1: Planning: I had no idea just how much planning goes only into the proposal part of the grant writing process. I really enjoyed the worksheet and I feel as though it is going to become very helpful when we have to do this for ourselves. The breakdown of each individual aspect that goes into the organization proves to be equally as important in order to gain the favor of various different potential funders.
2: Specificity: Finding the perfect potential funder is definitely going to be a vital part in the grant writing process. By finding a company that cares about the niche part of your nonprofit, it will make it that much easier to get somewhere in the funding process. The research behind who you are potentially giving a proposal to is proving to be much more influential than one may think.
3: Compactness: The part that set off a few alarms in my head was where they discussed the idea that there is limited space to write things on electronic forms of submission nowadays. This means that being very specific and to the point in the cover letter while also being impactful enough to convince someone to give you money. I feel like that is definitely going to be more difficult than it seems.
1. I find the idea of “begin with the end in mind” when developing a proposal to be effective in securing a grant. This goes with how important specificity is on the part of both the grant seeker and the funder, as the effect that the grant will have on the community needs to be apparent to fulfill the vision that granting foundations have and the objectives that the receiving nonprofits stand by. Organizations need to avoid “growing another foot” because this can lead to their reputation being harmed while they fail to deliver on promises made to the foundations after receiving the grant, as their true values and mission don’t align. Being able to choose the right foundations to seek grants from is just as important as knowing thoroughly what your organization is trying to achieve.
2. I found it surprising but also understandable how much of the planning of proposals involves putting on paper information about the organization itself, rather than the details about the proposal. Granting foundations want to see that the organizations they are funding have a clear plan and vision of what they want to achieve to ensure that it matches their interests and to gain a sense of confidence in the organizations to which they are giving their financial resources. An organization’s plan being tight is also crucial as conciseness often leads to success when it comes to competition, as more organizations compete for grants from the fewer number of granting foundations.
3. There is an overall emphasis on organizations needing to do an adequate amount of research during the grant-writing process. It goes deeper than whether the goals of the organization and the grant foundation align, as other organizations need to be analyzed being possible competitors in the same area of interest. Grants and the issues they are involved with are political, so knowing the reputation of granting foundations and maintaining a compatible reputation is essential on behalf of the organization.
– Time-bound: I noticed that the worksheet specified projects that would span over two or three years. I think this is a crucial part of grants as planning out and being able to complete your project in a timely manner can lend you some credibility to possible funders as opposed to a proposal that has no timeline.
– Community: A large part of your organization’s success is community support. If you can gear your project towards a problem that concerns many people in the surrounding community, you’re more likely to have support in that way. You’re not in a non-profit organization to accomplish things for yourself, but for your community as a whole.
– Support: Another key aspect of your grant proposal’s success is internal and external support. Having a good, passionate team along with external support from important community members can only help the organization along. If you’re going to need more staff, it should be one of the first things to consider. You want to build upon that with support from “civic leaders, political figures, the media…” (pp. 15) etc. to increase the likelihood of success.
Point One: The first thing that I want to mention from this chapter can be found within the second paragraph on the first page. It mentions that in some cases, funders are not looking to fund continuing plans and operations, but ones that are new. I think this complicates the compilation of a proposal because an individual could spend all this time compiling it to only be turned away due to interest. It also subliminally heightens the important surrounding research and networking. One would have more success if they are aware of what kinds of funding an organization has done in the past, whether it is general operating or new/expanding.
Point Two: The preparation around the proposal was something that also peaked my interest. I had always thought of proposal writing as “oh you just write the proposal and that’s that” when in actuality, that is far from true. The author details that before the proposal or cover letter are even considered being done, an organization must first prepare the planning sections. This includes the problem statement, goals, strategies, evaluation, program sustainability, and then budget. These components are essential before one considers the actual proposal because it evaluates whether the organizations plan is feasible. The chapter underlines that the worst thing one can do is present a proposal without a well thought out plan. It, in some cases, leads to funders not understanding the purpose of the proposal or feel unsure in whether it is feasible.
Point Three: The last point I want to raise about this chapter was how the proposal itself must be constructed with an extreme attention to detail. Also, an overall intentionality with every word. In todays day, the proposal submission is often submitted through online portals that come with capped word counts. So, it requires the proposal to say the most it can (and everything that is needed) in a confined space. For the writer, it means being intention with every single detail of the proposal from punctuation to every word in a sentence. Overall, I believe this section demonstrates how technology has both helped and limited the world of grant writing. There is the benefit of the sharing of information but the disadvantage of limited space for submission.
Point 1: Organizations not only need to have multiple projects planned, but also need to have them planned in a large amount of detail. The organization needs to have everything from the uniqueness of a project to the exact team of people who are going to make it happen figured out. The more information an organization is able to provide, the better their opportunities are. There are many different kinds of funders who are looking for very specific project characteristics, so more is better in the case of providing details about a project.
Point 2: A large part of writing a proposal is looking into the future. One of the questions that the textbook proposes for organizations to ask themselves when applying for grants discusses the difference the organization believes it can make, as well as the vision that they might have for the future. In order to answer this, the organization needs to have a very good idea of what difference they intend to make, down to a specific and detailed level. They have to know what their solution is going to look like in the real world and be able to convey their vision to possible donors if they hope to be successful.
Point 3: Applying for a grant goes far beyond the proposal. The textbook explains that even though your proposal might be perfect, you may not win if a different applicant has gone out of their way to form a personal connection with the funder. People love to be able to put a face to a name, so if a funder associates you and your organization with a positive conversation, a friendly email, or even an introduction, it will increase your chances of receiving a grant. Of course, this is not to say that the proposal is not a massive piece of success, but personal relationships and building repour are essential pieces to winning grants.
For me, I think one of the important things raised was “What community need does each of your organization’s projects address?” At the end of the day, grant writing is mostly non-profit work and when it comes to non-profit work it usually is aimed at a problem within the community. Grants cannot exist without the needs of the community. Another question I thought that stood out to me was the question of overlapping. The idea that a project can be different and yet the same is very interesting. The potential to collaborate with other organizations is what I feel is important if other organizations are doing similar projects. A bigger pool of funds might be available. However, vice versa, a limited pool of funds could be seen as a limitation factor for projects. Good on paper, but tough when acted upon. The final question that I found crucial was “How do we stand out?” The grant “acceptors” if you will, look at potentially thousands of applications a day. So figuring out how you stand out from similar projects is crucial to getting the funds your organization or project may need compared to other projects that sound similar.
Point 1: The relationship between the grant writer and the funders being emphasized here emphasizes the fact that while it is mostly a business related deal with writing and proposing on paper and sending it out to be funded, and writing down that proposal in a confident manner is important, it’s not the end all be all of getting your proposal. There’s a personal element between you and the potential client that should not be overlook and can be spell life or death for that future funding/relationship. The book goes into more details on how to develop that relationship but it’s important to know there’s a lot more too grant proposing than to write it good.
Point 2: The worksheet itself goes through what the potential funders are looking for in that project. Aspects to show that your project has more substance that seems promising on return for who ever looks at it, whether it be in general publicity a long lasting relationship with you, who else is involved in this to show competency, and anything that makes it stick out. When funding these projects they expect it to benefit all parties involved, and answering these questions tells them that they’re getting their cut.
Point 3: As much as the funder has to make sure your proposal is worthwhile to them, this section still reminds you that the funder has to be worthwhile to you. By looking at their grant requirements. Grant proposing is a very intricate and very important process, let alone setting up the entire project. It’s important to be efficient as possible by reading through those grant requirements to make sure that you’re not wasting your time.
Looking at the compatibility section of the worksheet, I see that there is an area with space for a list of future goals and then space to see how those goals line up with the current mission of your organization. I really liked this section because it sets the organization up to do two possible things. One, an organization could plan out its goals to make sure they align with the mission. Or, an organization could plan out its goals to strategically redevelop and tweak the mission. Either way, this section of the worksheet helps develop the organization as much as it helps develop projects and goals. The next secretion that stood out to me was question #4, under ‘Proposal Development Review Questions,’ which asks how an organization will know its program succeeded. This is so important because answering this question shows potential funders exactly what their money is going towards and pushes organizations to create goals. The term ‘succeeded’ can be subjective, so clearly outlining what success looks like helps make sure the organization and granter are on the same page. Finally, on page 19, the author explains that when a proposal is rejected, the organization is rarely told why. As such, making sure the organization researches ahead of time is key to understanding the culture of the potential funder. Knowing that culture can give insight as to why or why not a proposal was rejected. I am curious if it would be appropriate to reach out to a funder who rejected your proposal to get a better understanding of why. That way, moving forward, the writers will have more insight into how their proposal is perceived by different audiences.
What stuck out most to me in this chapter was the need to identify a community need. The workbook heavily emphasizes how the nonprofit should focus their proposal on the established need of the community and how their nonprofit in specific can address that need. I think this is a great way to orient a project in the community it serves. However, I believe that this chapter does not adequately address who is identifying the needs of the community. In the opening of the chapter, the authors remind the organizations to make sure they have the best staff for this particular initiative. However, I believe that the book must formally state that the nonprofit must have staff from or in community with the people they are serving. This disconnection from the community will hinder the ability for success even if the grant is awarded to the nonprofit.
Secondly, I was interested in how the worksheet focused “uniqueness” as one of the main questions for the nonprofits. How do nonprofits that differ even slightly from one another compete for the same funding? I think that the “selling point” or rather the feature or uniqueness that helps an organization get funding is very interesting to dig into. This is a factor that I think we should explore more as we form groups and look into idea formation.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that the last section brought up how important looking into eligibility was for grant writing. It seems all too obvious to not spend time and resources on an application that does not fit what the organization aims for. Is this a common issue for nonprofits to change or warp initiatives to fit grants, or is this a helpful reminder to do that much more research when looking into funding avenues?
The first element of this reading I found interesting was funders are not necessarily looking to fund continuing plans and operations, but instead, are looking to support new initiative. I guess this makes sense – especially considering that perhaps an organization that is looking for funding, who has already received funding, but still needs more, might not be the best endorsement/representation of success. I think this also emphasizes the importance of having a really strong proposal, and networking. Because, in other words, there is somewhat of a necessity to be successful of securing and implementing new funds.
Building off of this point, the second element that I found interesting was the idea that applying for a grant goes far beyond the proposal. As the textbook expresses, even if the proposal is written perfectly, it may not “win” if a different applicant has made a personal connection with the funder. Therein, it is important to create a personal connection with the funder, and build relationships.
Lastly, I found it interesting how the worksheet focused on “uniqueness” as a central grading component/criteria for the funder. How one organizations differs slightly from the others will allow the organization to seem original and worthy/requiring of funding. This, of course, has to balance with the goals and objectives of the funder, which is to say that the proposal can’t be completely unrelated and original – but a certain degree is important.
10 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 3”
1: Planning: I had no idea just how much planning goes only into the proposal part of the grant writing process. I really enjoyed the worksheet and I feel as though it is going to become very helpful when we have to do this for ourselves. The breakdown of each individual aspect that goes into the organization proves to be equally as important in order to gain the favor of various different potential funders.
2: Specificity: Finding the perfect potential funder is definitely going to be a vital part in the grant writing process. By finding a company that cares about the niche part of your nonprofit, it will make it that much easier to get somewhere in the funding process. The research behind who you are potentially giving a proposal to is proving to be much more influential than one may think.
3: Compactness: The part that set off a few alarms in my head was where they discussed the idea that there is limited space to write things on electronic forms of submission nowadays. This means that being very specific and to the point in the cover letter while also being impactful enough to convince someone to give you money. I feel like that is definitely going to be more difficult than it seems.
1. I find the idea of “begin with the end in mind” when developing a proposal to be effective in securing a grant. This goes with how important specificity is on the part of both the grant seeker and the funder, as the effect that the grant will have on the community needs to be apparent to fulfill the vision that granting foundations have and the objectives that the receiving nonprofits stand by. Organizations need to avoid “growing another foot” because this can lead to their reputation being harmed while they fail to deliver on promises made to the foundations after receiving the grant, as their true values and mission don’t align. Being able to choose the right foundations to seek grants from is just as important as knowing thoroughly what your organization is trying to achieve.
2. I found it surprising but also understandable how much of the planning of proposals involves putting on paper information about the organization itself, rather than the details about the proposal. Granting foundations want to see that the organizations they are funding have a clear plan and vision of what they want to achieve to ensure that it matches their interests and to gain a sense of confidence in the organizations to which they are giving their financial resources. An organization’s plan being tight is also crucial as conciseness often leads to success when it comes to competition, as more organizations compete for grants from the fewer number of granting foundations.
3. There is an overall emphasis on organizations needing to do an adequate amount of research during the grant-writing process. It goes deeper than whether the goals of the organization and the grant foundation align, as other organizations need to be analyzed being possible competitors in the same area of interest. Grants and the issues they are involved with are political, so knowing the reputation of granting foundations and maintaining a compatible reputation is essential on behalf of the organization.
– Time-bound: I noticed that the worksheet specified projects that would span over two or three years. I think this is a crucial part of grants as planning out and being able to complete your project in a timely manner can lend you some credibility to possible funders as opposed to a proposal that has no timeline.
– Community: A large part of your organization’s success is community support. If you can gear your project towards a problem that concerns many people in the surrounding community, you’re more likely to have support in that way. You’re not in a non-profit organization to accomplish things for yourself, but for your community as a whole.
– Support: Another key aspect of your grant proposal’s success is internal and external support. Having a good, passionate team along with external support from important community members can only help the organization along. If you’re going to need more staff, it should be one of the first things to consider. You want to build upon that with support from “civic leaders, political figures, the media…” (pp. 15) etc. to increase the likelihood of success.
Point One: The first thing that I want to mention from this chapter can be found within the second paragraph on the first page. It mentions that in some cases, funders are not looking to fund continuing plans and operations, but ones that are new. I think this complicates the compilation of a proposal because an individual could spend all this time compiling it to only be turned away due to interest. It also subliminally heightens the important surrounding research and networking. One would have more success if they are aware of what kinds of funding an organization has done in the past, whether it is general operating or new/expanding.
Point Two: The preparation around the proposal was something that also peaked my interest. I had always thought of proposal writing as “oh you just write the proposal and that’s that” when in actuality, that is far from true. The author details that before the proposal or cover letter are even considered being done, an organization must first prepare the planning sections. This includes the problem statement, goals, strategies, evaluation, program sustainability, and then budget. These components are essential before one considers the actual proposal because it evaluates whether the organizations plan is feasible. The chapter underlines that the worst thing one can do is present a proposal without a well thought out plan. It, in some cases, leads to funders not understanding the purpose of the proposal or feel unsure in whether it is feasible.
Point Three: The last point I want to raise about this chapter was how the proposal itself must be constructed with an extreme attention to detail. Also, an overall intentionality with every word. In todays day, the proposal submission is often submitted through online portals that come with capped word counts. So, it requires the proposal to say the most it can (and everything that is needed) in a confined space. For the writer, it means being intention with every single detail of the proposal from punctuation to every word in a sentence. Overall, I believe this section demonstrates how technology has both helped and limited the world of grant writing. There is the benefit of the sharing of information but the disadvantage of limited space for submission.
Point 1: Organizations not only need to have multiple projects planned, but also need to have them planned in a large amount of detail. The organization needs to have everything from the uniqueness of a project to the exact team of people who are going to make it happen figured out. The more information an organization is able to provide, the better their opportunities are. There are many different kinds of funders who are looking for very specific project characteristics, so more is better in the case of providing details about a project.
Point 2: A large part of writing a proposal is looking into the future. One of the questions that the textbook proposes for organizations to ask themselves when applying for grants discusses the difference the organization believes it can make, as well as the vision that they might have for the future. In order to answer this, the organization needs to have a very good idea of what difference they intend to make, down to a specific and detailed level. They have to know what their solution is going to look like in the real world and be able to convey their vision to possible donors if they hope to be successful.
Point 3: Applying for a grant goes far beyond the proposal. The textbook explains that even though your proposal might be perfect, you may not win if a different applicant has gone out of their way to form a personal connection with the funder. People love to be able to put a face to a name, so if a funder associates you and your organization with a positive conversation, a friendly email, or even an introduction, it will increase your chances of receiving a grant. Of course, this is not to say that the proposal is not a massive piece of success, but personal relationships and building repour are essential pieces to winning grants.
For me, I think one of the important things raised was “What community need does each of your organization’s projects address?” At the end of the day, grant writing is mostly non-profit work and when it comes to non-profit work it usually is aimed at a problem within the community. Grants cannot exist without the needs of the community. Another question I thought that stood out to me was the question of overlapping. The idea that a project can be different and yet the same is very interesting. The potential to collaborate with other organizations is what I feel is important if other organizations are doing similar projects. A bigger pool of funds might be available. However, vice versa, a limited pool of funds could be seen as a limitation factor for projects. Good on paper, but tough when acted upon. The final question that I found crucial was “How do we stand out?” The grant “acceptors” if you will, look at potentially thousands of applications a day. So figuring out how you stand out from similar projects is crucial to getting the funds your organization or project may need compared to other projects that sound similar.
Point 1: The relationship between the grant writer and the funders being emphasized here emphasizes the fact that while it is mostly a business related deal with writing and proposing on paper and sending it out to be funded, and writing down that proposal in a confident manner is important, it’s not the end all be all of getting your proposal. There’s a personal element between you and the potential client that should not be overlook and can be spell life or death for that future funding/relationship. The book goes into more details on how to develop that relationship but it’s important to know there’s a lot more too grant proposing than to write it good.
Point 2: The worksheet itself goes through what the potential funders are looking for in that project. Aspects to show that your project has more substance that seems promising on return for who ever looks at it, whether it be in general publicity a long lasting relationship with you, who else is involved in this to show competency, and anything that makes it stick out. When funding these projects they expect it to benefit all parties involved, and answering these questions tells them that they’re getting their cut.
Point 3: As much as the funder has to make sure your proposal is worthwhile to them, this section still reminds you that the funder has to be worthwhile to you. By looking at their grant requirements. Grant proposing is a very intricate and very important process, let alone setting up the entire project. It’s important to be efficient as possible by reading through those grant requirements to make sure that you’re not wasting your time.
Looking at the compatibility section of the worksheet, I see that there is an area with space for a list of future goals and then space to see how those goals line up with the current mission of your organization. I really liked this section because it sets the organization up to do two possible things. One, an organization could plan out its goals to make sure they align with the mission. Or, an organization could plan out its goals to strategically redevelop and tweak the mission. Either way, this section of the worksheet helps develop the organization as much as it helps develop projects and goals. The next secretion that stood out to me was question #4, under ‘Proposal Development Review Questions,’ which asks how an organization will know its program succeeded. This is so important because answering this question shows potential funders exactly what their money is going towards and pushes organizations to create goals. The term ‘succeeded’ can be subjective, so clearly outlining what success looks like helps make sure the organization and granter are on the same page. Finally, on page 19, the author explains that when a proposal is rejected, the organization is rarely told why. As such, making sure the organization researches ahead of time is key to understanding the culture of the potential funder. Knowing that culture can give insight as to why or why not a proposal was rejected. I am curious if it would be appropriate to reach out to a funder who rejected your proposal to get a better understanding of why. That way, moving forward, the writers will have more insight into how their proposal is perceived by different audiences.
What stuck out most to me in this chapter was the need to identify a community need. The workbook heavily emphasizes how the nonprofit should focus their proposal on the established need of the community and how their nonprofit in specific can address that need. I think this is a great way to orient a project in the community it serves. However, I believe that this chapter does not adequately address who is identifying the needs of the community. In the opening of the chapter, the authors remind the organizations to make sure they have the best staff for this particular initiative. However, I believe that the book must formally state that the nonprofit must have staff from or in community with the people they are serving. This disconnection from the community will hinder the ability for success even if the grant is awarded to the nonprofit.
Secondly, I was interested in how the worksheet focused “uniqueness” as one of the main questions for the nonprofits. How do nonprofits that differ even slightly from one another compete for the same funding? I think that the “selling point” or rather the feature or uniqueness that helps an organization get funding is very interesting to dig into. This is a factor that I think we should explore more as we form groups and look into idea formation.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that the last section brought up how important looking into eligibility was for grant writing. It seems all too obvious to not spend time and resources on an application that does not fit what the organization aims for. Is this a common issue for nonprofits to change or warp initiatives to fit grants, or is this a helpful reminder to do that much more research when looking into funding avenues?
The first element of this reading I found interesting was funders are not necessarily looking to fund continuing plans and operations, but instead, are looking to support new initiative. I guess this makes sense – especially considering that perhaps an organization that is looking for funding, who has already received funding, but still needs more, might not be the best endorsement/representation of success. I think this also emphasizes the importance of having a really strong proposal, and networking. Because, in other words, there is somewhat of a necessity to be successful of securing and implementing new funds.
Building off of this point, the second element that I found interesting was the idea that applying for a grant goes far beyond the proposal. As the textbook expresses, even if the proposal is written perfectly, it may not “win” if a different applicant has made a personal connection with the funder. Therein, it is important to create a personal connection with the funder, and build relationships.
Lastly, I found it interesting how the worksheet focused on “uniqueness” as a central grading component/criteria for the funder. How one organizations differs slightly from the others will allow the organization to seem original and worthy/requiring of funding. This, of course, has to balance with the goals and objectives of the funder, which is to say that the proposal can’t be completely unrelated and original – but a certain degree is important.