Grant Writing 101
“There is no grantsmanship that will
turn a bad idea into a good one, but
there are many ways to disguise a
good idea.” - Norm Braverman, NIH
What is a Grant?



A Grant is a conditional gift or a
conveyance of funds with strings attached.
No substantial involvement is anticipated
between the sponsor and the recipient.
The funding source identifies the problem
they want addressed, but no outcome is
known in advance.
The idea originates with the grantee.
Grant vs. Contract

Grant
• project conceived by
investigator
• agency supports or
assists
• performer defines
details and retains
scientific freedom
• agency maintains
oversight

Contract
• project conceived by
agency
• agency procures
service
• agency exercises
direction or control
• agency closely
monitors
Types of Grants








Research
Curriculum
Demonstration
Training
Equipment
Fellowships
Federal Laboratory Research
Grants for Young Investigator’s
Writing a good grant proposal
is not easy!
In academia, successful grantsmanship is
often a requirement for successful
scholarship, and scholarship plays the key role
in personal advancement in the academy.
Grant proposals are ultimately based on good ideas,
but good grant writing skills can be learned and
improved through practice and experience.
What keeps us from writing
grant proposals?
Fear of Rejection !!!
National Institutes of Health Funding Statistics (2007)
(for selected institutes)
# reviewed #awarded
2007
NIAAA
928
303
$79,607,144
32.7%
2007
NIA
2,812
675
$187,485,325
24.0%
2007
NIAID
6,390
1,472
$574,355,490
23.0%
2007
NIAMS
1,719
388
$100,821,073
22.6%
2007
NCCAM
712
107
$28,817,571
15.0%
2007
NCI
8,745
1,888
$659,904,799
21.6%
2007
NIDA
2,402
660
$202,755,120
27.5%
2007
NIDCD
1,056
377
$89,359,397
35.7%
2007
NIDCR
1,099
272
$78,045,843
24.7%
2007
NIDDK
4,421
1,090
$311,554,661
24.7%
2007
NIBIB
1,655
333
$94,579,744
20.1%
2007
NIEHS
1,257
283
$95,792,348
22.5%
2007
NEI
1,259
351
$115,889,018
27.9%
2007
NIGMS
4,972
1,678
$492,067,473
33.7%
2007
NICHD
3,500
848
$243,258,553
24.2%
2007
NHLBI
5,851
1,373
$567,286,362
23.5%
National Science Foundation Funding Statistics (2007)
# Submitted # Funded
Success
Av. Award/yr
NSF
2007
44,593 11,484
26%
$ 99,996
BIO
2007
6,726
1,303
19%
$122,075
CSE
2007
5,738
1,626
28%
$100,000
EHR
2007
4,249
904
21%
$134,023
ENG
2007
9,575
1,958
20%
$ 99,999
GEO
2007
4,373
1,347
31%
$109,896
MPS
2007
7,316
2,361
32%
$ 96,085
O/D
2007
1,109
449
40%
$ 20,000
OPP
2007
1,202
372
31%
$137,109
SBE
2007
4,291
1,150
27%
$ 52,482

Fear of Rejection vs Reality !!
• Reality - only one proposal in 5 is turned down because the
idea wasn’t good enough
• Reality - a rejected proposal is worth its weight in gold in
free advice
• Reality - the success rate is almost always higher for
proposals turned in a second time
• Reality - on a third submission, your proposal will either fly
(or you will be politely told not to come back!)
The grant writing process is
never wasted!




Can’t get a grant unless you write one
Professionally fulfilling
Requires you to focus your thoughts
Armed with reviewers comments the
second proposal is nearly always
stronger
Keys to Effective Grant
Writing


Quality of the idea and its appeal to the
funding source
Your ability to communicate clearly and
concisely
The most substantial part of any grant
application is some form of “case for
support”. It is this case which will persuade,
or fail to persuade, your potential funding
body of the value of your proposal.
Science relies on the Peer Review System for advice
Your case for support will, with luck, be read by
one or more experts in your field. But the program
manager, and most members of the panel that will
weigh your proposal against others, won’t be as
expert. You must, must, must write your proposal
for their benefit too.
One of the most valuable things you can do is ask lots of
people to help you improve your proposal. Give it to your
colleagues, your friends, your spouse, your dog, and listen to
what they have to say. If they don’t understand what you are
trying to get across, rewrite your proposal so it can’t be
misunderstood. If your dog doesn’t immediately see the value
of what you want to achieve, then rewrite it until he/she does
(or get a new dog).
Also, remember that program managers and
panel members see tens or hundreds of proposals
at a time, so you only have a few minutes or less
to grab your reader’s attention.
One of the most critical things you can do is to make sure
your Abstract (or Project Summary, in the case of NSF)
acts as a stand-alone guide to the entire proposal. You
should assume (and it’s probably a safe assumption) that
some readers will never get past the first page, or at
best will read the first page and then skim the text and
look at figures. So don’t fill up the Abstract with
boilerplate about the technical background and
methodology. Instead, present your case in clear and
concise language – what you want to do, why it’s
important, why you will succeed, and so on.
Writing a Grant Proposal is
Like Playing a Game
You have to Play by the Rules

GET the guidelines from the funding
agency you choose to submit to

READ the guidelines

FOLLOW the guidelines
Following the Guidelines





You must follow the guidelines
exactly.
Respond to all sections.
Adhere to any format restrictions.
Topics should be covered in the order
presented in the guidelines.
Use headings that correspond to the
guidelines.
Call the Program Officer!
85% of all successful grant seekers have
had contact with the program officer
Types of Grants

Letter of Intent
• 2-4 pages
• highlights what you want
to do and informs funding
agency that you intend to
submit – often get back
no response other than an
acknowledgement

Pre-proposal
• typically about 5 pages
• reviewed
• invited to submit full
proposal

Full Proposal
•
•
•
•
from 10-40 pages
forms
attachments
specific format
A Grant Proposal is not
an Idea
It is a Plan for
addressing that Idea
The Process






A good idea
A good institutional fit
Assemble a winning
team
Match the idea to a
funding source
Read the Guidelines
Read them again





Contact the sponsor
Plan in detail
Develop the budget
from the detailed plan
Read the guidelines
again with narrative in
mind
Be persistent –
ruthlessly revise and
resubmit if needed
Anticipate what reviewers will ask
General questions:
What is the central hypothesis?:
validity, clarity.
Is the question important and
novel?: potential impact
Are the specific aims logical and
feasible?: organization.
More questions reviewers will ask






Are the proposed experiments or
measurements feasible?
Are there compelling preliminary data?
Is there a predictable flow to the
proposal?
Are the investigators qualified?
Have they been productive with
previous support? (if applicable)
Are the facilities, environment and
resources adequate?
The Hypothesis





Driving force for a strong application.
Emphasize in both abstract and
specific aims.
Provide a strong rationale based on
current information.
Should further the field (biology,
writings of Faulkner, particle physics).
Should be a recurring theme
throughout the application.
Appropriate Writing Style




Write to the funding
source
Write in the correct
language of the field
- but no jargon
Never write in 1st
person
Clarity

Write to inform
• don’t use language
that is biased

Write to persuade
• data from reputable
source
• use current data
• establish credibility
• no unsubstantiated
opinions
Technical Issues to Consider
Before you Write






Matching requirements?
Human Subjects?
Due date - received or
postmarked
Page limit
Spacing
Numbering





Margin requirement
Type requirement
Do you need letters?
Group or Collaborative
Projects – who leads?
What is needed of
partners?
Have you given yourself
enough time??
Parts of a Grant Application







Cover Page
Table of Contents
Abstract
Problem or Needs
Statement
Goals and Objectives
Background/Preliminary Studies
Methodology








Expected Outcomes
and Evaluation
Dissemination
Broader Impacts
References Cited
Budget & Narrative
Vitae
Appendices
Forms, Certifications
and Assurances
The Project Title





The title is important
It should convey what the project is
about
It is often used to assign review groups
Go for succinct rather than catchy
Don’t change on a revision
Abstract

Should be able to stand alone
• it could be all the reviewers read





Clear, concise, one page max
Cover all key elements in order
State hypothesis, objectives and
importance of goals
State plans and general methods to
achieve these goals
Write your abstract last!
The Problem Statement:
Framing the Need



Don’t assume that no one else has ever
thought of your idea.
The Problem Statement establishes a
framework for the project’s goals, objectives,
methods, and evaluation
Begin with a framing statement, then provide
documentation
A Good Proposal should:



Show that you
understand the
problem
Demonstrate that this
is an important
problem to solve
Clearly describe the
aspects of the
problem that your
project will address,
and what gaps your
work will fill



Describe the
theoretical or
conceptual basis for
your project and your
knowledge of the
issues surrounding
your proposed project
Include statistical
data, if appropriate
Demonstrate that your
approach is creative or
innovative
Literature Review
Reviewers want to know whether you’ve
done the necessary preliminary research
to undertake your project. You need to
demonstrate your understanding of the
field.
 Reviews should be selective and critical,
not exhaustive. You are not writing a
review paper – stay focused on the
literature that is pertinent to your
proposal.
 Don’t cite mostly your own work – the
review needs balance.

Project Description




Often the most detailed and lengthy section
because it provides the meat of the proposal;
may be divided into several subsections, as
needed.
What specific activities will allow you to meet
your objectives
Task oriented, specific, detailed
Essential that you demonstrate all the steps
necessary to complete project with each
flowing logically from the previous to the
next.
Your Project Description
should:




Try to pre-empt and/or answer all of the
reviewer’s questions.
Clearly and explicitly state the connections
between your objectives, hypotheses,
methodologies and expected outcomes.
Summarize plans for dissemination of results
Provide a work plan and timeline. If there are
multiple investigators, provide a clear
explanation of individual responsibilities.
Overcoming Proposal Block






Take it piece by piece, don’t be
overwhelmed.
Outline sections before writing.
Brainstorm each section with others.
Start with easiest section.
Write, and edit, re-edit, re-edit, re…
Take breaks
Don’t minimize the importance of
Formatting – a “clean” proposal conveys
an impression to your reviewers
• Do not overcrowd pages.
• Observe type size limitations (e.g., 6 lines/inch,
15 characters/inch).
• Observe margins (1/2 inch).
• Aim for an attractive and readable layout.
• Proposal should easily convey your ideas to a hurried
reviewer.
A Readable Style








Scannability
Make sure that all pages are not just solid text
Use bulleted items to make important points
Don’t be afraid to use graphics; figures should
have stand-alone captions
Use headings and subheadings, bold and underline,
but don’t go nuts
Look at each introductory sentence of a
paragraph. It is the most important part and may
be all that a reviewer will read
Use type faces with serifs, like Times, they are
easier to read
Do not justify
Developing Your Budget



The Grants Office must be involved in
this portion of proposal development.
Be realistic, don’t inflate
Two parts to a budget
• the budget form which breaks the
budget into specific categories
• a budget narrative that explains how
you arrived at these figures and why
you need the money
Two Types of Costs
Direct and Indirect
Direct Costs

Costs that can be identified specifically
with a particular sponsored project, an
instructional activity, or any other
institutional activity; or that can be
directly assigned to such activities
relatively easily with a high degree of
accuracy.
Indirect or Facilities and
Administrative (F&A) Costs


Costs that are incurred for common or joint
objectives, and, therefore, cannot be
identified readily and specifically with a
particular sponsored project, an instructional
activity, or any other institutional activity.
Indirect Rate is negotiated with Cognizant
Auditing Agency
Your Goal: A Reviewer
Friendly Proposal
13 Reasons Why Proposals Fail






Deadline not met
Guidelines not
followed
Nothing intriguing
Did not address
program priorities
Not complete
Poor literature
review







Appeared beyond
capacity of PI
Methodology weak
Unrealistic budget
Cost greater than
benefit
Highly partisan
Poorly written
Mechanical defects
Recycle your Rejected
Proposal





Success means having one in three
grants funded
A rejected proposal does not always
mean the idea was rejected
Obtain reviewer comments
Call the program officer
Rewrite, revise, resubmit
Websites

Federal Government
http://www.grants.gov
http://www.nsf.gov
http://nih.gov
http://arts.endow.gov/grants/index.html

Search Engines
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/funding

Foundations and Non-Profits
http://foundationcenter.org/
http://www.npguides.org/index.html
Websites

University of Miami
http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Mai
n/1,1770,8549-1;7394-3,00.html

http://www.wilbers.com/grants.htm