The part that stood out the most to me was the heavy use of statistics and evidence. I didn’t really know what my problem statement was until this chapter, but I would not have guessed that it would be kind of similar to scientific writing. The introduction and analysis of data and statistics is something that I havent had to do yet for a writing class, but I frequently do for science classes. I think that this will ultimately aid me in the long run in terms of actually writing problem statements later on. I really enjoyed the way they laid out the worksheet in this section. In the past sections, I felt the worksheets to be a bit redundant, but I feel like this one will be very helpful. I also found it really helpful that they had one already filled out by Alyson Eats. Being able to see the examples and how problem statements are supposed to sound is ultimately the parts of this process that I find most impactful.
The most interesting part of this chapter to me was discussing the balance between statistical data and personal testimonies to be used in a problem statement. It immediately brought the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logo to mind along with the AIDA model. These ways of persuasion all have the same common denominator, telling an impactful story. One may not think of grant writing as telling a story, but in a way, it is. You’re telling the story of your organization, its programs, its needs, and its goals. To be able to achieve in doing so it must have balance. I liked the tips and tricks the chapter provided in accomplishing such. One being that graphs and charts can be helpful for the digestion of statistical data and save word economy. Also, a time saver for funders while reading, which can help the overall outcome. No one wants to be reading a proposal that drones on, and it likely leads to disinterest. Another point I noticed is that it all depends, yet again, on the guidelines a funder sets. This is detail is hammered home in every single step of the process. Curation is key for success. I’m curious to see how different guidelines truly are for different funders based on how pressed the idea is.
A part of this chapter that I found both interesting and helpful was the discussion on making sure not to overpromise in a problem statement. I agree that the problem statement is a good piece of the proposal to write first as this would help with not overpromising. The writing of the problem statement could also give the grantseeker a reality check, so that if the issue is too big for the organization to address, they can find a different way of framing their project so that it seems doable and effective. A piece of this chapter that I found curious was under “Tips for Writing Problem Statements”, and tells grantseekers to use a sense of urgency in their problem statements. I would be interested to discuss how to use urgency in a problem statement without overdoing it and making the funder feel rushed, as that makes the organization appear too pushy.
I find it crucial that an organization’s problem statement can ignite self-realization within grantmakers regarding their mission. Being able to do so ensures that the organization’s and the grantmaker’s goals align, as they are reminded of their objectives and can connect the problem proposed to be solved and the mission they advertise. I also find it helpful to always keep in mind that the problem statement is not the same as the overall proposal, in terms of what is focused when writing it. The problem statement addresses the communities that the organization is proposing to serve and the needs of the community, rather than the needs of the organization, which financially is what the grant proposal goes into extensive detail about. Overpromising must be avoided, as focusing on a specific problem that your organization can fully address will lead to more thorough research into what is being proposed, increasing the likelihood of securing funding and decreasing that of damaging one’s reputation for not being able to deliver on promises. However, potentially serving as a model for other organizations in other areas to address similar issues is something interesting that hadn’t crossed my mind, particularly because it would require more work to demonstrate to other organizations effectively.
When it comes to this chapter the idea of how a problem statement can be derived from two areas is interesting to me. From a critical condition or a community need, a problem statement can cover a wide range, but it does have limits. When writing a problem statement, not only will you explain the problem the community is facing, but you also have to support the issue with data. Data is super important to convincing your audience/funder that there is a problem and there is proof of the problem as well. However, avoiding common problems like circling or even just understanding the importance of replication is crucial to making a problem statement work. Another thing to keep in mind is that you might have to write multiple problem statements to follow the funder’s guidelines as some have strict rules as to what they want to see.
Something I found helpful about this chapter was the filled-in example of the worksheet. Being able to see what is expected made the process feel a lot less overwhelming and provided great examples of how specific the Statement of Needs should be. I also appreciated the “Reality Check” box that commented on circular reasoning. It’s really easy to accidentally present an issue using circular reasoning, so including this information in the chapter was a super handy reminder of the right and wrong way to address a problem while writing grants. Combined, the filled-in worksheet and helpful tips/ticks made the process feel more doable and concrete.
The statement of need is a crucial part of the grant writing process that I never knew existed. This chapter did a very succinct job at breaking down why an effective statement of need is important and how it can help or hinder the grant seeking process. One of my biggest take aways was the mention of collaboration when writing a statement of need. Once again, the book advises more research when creating this statement, and through this research advises that collaboration could hold a lot of potential for achieving both groups’ goals with the side benefit of the grant funding. However, the chapter cautioned on relying on this collaboration as a way to solely secure funding, and not putting the mutual goals at the forefront. This point of collaboration stood out to me because of the non-profit my group chose. The Maine Network of Community Food Councils (MNCFC) is a non-profit that like its very long name, connects different food councils, non-profits, and networks together. Their entire organization is based on collaboration, which adds a layer of difficulty and a layer of support at the same time.
The statement of need seems very basic, but it appears to be profoundly influential in grant seeking. The example at the end of the paragraph exemplifies this. The message is succinct, has local relevant data, credible sources, and a statement of how the organization can help this issue within its means.
One of the elements of this chapter that I found interesting was the introduction of collaborative grants – and specifically how it relates to writing problem statements. I think it’s interesting that collaboration projects can be used because the scope or complexity of the project is so rigorous that there is benefit from multiple organization’s particular expertise or provided services.
Within this concept of having projects that exceed the abilities/boundaries of the organization or program, another element I found interesting was the idea of positioning the program as a potential model for other nonprofits in other locations. This enables the organization to broaden the pool of potential funders to include those concerned with the problem in other geographical areas. This, as the text eludes to, can be accomplished by first conducting research to discover whether other organizations in the service area have – or are developing – similar programs to address the same problem. And if so, by then considering a collaborative program that would leverage and expand the reach of each organization’s program plans and grant funds. I think it’s important to understand – and to therein express – that the organization is addressing the need on a larger level through the development or a program that can be a model for others, or through leveraging its efforts with another organization so it can expand the reach and impact of its program. With this, organizations need to redefine the program to be a model that can more easily be replicated by more closely documenting the program and its impacts much more thoroughly than it might otherwise. It might produce a report or training curriculum or some kind of mechanism that will enable others to replicate the program as well as provide some sort of outreach capacities that will let others know about the program and how to replicate it.
I thought this chapter had some really good advice for such a crucial part of a project. Something I thought was particularly helpful was to present your project as a potential model for other organizations like yours to follow as well. This can make it so you can potentially apply to more funders as your project wouldn’t be constricted to a specific geological area. Although, if proposing a model, there’s more documentation that has to be put into it which can add a lot to the workload. Another thing I found helpful was emphasizing the use of hard facts and statistics over anecdotes. As helpful as anecdotes can be for a cause, they can be inherently biased. Using statistics and facts from reputable sources and a tidbit of compelling stories can really solidify why the problem you’re aiming to solve is real and affecting people.
9 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 8”
The part that stood out the most to me was the heavy use of statistics and evidence. I didn’t really know what my problem statement was until this chapter, but I would not have guessed that it would be kind of similar to scientific writing. The introduction and analysis of data and statistics is something that I havent had to do yet for a writing class, but I frequently do for science classes. I think that this will ultimately aid me in the long run in terms of actually writing problem statements later on. I really enjoyed the way they laid out the worksheet in this section. In the past sections, I felt the worksheets to be a bit redundant, but I feel like this one will be very helpful. I also found it really helpful that they had one already filled out by Alyson Eats. Being able to see the examples and how problem statements are supposed to sound is ultimately the parts of this process that I find most impactful.
The most interesting part of this chapter to me was discussing the balance between statistical data and personal testimonies to be used in a problem statement. It immediately brought the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logo to mind along with the AIDA model. These ways of persuasion all have the same common denominator, telling an impactful story. One may not think of grant writing as telling a story, but in a way, it is. You’re telling the story of your organization, its programs, its needs, and its goals. To be able to achieve in doing so it must have balance. I liked the tips and tricks the chapter provided in accomplishing such. One being that graphs and charts can be helpful for the digestion of statistical data and save word economy. Also, a time saver for funders while reading, which can help the overall outcome. No one wants to be reading a proposal that drones on, and it likely leads to disinterest. Another point I noticed is that it all depends, yet again, on the guidelines a funder sets. This is detail is hammered home in every single step of the process. Curation is key for success. I’m curious to see how different guidelines truly are for different funders based on how pressed the idea is.
A part of this chapter that I found both interesting and helpful was the discussion on making sure not to overpromise in a problem statement. I agree that the problem statement is a good piece of the proposal to write first as this would help with not overpromising. The writing of the problem statement could also give the grantseeker a reality check, so that if the issue is too big for the organization to address, they can find a different way of framing their project so that it seems doable and effective. A piece of this chapter that I found curious was under “Tips for Writing Problem Statements”, and tells grantseekers to use a sense of urgency in their problem statements. I would be interested to discuss how to use urgency in a problem statement without overdoing it and making the funder feel rushed, as that makes the organization appear too pushy.
I find it crucial that an organization’s problem statement can ignite self-realization within grantmakers regarding their mission. Being able to do so ensures that the organization’s and the grantmaker’s goals align, as they are reminded of their objectives and can connect the problem proposed to be solved and the mission they advertise. I also find it helpful to always keep in mind that the problem statement is not the same as the overall proposal, in terms of what is focused when writing it. The problem statement addresses the communities that the organization is proposing to serve and the needs of the community, rather than the needs of the organization, which financially is what the grant proposal goes into extensive detail about. Overpromising must be avoided, as focusing on a specific problem that your organization can fully address will lead to more thorough research into what is being proposed, increasing the likelihood of securing funding and decreasing that of damaging one’s reputation for not being able to deliver on promises. However, potentially serving as a model for other organizations in other areas to address similar issues is something interesting that hadn’t crossed my mind, particularly because it would require more work to demonstrate to other organizations effectively.
When it comes to this chapter the idea of how a problem statement can be derived from two areas is interesting to me. From a critical condition or a community need, a problem statement can cover a wide range, but it does have limits. When writing a problem statement, not only will you explain the problem the community is facing, but you also have to support the issue with data. Data is super important to convincing your audience/funder that there is a problem and there is proof of the problem as well. However, avoiding common problems like circling or even just understanding the importance of replication is crucial to making a problem statement work. Another thing to keep in mind is that you might have to write multiple problem statements to follow the funder’s guidelines as some have strict rules as to what they want to see.
Something I found helpful about this chapter was the filled-in example of the worksheet. Being able to see what is expected made the process feel a lot less overwhelming and provided great examples of how specific the Statement of Needs should be. I also appreciated the “Reality Check” box that commented on circular reasoning. It’s really easy to accidentally present an issue using circular reasoning, so including this information in the chapter was a super handy reminder of the right and wrong way to address a problem while writing grants. Combined, the filled-in worksheet and helpful tips/ticks made the process feel more doable and concrete.
The statement of need is a crucial part of the grant writing process that I never knew existed. This chapter did a very succinct job at breaking down why an effective statement of need is important and how it can help or hinder the grant seeking process. One of my biggest take aways was the mention of collaboration when writing a statement of need. Once again, the book advises more research when creating this statement, and through this research advises that collaboration could hold a lot of potential for achieving both groups’ goals with the side benefit of the grant funding. However, the chapter cautioned on relying on this collaboration as a way to solely secure funding, and not putting the mutual goals at the forefront. This point of collaboration stood out to me because of the non-profit my group chose. The Maine Network of Community Food Councils (MNCFC) is a non-profit that like its very long name, connects different food councils, non-profits, and networks together. Their entire organization is based on collaboration, which adds a layer of difficulty and a layer of support at the same time.
The statement of need seems very basic, but it appears to be profoundly influential in grant seeking. The example at the end of the paragraph exemplifies this. The message is succinct, has local relevant data, credible sources, and a statement of how the organization can help this issue within its means.
One of the elements of this chapter that I found interesting was the introduction of collaborative grants – and specifically how it relates to writing problem statements. I think it’s interesting that collaboration projects can be used because the scope or complexity of the project is so rigorous that there is benefit from multiple organization’s particular expertise or provided services.
Within this concept of having projects that exceed the abilities/boundaries of the organization or program, another element I found interesting was the idea of positioning the program as a potential model for other nonprofits in other locations. This enables the organization to broaden the pool of potential funders to include those concerned with the problem in other geographical areas. This, as the text eludes to, can be accomplished by first conducting research to discover whether other organizations in the service area have – or are developing – similar programs to address the same problem. And if so, by then considering a collaborative program that would leverage and expand the reach of each organization’s program plans and grant funds. I think it’s important to understand – and to therein express – that the organization is addressing the need on a larger level through the development or a program that can be a model for others, or through leveraging its efforts with another organization so it can expand the reach and impact of its program. With this, organizations need to redefine the program to be a model that can more easily be replicated by more closely documenting the program and its impacts much more thoroughly than it might otherwise. It might produce a report or training curriculum or some kind of mechanism that will enable others to replicate the program as well as provide some sort of outreach capacities that will let others know about the program and how to replicate it.
I thought this chapter had some really good advice for such a crucial part of a project. Something I thought was particularly helpful was to present your project as a potential model for other organizations like yours to follow as well. This can make it so you can potentially apply to more funders as your project wouldn’t be constricted to a specific geological area. Although, if proposing a model, there’s more documentation that has to be put into it which can add a lot to the workload. Another thing I found helpful was emphasizing the use of hard facts and statistics over anecdotes. As helpful as anecdotes can be for a cause, they can be inherently biased. Using statistics and facts from reputable sources and a tidbit of compelling stories can really solidify why the problem you’re aiming to solve is real and affecting people.