that needs to be addressed and your organization’s capabilities, you also need to convince the funder why investing in your organization and proposed solution makes sense over other solutions proposed by other applicants.
An oft-repeated phrase in the proposal world is “benefits before features.” When you are trying to make a case for the funder to invest in your organization, it’s useful to keep this mantra in mind. To implement the “benefits before features” approach, you must show the funder the transformative benefits of your program before revealing the details of the solution you are offering. A description of benefits can elicit an emotional response in a way that a list of features rarely does, and that emotional response can encourage the funder to view your proposal favorably.
An example of using benefits before features is illustrated by a current fundraising campaign launched by Uber. The campaign is raising money to purchase ambulances for Ukraine. Uber’s donation request does not focus on the particular make and model of ambulances to be purchased with the donations (the features) but instead focuses on stories of how access to transportation in time of need can save lives (the benefits).
GETTING SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU WILL DO
Almost all proposals that don’t score well have one thing in common: They are too general. It is important to give the funder a broad vision of how your project could be transformative and solve a particular problem. Although you want to give them that vision early in the proposal, after you have provided a broad view of where you are heading and the transformation your project will achieve, you need to tell the funder in as much detail as possible how you are going to get there. Additionally, you should be prepared to offer the funder evidence that your proposed approach will work in the form of peer-reviewed research or results from past projects conducted by your organization or others.
As an analogy, a proposal is like an itinerary for a trip or cross-country move. Let’s say you have chosen your destination and can articulate why you are excited about this place and the benefits you anticipate experiencing after you arrive, which could be relaxation if it is a vacation or improved career satisfaction if you’re moving for a job. However, the trip may not happen unless you also have a detailed plan that includes your timeline for leaving, the transportation you’ll use to get there, and a designated place to stay. A proposal has similar requirements. If you don’t communicate a plan for how you will launch and manage your project, funders may be hesitant to invest in your project, regardless of whether they are generally supportive of your project idea. You must convince the funder that you have everything lined up: the transformative vision plus the capacity and capability to implement the project and achieve the promised results.
What’s too general, and what’s enough detail? There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. That said, there are a few things you can add to your proposal that will ensure you’re giving the funder a clear idea of how the project will unfold.
Project Timeline
The first thing we suggest adding to your proposal is a project timeline, even if the funder has not explicitly asked for one. A basic timeline appears below. Although it is less detailed than most project timelines need to be, it should give you an idea of how you can create a timeline to reflect the length of your proposed project and its specific milestones.
Project milestones can include everything from logistical activities like hiring personnel, purchasing equipment, and renting office space to curriculum development, administering training sessions, and conducting an end-of-project evaluation. Unless the funder requires activities to be broken out by month, it may be adequate to depict activities and milestones by quarters.
Example timeline
Logic Model
Another tool that you can use (and is frequently required by funders) is a logic model. A logic model is a way to show the relationship between project resources, proposed activities, outcomes, and the impact you hope to achieve.
A logic model is useful for the planning phase (which the proposal is part of) as well as the evaluation phase. A simple logic model might look something like this table:
Structure for basic logic model
The resources are essentially the assets your organization can contribute to the project and include things like personnel, financial resources, or expertise.
The activities section describes the interventions you will undertake, such as holding events, conducting training sessions, or creating a tool. For example, an activity might be to train students to serve as peer counselors.
The results are captured in the following three sections of the table under outputs, outcomes, and impact. Outputs represent the immediate results or products from the intervention, which might be “12 students trained per semester to serve as peer counselors.” Often the output is a concrete deliverable like a printed curriculum or a finalized survey instrument.
The outcomes piece represents what happens or is achieved as a result of the intervention. Depending on how detailed you want to be, outcomes can be broken down into short, intermediate, or long-term outcomes. Outcomes might be phrased as an increase in knowledge in a specific area or a decrease in the occurrence of a specific event. Returning to our peer counseling example, an outcome of a peer counseling program might be an “increased understanding of suicide risk among teens.”
The impact section is meant to address the larger changes that result from the intervention. For example, a peer counseling program at a school could be projected to lead to a reduction in suicides and fewer mental health crises within the student population. Because impacts are the ultimate result of the intervention, they may not be realized until after the program ends. For this reason, impacts are not always included in a proposal’s logic model. For the proposal stage, it’s most important to share what will occur during the proposed project period, which includes outlining what you are going to do (activities), how you will do it (resources), and the results of the activities (outputs), and the changes or effects that will be produced by the end of the project (outcomes).
Organizational Chart
Organizational charts are a way to demonstrate to the funder that you have the correct staff roles and personnel lined up to implement your project and a vision for how the project will be managed. Like project timelines and logic models, funders sometimes require you to include an organizational chart. More frequently, funders will request that you list the project personnel and their qualifications as part of the proposal’s management and staffing section. However, that serves a different purpose than an organizational chart and is best done in table format. An organizational chart depicts lines of communication and relationships between people and departments, including reporting structures. An organizational chart is also very useful for showing how a partnership will work if the project involves several organizations.
Organizational charts are harder to create than you might expect. You have to think about the relationships between people, departments, and organizations. And you need to devise a structure for depicting those relationships that is clear, easy to grasp, and complements—and does not conflict with—information found elsewhere in the proposal.
PowerPoint is often the design tool of choice for organizational charts because it is widely used, and most people working on a proposal team will be familiar with it. That’s its major advantage. A second advantage is that, as long as you save the original PowerPoint (not just the image), you can go back and revise it as needed. The downside of PowerPoint is that if you use one of the SmartArt hierarchical designs, the result can be an organizational chart that might be too generic that does not accurately reflect how people in your project will actually be managed or work together. So, while you may want to start with a SmartArt design just so you’re not facing a blank page, take the time to tailor the design.
For ideas on creating an organizational chart, please see our post Tips for Creating an Organizational Chart for a Grant Proposal.
USING PLAIN LANGUAGE
A final suggestion if you are faced with a proposal that isn’t reading well or seems lackluster is to go through it carefully to eliminate or reduce jargon, platitudes, and clichés. If a proposal is full of empty phrases and jargon, it won’t be as engaging, and the reviewer will have greater difficulty identifying and understanding the core ideas.
Adopting the principles of plain language can help you write more clearly. There are several resources to learn about plain language concepts. One resource we recommend and find very helpful (probably because it is written in plain English!) is the U.S. government website on plain language, which you can access at https://www.plainlanguage.gov/. The general idea behind plain language is that you should use language that is easy to understand and follow. Plain language incorporates techniques such as descriptive headers, bulleted lists, active voice, and short sentences.
When you are immersed in your field of work or study, you also become immersed in terminology that is commonly used in your field. While you may use these terms every day, they may not be widely used outside your field or even, sometimes, consistently used within it. In your everyday communications, this lack of understanding or agreement on terminology may not be a big deal because you can have follow-up communication with your intended audience to provide additional information. With grant proposals, you generally don’t get that second chance. If the funder or the funders’ designated review panel can’t figure out what you are trying to say, there’s a high risk that your proposal will not be funded. Because it can be difficult to spot jargon when it involves language that you use every day, when it’s feasible to do so, it’s recommended to have a professional editor review your proposals. Things you think are self-explanatory may not be to most people. The editor can help spot areas needing additional explanation or places where industry-specific terminology should be substituted with more commonplace language.
Another reason to adopt plain language in your proposal is that whoever evaluates your proposal on behalf of the funder may not be an expert in your area of work. Some funders explicitly caution applicants about this, advising them that proposal narratives should be written for a panel of well-educated individuals who may have broad knowledge about a given field but who are not subject-matter experts.
Additionally, writing clearly and concisely means writing only as much as is necessary to communicate your message effectively. If a proposal has a 10-page limit, but you can communicate everything you need to in 9, don’t try to add text to bulk things up to reach the tenth page. Interpret page limits as the outer limits of how long your proposal can be, not how long your proposal should be. Despite rumors to the contrary that you may have heard, you are not “wasting space” by turning in a proposal that is shorter than the page limits allow. If you’ve prepared a comprehensive and compliant proposal and ended up with a document that comes in under the page limits, you’ve used the allotted space efficiently. Reviewers do not want to read more than they have to and appreciate a concise document.
When you apply plain language to your proposal and strip it down to its essentials, you may be surprised to find how little content with true substance remains. Although this can be discouraging, this exercise typically produces a stronger proposal.
CONCLUSION
If you are working on a proposal that is floundering, unclear, or unconvincing, try one or all of these three suggested tips to revive your document: (1) make a clear case for why your project is worth funding, focusing on its benefits and demonstrating a fit with the funder’s stated priorities; (2) be specific about what you are going to do and how you are going to do it, using tools like a timeline, logic models, and organizational charts; and (3) write in plain language that is free of jargon and organized to facilitate comprehension.
Depending on the funding opportunity, you may be required to incorporate a project timeline, logic model, or organizational chart. However, even if the funder doesn’t request them, include them anyway. Together, they can make your proposal read better and demonstrate to the funder that you have a concrete idea of what you want to do, how you plan to do it, who will do it, what you’ll achieve, and how your work will be monitored and evaluated for success. Lastly, using plain language in proposals will help ensure that the funder understands your proposed project and can judge it on its merits.
