Blog

We have written the proposal. We believe it’s the most well-thought-out plan, carefully designed to have a huge impact on our target population. Yet if the reader’s mind wanders after a few minutes, or worse—they yawn—our proposal may be in trouble.

As we state in our textbook, Grantsmanship: Program Planning & Proposal Writing, the grant proposal is a logical argument for funding. The logic of the the proposal flows from the logic of your Program design. You see a problem and you think of a way to fix that problem. The solution comes logically from your understanding of the problem. If there is a break in the logic, the program plan will appear to have flaws. This is especially critical when you are writing the grant request. The funder will know if there are flaws in the logic, and it will weaken your proposal.

(or The Lack of a Program is Not the Problem) Planning programs proactively makes good sense. We plan programs that are compatible with our organizational mission, capabilities, and community needs. Sometimes, though, in real life a funding opportunity lands in our inbox and there may be pressure to apply. We will need to shift to reactive planning—not the most desirable approach.

The heart of program planning is problem analysis. Problem analysis includes the definition of the problem along with why it is happening. As you design a program, clear analysis of the problem leads logically to the outcomes (objectives) of the program. And understanding the causes of the problem gives direction for the approach (methods).

The whole purpose of community programs is to make a change for the better. How much better? That is the Outcome or the measurable result of your work. However, sometimes talking about the results or outcomes of your program can make people nervous. “How well did we do? I’m afraid to ask.”

One of the keys to successful grant proposal writing is understanding the vocabulary used. You’ll avoid problems down the road if you fully understand the funder’s requirements from the outset. Case in point: we’ve heard of confusion about the terms supplement and supplant. They sound similar but have very different meanings.

The person reviewing your grant proposal is often someone who is not familiar with your organization, your community, or the problems your community is facing. Therefore, you want your proposal to be easy to comprehend on the first reading.

As the developer, writer and steward of funding proposals, you might consider approaching 2024 with new ideas and new energy for the task. It’s a wonderful/terrible tradition that we make resolutions at this time of year, so why not think about these for your proposal-writing list.

Before campaign advisors, spin doctors, influencers or ad men, there was the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. His treatise, The Rhetoric, laid out a durable blueprint for creating persuasive arguments and the elements he described are as useful today as they were in 4th century BC Greece. As proposal writers, we sometimes get lost in the weeds of data, logic models, detailed methods and other granular stuff. Preparing persuasive proposals can benefit from reviewing these classical principles.

There comes a time when a proposal needs to include a logic model. Many foundations don’t require one but an increasing number are asking applicants to go beyond objectives and show, in a descriptive chart, the route you plan to take to get to the destination.