Journal of taking Grant Writing Course (June-August)

From June until August, I will be taking a grant writing course which will result in my receiving a certification in grant writing the Clemson University Center for Corporate Learning. Beverly Browning MPA, DBA, a consultant, coach, and online instructor in grant writing, is heading this course. I thought it would be useful for me and to my future benefit to journal my experiences and what I learned.

*Note: This journal will be informally written, with its organization being personal and non-conforming to any official standard of keeping a record.

Week 1

June 18: Lesson 1 Introduction & Chapter 1

On the course syllabus, we are told that a new lesson would be released each Wednesday and Friday. We have two weeks to complete all of the contents of each lesson, and each lesson is further divided into separate chapters. Lesson 1 was released on the 16th at midnight and as I log in today, the 18th, I see that Lesson 2 is also open. Lesson 1’s title is “Grant Writer Roles,” and the objectives for Lesson 1 are as follows:

1. Describe the field of professional grant writing.
2. Explain what a grant writer does.
3. Outline the work ethics of a grant writer.

When I was in school at The Citadel, I took an elective course in project management, and the professor who taught that course structured the lesson plans in much the same way as this course is. Before delving into the nitty gritty of any academic field or profession, it’s important to first develop some foundational insight into the rules, ethics, and parameters in which the work done within those industries is performed. The first chapter starts off by giving a brief introduction into Lesson 1, and then gives a “Reality Connection” activity where we read about a real world scenario about Sarah, a volunteer grant writer at a nonprofit.

After I complete the activity, I am made aware of the importance of knowing the general ethics and rules surrounding grant writing. Reading about Sarah’s experience as a grant writer in the activity makes me know that a grant writer will face hiccups down the road. Whether those roadblocks come while researching for potential grants, or while you’re organizing the materials for send-off, or actually being denied a grant you applied for, what’s come upon me is that those difficulties are only going to be worsened if you don’t already know the rules and other parameters that a grant writer has to work within.

After completing the Introduction, I enter Chapter 1: “The Grant Writing Profession.” I learn that grant writing was not considered its own profession until 1998, when the American Association for Grant Professionals (AAGP) was established. Their mission statement reads:

The American Association of Grant Professionals (AAGP) enhances the role of grant developers who work for public or private organizations. The association maintains a code of ethics, and promotes the public image of professional grant developers. It also enhances grant developers’ relationships with funders and employers and advances educational opportunities.

The AAGP’s name was changed to the Grant Professional’s Association (GPA) in 2010, and since then has doubled its membership and hosts an annual conference where members go to continue their education in grant writing.

June 19: Chapter 2

Chapter 2, “The Role of the Grant Writer,” begins by offering a list of all the titles a company would use if they were seeking to hire a grant writer. There are over twenty different titles that could be used by companies seeking to hire someone that does the job a grant writer would do. This is eye-opening for me, and so now I know that if I or someone else wants to seek employment as a grant writer, the imperative is that all of these titles should be used when doing a job hunt.

The Chapter continues by discussing the employment outlook for aspiring grant writers. Another thing I did not know is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies grant writing as being technical writing. The technical writing profession is expected to grow by 8% through 2028, and makes between $40–70k annually depending on where the writer is rural or urban-based, respectively.

The Chapter subsequently concludes with explaining what exactly a grant writer does. Grant writing is not just filling out grant applications — there’s apparently much more to the profession. Grant writers must do grant funding research, at least 1–2 hours daily. Grant writers have access to grant-research databases, but must have up-to-date knowledge on how to use those databases in order to conduct effective research. Grant writers must also do grant planning, which includes assisting their employers and clients in filling out all of the necessary paperwork. Grant writers must also act as grant managers, keeping up-to-date with the implementation of the goals of the grant, reporting due dates for funders, creating and maintaining a grant-management calendar, and tracking all other aspects of a grant from submission to close out.

Week 2

June 25: Lesson 2 Chapter 1, 2, 3

*I did not keep a record of Lesson 2. I was having second thoughts of keeping a journal during the time it took to complete this Lesson. After completing this Lesson I changed my mind, deciding to keep a journal for the remainder of the course.

June 28: Lesson 3 Introduction

Starting off the third week of this course with Lesson 3, “Grant Writing Planning Process.” I’m trying to make time for a graphic design course I’m starting, so for today I’m just doing the Introduction and then touching on Chapter 1. The objectives for Lesson 3 are as follows:

1. Describe the purpose of the grant planning process.
2. Outline the sections of a Theory of Change grant project-planning worksheet.
3. Outline the sections of a grant proposal.

So basically in Lesson 3 I’ll be learning how to navigate the grant planning process by using what is called a “Theory of Change” grant project-planning worksheet. I’m not sure what that is, and sort of confused about the theory part of the name for this worksheet, but this course hasn’t failed in answering any of my questions so I will await the answer to those questions.

Reading the Introduction’s paragraph synopsis, I am told I will also be introduced to a Go/No Go assessment tool, which is a tool used by grant writers to determine if a particular available grant should be pursued or tossed out. The Introduction describes Lesson 3 as being the lesson that covers everything in the “pre-award phase” of the grant-writing cycle.

Just like the former two Lessons, Lesson 3’s Introduction contains a “Reality Connection” activity. This one is about a girl named Hana, who was recently hired to be a local museum’s full-time grant writer. Although Hana had experience writing and applying for grants, she had never done so for a museum before. The activity centers around her figuring out how to define the needs of the museum and how to articulate those needs following the advice of her colleagues. Through the activity, I learn the real world value of the Theory of Change worksheet, and how important it is in writing a successful grant application.

June 29: Chapters 1 & 2

Chapter 1, entitled “The Grant Planning Process,” explains the steps of the grant writing cycle, beginning by explaining the utility of the Go/No Go Assessment Tool. Before writing any single grant application, you need to identify potential grants. Taking the time to discern through the thousands of available grants and finding the ones that align with the needs of your organization will save a lot of time, and increase your grant recipient success rate; the more valid grants you apply for, the more likely you will have success in being awarded as a recipient of a grant. That is why doing a Go/No-Go Assessment is so important for a grant writer to perform. If a grant is given high scoring on the Assessment, then the next steps can be taken — planning meetings with stakeholders and beginning work on the Theory of Change worksheet. Then once those are completed, the writing of the actual grant request can be filled out. In a nutshell, the steps of the grant planning process are as follows:

1. Go/No-Go Assessment
2. Theory of Change Worksheet Meetings
3. Grant Request Writing
4. Search for Additional Funders
5. More Grant Writing

It is important to note that the Go/No-Assessment can be used to determine feasibility for all grant funding opportunities — government and foundation-based. Many forms exist that serve as a suitable Go/No-Go Assessment, but in general they all look like the one pictured below. The higher the score a particular grant funding opportunity receives, the greater the confidence that the grant-seeking organization will be awarded that grant.

Once the Assessment is completed, the next step is to reach out to the organization’s stakeholders and meet repeatedly to discuss the grant project’s ideas and to get some objective feedback on the design of the project itself. These series of meetings are intended to produce a solid and convincing Theory of Change Grant Project-planning Worksheet. The stakeholders for the grant applicant organization are or can include the following:

• Governing board members of the grant applicant organization
• Administrative staff, including the executive director and program directors or coordinators
• Program-level staff who carry out the direct services to fulfill the grant applicant organization’s mission statement
• Members (some nonprofits have paying or honorary members)
• Beneficiaries of the nonprofit’s services
• Donors (funders and individual contributors)
• The local community (collaborative partners [including other nonprofits], government agencies, and community leaders)

The number of people that are represented in a grant application can be very numerous, just by taking a glance at the above list. No one person should tackle the grant project’s planning process alone, let alone solely the grant writer himself. Ideas must come from all sorts of people in order to create a persuasive, attractive Theory of Change Grant Project-planning Worksheet. When a grant application is received by a government agency, foundation, or corporation, they lengthily scrutinized by reviewers in order to pick out the one that is deemed to be the best and most impactful to the community or target population.

Chapter 2, “Sections of a Theory of Change,” focuses on the technical development of a Theory of Change worksheet: how one is made, who is involved, etc. To create a Theory of Change worksheet, meetings need to be regularly held amongst the stakeholders. Due to the extensive number of stakeholders that can be involved with any particular project, it is important to have a stated purpose and leave with an end product each meeting.

There are eight parts which taken altogether form the Theory of Change Worksheet. Looking at a Theory of Change worksheet and a finalized grant application, it is apparent that the eight parts of the worksheet coincide with the different sections of a grant application. In other words, once the Theory of Change worksheet is completed by the stakeholders, much of the work is already done; it is up to the grant writer or team of grant writers to fill in the remaining information and send it off to the grant’s organization for review. The eight parts of the Theory of Change worksheet are as follows:

1. Executive Summary
2. Statement of Need
3. Benefit to the Target Population
4. Project Goals and Measurable Objectives
5. Evidence-Based Solutions to Address the Need
6. Resources to Support the Grant-Funded Project
7. Funding Outcomes and Evaluation
8. Project Budget

June 30: Chapter 3, then cont’d to Lesson 4 Introduction & Chapter 1

The work required to finally send off a grant application for review can seem long and daunting and exhaustive. Nonetheless, it is incredibly important to do the planning process with due diligence in order to create a winning grant application. In Chapter 3, “How Your Planning Process Transfers Into a Grant Proposal,” this aspect of the grant-writing process is discussed, amongst other things. Such due diligence will be rewarded because every section in the project-planning worksheet aligns with the narrative sections of the grant proposal. Although each funder will have its own format requirements and specific grant application guidelines, at least 3/4 of the work is behind you once the Theory of Change worksheet is completed. Chapter 3 focuses on the recurring narrative sections that both the Theory of Change worksheet and the grant proposal contain.

When the grant proposal is started, it is expected that some of the responses from the Theory of Change worksheet may need to be lengthened or shortened to accommodate the technical format of the proposal. It is also expected that if there is extra space left to use, then definitely use it. Include more written information or some graphs and tables — anything to make the proposal more informative or aesthetic.

Also part of Chapter is a learning check quiz that tests whether we can remember the purpose of each part of the proposal. I missed one question, but overall I feel confident that I fully understand the importance and purpose of each section of the grant proposal. After the learning check, Chapter 3 concludes with a review of what the Lesson as a whole covered. The review paragraph highlighted the key aspects of the Lesson, such as meeting with stakeholders, the similarities between the Theory of Change worksheet and the grant proposal, and the importance of the pre-writing and planning phases of the grant writing process.

Next, I begin on a short assignment for this chapter. I am asked to “identify at least 10 internal and external stakeholders that should be included in the grant project’s planning process for an organization.”

I decide to choose my local fire department as a hypothetical organization. The fire department is in need of resources to pay for training, new equipment, and other renovations around the fire station, and my job would be to seek out grant opportunities that would fund those sorts of things. When making my list of stakeholders, I first identify the internal stakeholders: the firefighters themselves, the chief of the fire department, members of the city/county council, the mayor. Then I identify the external stakeholders: the fire departments of surrounding areas, the local populace, the National Fire Academy, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Investigation of Fire Investigators.

After completing this assignment I enter Lesson 4: Introduction to Peer Review and Constructive Feedback. The learning objectives for this Lesson are as follows:

1. Provide and receive constructive feedback from peers.
2. Describe the fundamentals of the peer-review process in the grant-writing industry.
3. Recognize the benefits of peer review.

Basically, this lesson will teach me what peer-to-peer review means in the world of grant writing, the beginnings of this objective feedback process, and the reasons it is necessary. Additionally in this Lesson, I’ll be learning the process for becoming a federal government peer reviewer, the expectations that are tied to peer reviewers, and the methods of documenting feedback for a federal grant-making agency and for the grant applications that are assigned to review.

Chapter 1, “Why Peer Edit?,” starts off with a 3-minute video explaining what exactly peer review is. After watching the video, I can see that the rest of the Chapter focuses on teaching how to peer review and how to give constructive feedback.

When it comes to writing, a second, or even a third or fourth, pair of eyes is never wrong to seek out to review your writing. There are several compelling reasons for why it is crucial to have your writing peer-reviewed, especially in the grant writer’s world. Anything that is going to be published or labeled as “Final” or “Official” needs to be reviewed, reviewed, and reviewed again before being sent off. When it comes to editing our own work, an even more challenging task can be in front of us. It is difficult look at our own work objectively and correct ourselves; what we write made sound amazing to us but is riddled with superfluous words or other errors.

As a grant writer, more importantly, there always needs to be a strict checks and balances system to make sure the grant maker’s guidelines are followed — something very easy to overlook if the work is done all on your own. It would be very embarrassing to have a grant proposal you wrote be rejected because of clerical errors or missing a critical requirement. It is difficult to avoid errors and regrets like if you don’t have another person review your work.

When reviewing someone else’s grant proposal drafts, several questions that you should concern yourself with are ones such as, “Does the narrative flow? Is all of the information applicable? Are you confused with any section of it? The grant proposal should be concise, to the point, and pointedly not redundant; a poorly-written confusing proposal is just the same as one that ignores the grant-maker’s guidelines. When someone official reads a grant proposal, they should have no questions at the end except, “Do we accept this proposal or not?”

Providing someone with feedback can be an uncomfortable thing to do for many people. The writer could be stressing about this latest draft; you may think it’s garbage but have to think of a way to sugarcoat your comments. Although your feedback is simply your feedback — unemotional and correct as it may be — there is a right and wrong way to peer review.

It would be wrong to be vague with your comments. The reviewee needs to know exactly what he or she did wrong so that that mistake can be immediately corrected. As the reviewer, you want to be specific as you can with your comments: “I felt the third paragraph to be awkwardly short. Can you lengthen this paragraph a tad?” It would also be wrong to hold back negative critique in order to not hurt the person’s feelings. If there is something wrong with a person’s writing, as the reviewer you have a responsibility to bring up these thoughts. You would only be dealing the reviewee a disservice by not being fully honest. Be honest and precise with your comments, and don’t withhold anything essential that needs to be said; in general, give positive feedback, as well as recommendations for improvement.

The writing process involves: prewriting, drafting, revision, editing, and, finally, publication. Writing is a process, a lengthy, painful one at times, and it can be frustrating for a seasoned writer to be told to go back to the drawing boards or to start over entirely. However, to grow and develop as writers, the words of author and editor Margaret Langstaff can be a relieving reminder to many: “Humility is an essential quality in writers who want to write well.” All writers need an editor, even those who write professionally. Thus, all writers need humility, especially with themselves. There are several lines of defense to help you when it comes time to proofread your drafts. First, you, the writer, then the first editor, then beta editors, copy editors, and, finally, proofreaders.

July 1: Chapters 2 & 3

I log in and enter Chapter 2, “Big Picture for Peer Review,” to begin today’s work. I watch a four minute long video which discussed peer reviewers and their roles: what they do, what fields they work in, which industries/public institutions regularly require the assistance of peer reviewers, etc. To be selected by a foundation or a public agency to peer review all of the grant proposals it receives is to be considered in honor by those in the grant world. The task that peer reviewers take on is lengthy, mentally scrupulous, but nonetheless impressive.

A peer reviewer reads and rereads numerous grant applications to meticulously find the strengths and weaknesses in each application. In the world of grants, a common way peer reviewers judge a grant application is via a scoring rubrics based on a scale of points. Points are applied to the narrative response sections of grant applications. Typically, points are also allotted to grade whether a grant application followed the format requirements or other specific guidelines. A points scale is often also applied to more technical responses, such as whether the application contains up-to-date figures, whether the proposal contains evidence-based claims or peer-reviewed methods, failing to validate a target population’s need, etc.

The role of a peer reviewer is not an easy one. It is a hard decision to select who will receive a recommendation for reward and who will receive a rejections notice. Prudence, objectivity, and due diligence are the qualities which make for a great peer reviewer.

After completing all of the slides for Chapter 2, I move on to Chapter 3, “Grant Peer Review Basics.” Chapter 3 begins with a video which discusses how a peer reviewer conducts the best practices when he does his work. After watching the video, I am given a rubric that can be used to peer review grant proposals.

The Lesson concludes with a note that peer reviewing will be put into practice in the course in Lesson 6, when we will have a chance to peer review our classmates’ own grant proposals. After this, I take a quiz on peer reviewing, completing the Lesson.

Week 3

July 7: Lesson 5 Introduction and Chapter 1

I begin Week 3 of the course, entering the Introduction of Lesson 5: Executive Summary. The Lesson’s objectives are as follows:

1. Describe the purpose of an executive summary in the Theory of Change planning process.
2. Outline the information for an executive summary in the Theory of Change planning process.
3. Explain how to extract information for an executive summary during the Theory of Change planning process.

The Introduction begins with a Reality Connection activity. A character named Sam works at a non-profit which works to provide entrepreneurial education to parolees re-entering the workforce. He is trying to get together all the information he needs to present at the project planning meeting. Throughout the activity, I am asked to decide which of Sam’s options going forward would be the best decision. After finishing the activity, I am left with a few takeaways:

• Grant writers can take the lead in all types of planning processes (grant projects, program designs, strategic plans, compression plans, and more).
• Grant writers become information-extracting experts.
• Grant writers gain confidence and momentum in leading planning and other strategic decision-making groups.

I then start on Chapter 1: Purpose of the Executive Summary. To get the most out of the first Theory of Change project planning meeting, it is important to already have an executive summary prepared. The executive summary articulates a broad vision of how the entire project will fall into place from start to finish. In order to have one prepared before the first meeting with all of the stakeholders, it is important to meet with each stakeholder individually in order to get the most important ideas and suggestions upfront and then prepare a written summary of the entire project. Information and research gaps can be filled in afterward, but it is crucial to have a formative plan before meeting with all of the stakeholders together; the executive summary is the roadmap, or gateway, to the rest of your Theory of Change Grant Project Planning Worksheet.

A finalized version of the executive summary is a work-in-progress, and thus can require 2 or 3 drafts before getting the approval of the stakeholders.

July 8: Chapters 2 & 3

Chapter 2: The All-Encompassing Overview is very brief, but explains what the entire narrative format of the executive summary should include. A glistening and attractive executive summary that would get the approval of stakeholders and reviewers must include the following:

• An overview of the project’s concept
• Justification for the need for grant funding to implement the project
• Information about the target population the project will serve
• How the project will change existing circumstances for the target population
• Goals and measurable objectives for the program
• Internal and external inputs to support the project when it is funded
• A chronological calendar of the activities needed to implement the project
• The project’s impact on the target population and how it will be evaluated
• The money needed to implement the project

What any other person would call ‘brainstorming’ is referred to in the grant-writing world as ‘starbursting’, and it’s a word that is used to refer to the way questions that pertain to the development of a successful grant project are framed; it is an alternative way of brainstorming by which questions are generated systematically. Chapter 3: “Asking Your Stakeholders the Right Questions” focuses on the sorts of effective questions that will allow you to begin writing a concise, organized executive summary via starbursting. Every potential grant funder wants a grant application to present an innovative spin on the way the grant-funded project will be implemented and operate. Presenting information-seeking questions is the best way to begin a starbursting process to gather the needed information to write the executive summary.

The Chapter presents three ground rules for how each starbursting session should proceed:

1. Ask everyone to participate in responding to the questions.
2. Ask everyone to refrain from shooting down anyone else’s answers.
3. Explain that starbursting is a free-form brainstorming process that lets each person speak independently and freely in order to express their thoughts and contribute to the greater plan that will eventually be incorporated into the grant proposal’s narrative and budget.

As the grant writer and the meeting’s organizer, it is important to keep the meetings energized, organized, simple, and inclusive. To get the most and best information from each stakeholder, remember the 5 W’s: What, Who, Why, When, Where. For example, ‘What indicators can we put into place and track to demonstrate success for the target population?’; ‘Why is this project needed?’; ‘Who is the target population for change?’; ‘When do you anticipate this project should start?’; ‘Where can we find previous best-practice models?’

Chapter 3 concludes with a Learning Check quiz where I am asked to recall basic information from this whole Lesson.

July 10: Lesson 6 Chapter 1

I start Lesson 6 today, and this Lesson’s objectives are as follows:

1. Describe the target population in need of changing circumstances.
2. Explain why change is needed to justify a grant request.
3. Identify the sources of research to support the need for grant funds.

This Lesson focuses on the Statement of Need, which is also known as the Statement of the Problem. When writing a grant-funding application, it is necessary to include why funding is needed, and that is what the Statement of Need consists of. It is important to note that the Statement of Need is not the actual benefits/solutions of the project, but only about need; why the needed changes justify a grant result. Hence, the Statement of Need needs to arouse so much sympathy that anyone who reads the application will want to donate to the program. The needs of the recipients are the only thing that the Statement should focus on, nothing else.

Chapter 1: Who is Your Target Population discusses how to appropriately explain who it is you’re trying to help with this grant. The target of the grant is the people or the animals that you are trying to intervene on behalf of, and can only be helped by securing the needed funding. Statistics and demographic information are very important to include in the Statement of Need. Whether your grant application is intended to help people directly, animals, or provide services, statistics need to be included on why funding is needed to provide that assistance or service.

It is important to maintain realistic expectations when defining your target population; the whole world can’t be saved by one great — keep your target population and needs to be specific and limited. Think of subgroups of people, not entire peoples; instead of providing education to all homeless people, seek to provide it to homeless females/males. Gender, age range, ethnicity, education level, length of homelessness, which medical conditions, etc. are all subgroups that you should keep in mind when defining the scope of the grant’s target. Additionally, funds can be directed towards the primary group, but secondary or even tertiary groups can be affected by the grant funding you are seeking. Something to keep in mind when defining your target populace.

Nearly all grants expire after a 12 month period — Who within the subgroup(s) of the target population can the grant applicant organization realistically provide services for within a 12-month time frame.

Animal populations, arts and culture projects, historical preservation projects, educational opportunities — the

July 11: Chapter 2 & 3

Chapter 2: Justifying the Need for Grant Funds focuses on teaching how to write a compelling Statement of Need. Emotional, pessimistic descriptors are essential towards framing a strong Statement, and they must revolve around negative, unfavorable, and adverse conditions. A weakly written Statement will result in a standard rejection letter or email from the grant-funding institution you are applying to. When writing the Statement, keep in mind four words: Gloom, Doom, Drama, Trauma. Revolving the Statement around the emotion that these four words convey will most certainly add strength to your grant proposal. If there is no definite need from the target population, then there is no need for the grant request to be accepted. It is a Statement of Need, not a Statement of Want. The unmet needs of the target population are dependent upon accurate and emotional descriptors. Statistical fluff will not fool a grant reviewer, and false optimism will not certainly not convince the reviewer of need either.

There are several words or phrases that can be used to convey the emotions of any of the four key words above.

1. Doom: terrible fate, impending doom, sense of doom, severely declining health
2. Gloom: despondent, suicidal, dismal future, malnourished, never received a proper education
3. Drama: tragic upbringing, abandoned puppies, living below the poverty line, victim of physical abuse, victim of drug addiction
4. Trauma: horrific PTSD, victim of bullying, abandoned as a child, self-induced vomiting

However, these words and phrases cannot be relied upon alone to be awarded the funding you are seeking. Statistics and concrete facts must also be included to craft a strong Statement of Need. Recall the 5 W’s from the executive summary. Answers to questions such as these will be needed to include in the Statement: ‘What is the need?’/ ‘What will happen if the needs are not met?’; ‘When was this need discovered?’/ ‘Is this a chronic or emerging need?’; ‘How was the need identified?’; ‘Who is in need of help?’; ‘Where is the help needed?’; ‘Why is change needed?’

Needless to say, the truth should never be stretched when writing the Statement. Embellishing the truth, making up sufferings or needs, lying about your target population are all surefire ways of getting your grant application denied. Grant reviewers will set aside your grant proposal for fact checking if it is believed that there may be some embellishment occurring. The focus of Chapter 3: Researching Supporting Evidence is to teach how to validate the Statement of Need so that there is no room for suspicion from reviewers. Only 20% of a grant writer’s job is spent doing the actual writing — the other 80% is spent on research to support the narrative sections of the grant application.

The U.S. Census Bureau is a valuable resource to educate yourself on your target population within the country. The Bureau provides valuable statistics on the following:

• Population
• Age and Sex
• Race and Hispanic Origin
• Population Characteristics
• Housing
• Families and Living Arrangements
• Computer and Internet Use
• Education
• Economy
• Transportation
• Income and Poverty
• Businesses
• Geography

The Census Bureau also provides international statistics on its International Data Base page, where it keeps statistics on many things, a few of which being Demographic and Socioeconomic Analysis, Global Population Mapping, HIV/AIDS numbers.

When reporting the facts, they need to be accurate and they need to be as up-to-date as possible. Any statistic that is older than five years old is going to be subject for concern. The statistics also need to show dire need, especially if you are comparing the needs of you target population compared to surrounding areas or the rest of the country. For example, if you state that a higher percentage of your local city lives below the poverty line than compared to the rest of the country, then there needs to be graphical information that accurately expresses that statement. Take this comparisons chart for example:

Using distinguishing colors or fonts will help highlight key information to reviewers. Like always, include the sources for your information in the form of footnotes or however the grant-funding institution requires.

Lesson 6 ends with a brief quiz, and then a review activity.

July 13: Lesson 7 Introduction & Chapter 1

I start Lesson 7 by reading the Lesson objectives, which are as follows:

1. Explain how your grant-funded project will initiate change.
2. Outline the benefits to your target population when changes occur.
3. Describe the return on investment outputs for funders.

Once the target population has been identified and the needs of the target have been addressed, it is time to list out the benefits the target population will receive if the grant funds are approved. Accurate predictions, quantitative analysis, and tangible outputs are all the information that combine to form the total benefit. Investors need to know ahead of time a reasonable and predictable return on investment (henceforth ROI).

Next, I move on to the Introduction’s Reality Connection where I am asked to “Put yourself in the shoes of a grant writer and learn how to anticipate benefits to the target population when change occurs. Read through the scenario and respond to the questions that follow.” The valuable takeaways of the Reality Connection are as follows:

• Every grant award comes with expectations that the funder’s investment will initiate change for the target population.
• Every grant maker expects to have a well-thought-out list of expected changes included in the grant application.
• Every grant maker needs assurance that funding will result in a quantitative return on the investment (number of target population members impacted and number of ways that they will be impacted).

I then begin Chapter 1: Change. Grant funders want to see change, and it is necessary that funding produce change within the target population. A basic definition of change is “the act or instance of making or becoming different.” Change must be forecasted by the grant applicant organization to the grant funding institution, or else grant funder will not believe that there will be any ROI. “If/how” questions must be posed to stakeholders at the Theory of Change project planning meetings. The question , “If we implement this proposed project, how will grant funding help our organization to bring about change for the target population?” is paramount to answer. Stakeholders who are specialists in the topic at hand should be well-versed to give a knowledgeable answer to this important question, therefore it is crucial to listen and record their answers.

The Theory of Change approach provides a reliable framework for both grant writers and stakeholders to develop comprehensive descriptions and illustrations of how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context. Copious note-taking and good listening skills are necessary for all grant writers to make this happen.

July 14: Chapter 2

Chapter 2: Benefits begins by defining what ‘benefits’ means in the grant-writing world; “something that produces good or helpful results or effects, or that promotes well-being.” Questions for stakeholders that relate to the benefits of receiving grant funds should be framed in ‘if/then’ form: “ If we have the resources in place to implement this project, then our target population will benefit from”; If we increase behavioral health counseling access for working parents, Then parents will have decreased incidence of depression.” If/then statements such as these are written in a talking tactic known in the grant-writing world as forward logic, where the extracted benefits are realized only if the grant project is funded.

As seen with the above statements, forward logic is divided into If and Then. The systemic changes that will occur after grant funds have been approved is what the If part consists of, while the extracted benefits are what is included in the Then statement; change creates benefits essentially, but there must be change before there can be benefits.

Additionally, the grant writer’s role is to research models of best practices — actual reliable data, not guesses or wild assumptions — that will aid and support the intended benefits for target population members. In order to state a purported benefit to the target, those benefits need to be validated or supported by well-recognized research publications and cited in the Theory of Change Grant Project Planning Worksheet for later reference when writing grant proposals. Writing according to a format that uses measurable descriptors such as ‘reduce’, ‘increase’, or ‘decrease’ will allow you to maintain accountability and well-researched accuracy when writing the benefits narrative section of the grant application.

July 15: Chapter 3

Chapter 3: Quantitative Results begins with giving the definition of ‘outputs’: “the amount of something produced by a person, machine, or industry.” The course goes further than this definition to include the grant writer’s definition of outputs: “the measurable results of activities carried out during the implementation phase of a grant-funded program.” This definition gives off the inference that grant funders expect there to be forecasted, quantitative results in the grant application’s narratives. Funders need tangible evidence to confirm that the grant applicant’s organization intends to be accountable and transparent.

Going back to the “if/then” statements consisting of systemic changes and benefits, grant writers can deduce which quantitative results need to be tracked and measured all during the project’s lifespan. For example, take a look at this chart which visually describes this deduction process:

The outputs above are examples of the quantitative data that must be tracked to show to funders. When thinking of outputs, it is important to note that funders see outputs as their own return on their investment into the project; changes produce benefits, which in turn produce outputs. Funders will only approve those applications which project — accurately, moreover — that there will be a ROI.

The Lesson and Chapter conclude with a Learning Check, where I am asked to recall key terms (change, benefits, outputs) from the Chapter. Next I enter the Chapter 7 Review, where I read a broad summation of Chapter 7’s elements.

Week 4

July 16: Lesson 8 Introduction, Chapter 1

The Introduction to Lesson 8: Project Goals and Measurable Objectives begins with listing out the Lesson’s objectives which are as follows:

1. Define types of goals for a grant project.
2. Explain the correct way to write non-measurable and measurable project goals.
3. Create project goals for funding requests.
4. Create measurable project objectives.

The goals & objectives narrative sections of the Theory of Change Grant Project Planning process is the about commitments that grant applicant organizations will promise to honor and carry out when grant makers agree to fund their written grant requests. Lesson 8 will teach me the types of project goals, how to write and develop them, and the tools used to measure the success of those goals.

Project goals are statements of what the grant applicant will accomplish with funding. By stating the grant applicant’s project goals, there are three questions that are answered for potential grant funders:

1. What will happen with our grant funding?
2. Who will be impacted?
3. Where will the target population be impacted?

The goal statement should be action-directed with a clear plan in place, with a reminder to funders who will be impacted and exactly the city, state, region, or country in which the funds will be directed to. All goals are the solutions to all of the needs that are included in the statement of need. Project goals should be to the point, but also future focused with clear vision showing what the grant applicant intends to do with the grant funding. An example of of a project goal could be like the following:

“Implement an emergency evacuation plan for low-income senior citizens residing in multi-level, city-owned public housing residences.”

A second example could be:

“Accelerate the volume of under-employed and unemployed clients served by the Mercer County workforce development program.”

Notice the above goals begin with a strong verb, state how the funds will be used, who they will be used for, and where they will be implemented. This is the exact format in which project goals should be written. Verbs are effective and powerful, and they help grant application reviewers picture a mental image of what it is the grant applicant’s hope to accomplish with awarded funds. The course provides many verbs that will be useful in forming one’s project goals, all of which are pictured below.

Chapter 1: Types of Goals ventures into the two types of grant project goals: traditional and SMART, beginning with describing traditional goals. Traditional goals are called traditional because they are not written measurable terms, meaning they are not written to show how or when the goal will be attained. Many grant funders in the past and still today are satisfied with traditional goals being used in the grant application, so long as the applicant can achieve those stated goals. More recently however, more and more funders have sought to change the format for how goals are written so that they can be measured quantitatively.

SMART goals are more like measurable objectives, where funders who require such a format expect to see five additional characteristics:

1. Specific: What do you want to do?
2. Measurable: How will you know when you’ve reached it?
3. Attainable: Is it in your power to accomplish it?
4. Realistic: Can you realistically achieve it?
5. Time-based: When exactly do you want to accomplish it?

In a grant project-based SMART goal, the following is an example for how this type of goal would be written:

“By the end of Year 1, increase temporary housing placements during seasons of turbulent weather for Genesee County’s (Michigan) chronically homeless population by a minimum of 25% over the previous year’s baseline temporary housing placements.”

Traditional and SMART goals are very similar, except that the latter is quite more specific in its approach. No matter the type of format that funders require with how the applicant’s goals are written, project goals should always be written in a language that is built on accountability, evidence, or proof that each goal is attainable and will be honored.

July 17: Chapters 2 & 3

In Chapter 1, the two types of grant project goals was discussed. In Chapter 2: Writing Project Goals, the exact format and varying methods for how to develop a project goal will be discussed.

Formatting expectations for the project goals may vary from funder to funder, but there are certain formatting characteristics that will always remain the same whenever listing out project goals.

1. Always begin the sentence of each goal with a verb; NEVER let the first word of a goal’s sentence be “To.” It is detracting to the goal in general and alleviates the effectiveness of the following verb.
2. Project goals are the vision of the project, and therefore should be written in future tense. Visions of the future must be implanted into application reviewers’ heads when they read project goals.
3. When writing in SMART goal format, always begin with a general timeline. Timelines should not be exact down to the day or week, but rather should give grant application reviewers a general implementation timeframe. Acceptable timeframe formats include: “By the end of the first quarter…”; “By the end of month 1…”; “By the end of the fall semester…”
4. When writing in traditional goal format, always begin with a verb.

After completing Chapter 2, I move on to Chapter 3: Developing Project-Specific Goals. I think I’ll be writing my own project to submit for grade? I don’t really know yet but we’ll see. I continue with the next page.

When developing project-specific goals, it is paramount to hover as close as possible to the original specifications of the grant application guidelines. For instance, read below an actual grant application guidelines excerpt from the Department of Justice:

There are more than several project-specific goals that can be delineated from the aforementioned guidelines. Here is three for example that are in line with one or more of the DoJ’s guidelines:

1. Establish a service delivery model that supports prevention and early intervention strategies for girls that are involved in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) juvenile system.
2. Develop and implement direct service programs to reduce reoffending for Charlotte-Mecklenburg County (North Carolina) girls involved in the juvenile justice system.
3. Develop, expand, or enhance targeted curricula for judicial staff (i.e., probation, detention center staff, law enforcement, judges) in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County (North Carolina) to ensure they have the skills necessary to implement these programs for girls in the juvenile justice system.

When potential funders express in writing what exactly it is they want to fund, no deviation will be excused. Moreover, why create more difficulty by trying to find new language when all that is needed is right there in the guidelines already?; work smarter, not harder. New goals do not need to be created when funders have already communicated what it is they want. All the grant writer needs to do is formulate a project that is in line with the already-stated goals.

At the conclusion of Chapter 3 there is a Learning Check quiz, consisting of 12 questions based on the material that has been introduced so far into the current lesson.

After acing the quiz, I move on to Chapter 4: Creating Measurable Project Objectives. The Chapter commences by describing the difference between goals and objectives. While goals are more broad and visionary, objectives are more specific and measurable. In the grant writing profession, objectives are always written in measurable terms. Interestingly enough, the course states that for the majority of grant project guidelines will ask for goals to be written in traditional format and objectives to be written in SMART format. An important thing to note is that a minority of the time, funders will ask for both the objectives and the goals to be written in SMART format, which is redundant and confusing; it would basically be copy and pasting the two. When this happens, the next step would be to contact the funder and ask them to clarify what exactly they expect to see in the two, and what differences they would want to see.

The order of goals and objectives on the Theory of Change project worksheet should be listed sequentially, meaning the connection between the two must be clear and coupled, like so:

Goal 1

SMART Objective 1

Goal 2

SMART Objective 2

Goal 3

SMART Objective 3 (and so forth…)

The conclusion of Chapter 4 and Lesson 8 begins with a Learning Check matching game activity, where I am asked to connect the objective with its complementary goal.

After completing the activity, I move on to the Lesson Review and Lesson Quiz, completing the curriculum of Lesson 8.

July 19: Lesson 9 Introduction & Chapter 1

I begin Lesson 9: Evidence-based Solutions to Address the Need by reading the Lesson’s objectives, which are as follows:

1. Explain evidence-based solutions and why potential funders require them.
2. Describe Internet research processes to identify best-practice models.
3. Outline activities and timelines for how the project will be implemented when funded.

This Lesson focuses on what Evidence-based solutions are and why they must be included in a grant writer’s implementation strategies. The curriculum of Lesson 9 begins with a Reality Connection activity, where the activity’s scenario puts myself in the shoes of a grant writer in order to learn about the importance of evidence-based solutions. The takeaways from this activity are as follows:

• Best-practice models must be researched because funders expect to see evidence that a funded project has a high chance of success when implemented and completed.
• Grant writers must be able to explain to stakeholders what a best-practice model is and why they strengthen the funding request.
• Once the stakeholders have defined a project, the grant writer’s job is to research best-practice models and bring information to the next meeting with the stakeholders’ group.

After moving on, I enter Chapter 1: What Funders Expect to See. This chapter begins by explaining the definitions of key terms that relate to the contents of evidence-based solutions: implementation strategies, best practice, model, best practice model. When developing a project, a grant writer must include a best-practice model into the grant application. Thinking from the point of view of the funder will help understand why this is important, maybe even crucial, to do. Funders want to see that the approach that the grant writer is taking has been done before, has experienced success in the past, and will solve the needs of the target population. In grant-writing terminology, funders want to know that the approach the grant writer is taking is the best-practice model for the subject area.

The project design narrative section of the grant application should adequately answer a number of questions for the funder. Below is a list of such questions:

1. What is the grant project’s implementation plan?
2. What solutions are incorporated that address 100% of the needs identified in the statement of need about the target population?
3. How do you know that your implementation plan solutions/strategies will work with this specific target population?
4. Where is the validated evidence that this approach has been successful in meeting your target population’s specific needs?
5. What entity created the best practice?
6. How has the approach proven to be effective with your specific target population?
7. Is there a footnote or endnote with a citation that includes the source and year for the best-practice model in the narrative?
8. Is the best-practice model still being used in the grant applicant’s project area?
9. Is the grant applicant replicating the entire best practice model with no changes?
10. Is the grant applicant replicating a portion of the best practice model and adding innovative adaptations to meet the needs of a unique target population?

July 20: Chapter 2 & 3

After completing Chapter 1, I move on to Chapter 2: Researching Best-Practice Models. There are certain steps that grant writers should take when in pursuit to find a reliable model that can be applied to their project. Evaluating web content should be the initial step for every grant writer during this phase. That being said, grant writers doing research should always ensure that their information only comes from reliable, up-to-date sources; the Internet is rife with unreliable, misleading, incomplete, or faulty data. Data should be gathered from sites that are open-sourced (meaning not having to pay for the one piece of information), owned by a reputable entity, contain cited material, validated by peer reviewers or expresses successful results, and is less than five years old.

When researching best-practice models, the most reliable data will come from government agencies, think tanks, university institutes, national associations, nonprofits, and professional scholarly journals. Wikipedia, blogs, social media posts, propagandistic individuals or groups, anything outdated i.e. older than five years old, and refuted publications should never be used to cite an application’s best-practice model.

When incorporating the sources of the best-practice model into the grant application, grant writers should organize those sources according to the guidelines set by the funding institution. If none can be found, a best next step would be to reach out the institution to find if there is a preferred way of organization; some funders will require in-text citations, others footnotes, and still others in-text citations with end notes.

The following are examples of grant project subject areas and some reliable sites to fund best-practice models:

There are many keywords and boolean operators that can be used to find a best-practice model for a grant-writer’s project, two of which are the following:

• Best-practice models [type your subject area here]
• Research [type your subject area here] best practices

Sometimes, it is expected that the first several searches will not yield any decent results for a grant writer. Diligence and persistence are key during this phase of the Theory of Change. Grant writers should alternate key words and phrases, sometimes thinking out-of-the-box, in order to find the information they need; the information is out there, a strong willingness to find it is all that is needed.

After Chapter 2 concludes, I move on to Chapter 3: Implementation Activities and Timelines. The Chapter begins with a revisitation of the narrative sections that a grant writer must fill out to answer funders questions. The following diagram illustrates these steps in an easy-to-follow format:

Chapter 3 continues by discussing what a timeline chart is, and why grant writers may need to use them to give to funders. A timeline chart tells the funder when major project milestones will begin and end during the grant’s funding period. Timeline charts are also denote who is accountable for each activity and how the grant writer plans to evaluate the program’s accomplishments during that period. Below is a simplified template of a timeline chart:

Below is an example of a highly detailed, multi-year timeline chart:

Chapter 3 concludes with a Learning Check activity, where I am asked to go through a list of notecards and recall the definitions of key terms from this Chapter, as well as Chapters 1 & 2. After completing that activity I move on to the Lesson 9 Review, where a brief summation of the Lesson’s contents is given. The Review also includes the numerous terms that are recommended to remember in the future when working the the grant writing field:

best practice: a method or technique that has been generally accepted as superior to any alternatives because it produces results that are superior to those achieved by other means or because it has become a stadard way of doing things — for example, a standard way of complying with legal or ethical requirements.

model: a system, procedure, or process that is viewed as an example to follow or imitate

best-practice model: a method, technique, or project implementation process that has been generally accepted as superior to any alternatives. it produces results that are superior to those achieved by other means or has become a standard way of doing things. For example, using a best-practice model has become a standard way of implementing successful grant-funded projects based on successfully implemented results and high-achieving outcomes. Best practice models are also called evidence-based solutions.

evidence-based: anything implemented, evaluated, and deemed to be successful and to fit the definition of best-practice model.

framework: structure or system for the realization of a defined result or goal

guidance: recommended practice that allows some discretion or leeway in its interpretation, implementation, or use

method: systematic approach to achieve a specific target, goal, or result

model: a standard for replication

practice: a description of the way in which professionals work within their professions in order to carry out specific tasks

standard: a document providing requirements, specifications, guidelines, or characteristics that, if used consistently, ensures that materials, products, processes, or services, are fit for their purposes.

Implementation strategies: high-level activities that the grant funding will enable the grant applicant to carry out during the course of the grant funding cycle. All implementation strategies must address eliminating or reducing the target population’s needs by incorporating solutions based on best-practice models that are nationally and internationally recognized as valid and replicable.

July 20: Lesson 10 Introduction & Chapter 1

I begin Lesson 10: Resources by reading the Lesson’s Learning Objectives, which are as follows:

1. Identify the internal resources available for grant projects.
2. Identify external resources available for grant projects.
3. Outline the internal and external resources for a specific grant request project.

I then move on to the Reality Connection activity, where I am asked to put myself in the shoes of a grant writer and observe how to identify resources for grant projects. The takeaways from the Reality Connection activity are as follows:

• Every grant applicant organization should have a resource brainstorming meeting once a year to identify all internal and external resources.
• All types of resources have a monetary value.
• Every source of input, including potential grant funding, can be viewed as a resource.

Chapter 1: Internal Resources for a Grant Project begins by defining what resources are in the grant-writing world: “a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.” When it comes to financial resources, funders expect grant applicants to identify and disclose their existed internal resources, or those assets which the grant applicant’s organization has committed or plans to commit to the grant project. These types of assets can be split to include soft assets and hard assets.

Hard assets are the physical cash or investments that the grant applicant’s organization has already put in towards the project. Soft assets are non-cash assets which consist of physical goods or valuable services. Because of their non-cash nature, a soft assets’ value is what the market would pay for it if the asset were not donated e.g. committing volunteer time to develop a city’s public transportation network. Grant applicants can leverage their funding request from funders by providing these sorts of in-kind contributions. Below is a list of soft and hard cash in-kind contributions which the federal government deems allowable:

The Chapter moves on to discuss something called a cash match. A cash match is any money on hand allocated for cash matching funds. Many state, federal, and foundational grants require a cash match from the grant applicant organization, and the percentage of the match will vary i.e. 25%, 40%, 50%. However, sometimes a cash match can come from grant applicant organizations in the form of soft assets, and that will be an acceptable for many funding institutions. An ROI is expected from funders when they put their money into a grant project. Not only that, but most funders want to be assured that grant applicants are willing to invest a comparable amount of risk into their own project. Doing this ensures accountability and due diligence from grant applicants themselves.

To help understand the exact nature of a cash match agreement, the Chapter includes a hypothetical scenario that explains exactly how the process works:

“A funder has a grantmaking range of $25,000 to $50,000 for first-time grant applicants. However, this funder also requires that all first-time grant applicants ask for only 50% of their grant project’s needs and that they be able to show, in their application’s budget, a 50% cash match. Here’s one more example: The Marion Society is requesting $100,000 from a funder for their operating needs in the next fiscal year. The society’s board of directors has met with the funder, who said that their guidelines required a 100% cash match on all requests. This means that the Marion Society must muster up $100,000.

Societies or nonprofits in need of cash-matching funds are recommended to do the following in order muster the needed funds:

• Create a standing general operating budget line item every year that includes cash match, and have the government board vote on how much of the budget will be allocated for cash match.
• When a staff position is vacated, instead of filling it right away, move the allocated amount to the cash match line item. Don’t forget to include the cost savings for fringe benefits and travel reimbursements.
• Allocate unexpected cash contributions from long-time and new donors to your cash match line item.
• If the organization owns real estate or vehicles not in current use, then suggest that these things be sold, and that the cash received be moved into the cash match line item.
• Some funders will count salaries and fringes paid to non-grant project staff that will be contributing some of their work time to the grant-funded project as cash match. Always ask if this is allowable!
• Include incoming funds from grant awards that have been specified for the same use as the grant being requested.
• Include the fair market value of real estate or land owned outright by the grant applicant.
• Include fleet vehicles (owned outright by the grant applicant).

The Chapter ends with several terms that will be necessary to remember in the future:

1. Matching Funds — Soft or hard cash match for grant projects and applications
2. Cash Match — Direct project expenses the grant applicant provides as their contribution to the grant project
3. Internal Resources — Grant applicant’s owned assets
4. Soft Cash Contributions — In-kind assets
5. Hard Cash Contributions — Cash assets
6. Leveraging — Using internal and external hard and soft cash to match a funding request

July 21: Chapters 2 & 3

While Chapter 1 focused a grant project’s sources of internal resources, Chapter 2: External Resources of a grant project will focus on what external resources consist of in grant writing, and how they should be procured for a grant project. The Chapter begins with a definition of what external resources are: assets contributed by any agency or collaborating partner agency outside of the grant applicant’s organization. Like internal resources, external resources can be in the form of hard or soft assets, but the difference lies in the original source of those assets. These types of resources qualify as matching funds, albeit from a third party.

When a nonprofit organization receives an external contribution, that contribution must be documented. Such documentation can take the form of a Letter of Commitment, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Third parties will send these documents to the grant-making institution or agency to signal their involvement as well as the nonprofit’s progress in finalizing a cash match requirement, if so required.

The Chapter concludes with examples and the proper formats for Letters of Commitment, MOA’s, and MOU’s, too large to include here but which I’ve printed out for my personal notes.

Next, I enter Chapter 3: Identifying and Quantifying Specific Resources for your Grant Project. Collecting and documenting the required assets for a project requires a great deal of meetings, documentation, and communication in and of itself. Internal and external contributions each have their own appropriate methods for documentation and valuation.

Documenting internal contributions is done by meeting with the nonprofits finance or accounting staff. The key questions for these meetings are as follows:

• “What can we use for in-kind matching funds for our grant project?
• Are you able to provide me (and the stakeholders’ team) with a list of in-kind and cash contributions and how they were identified?
• Has our board of directors carved out a matching funds column with breakdowns of soft cash (in-kind) and hard cash amounts or percentages of each line item in the budget?”

Questions like the above, and more if necessary, will help the finance and accounting staff understand what is needed for inclusion in the Theory of Change Project meetings, which will eventually be included in the grant project application’s budget documentation.

Documenting external contributions begins with asking stakeholders at the Theory of Change project meetings what kind of contributions they are willing to donate when the grant project is funded. It is important to keep track of the name of the committing organization, the contact person’s information, the type of in-kind contribution, and its estimated value (according to market value if not a cash donation). When confirming final commitments, prepare a template for each committing stakeholder to fill out. Such a template should resemble the following:

Validating the actual value of in-kind contributions is highly scrutinized by the Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service, and thus validation should be well-documented and credibly established; outgoing contributions and received contributions must be documented, in detail, on a nonprofit organization’s annual tax return, Form 990. Calculating the actual value of in-kind contributions involves the following:

• Knowing the market value of the contribution.
• Considering the cost of obtaining comparable services or goods (ask yourself what your organization would have paid to purchase the goods or services if they had not been donated.
• Ensuring that the value of the donation is established by the contributor.
• Reviewing the contributor’s letter or form to ensure the value is reasonable.

Simply trusting the contributor’s judgement of the value of his donation/contribution should never be done; it is the job of the grant writer to always validate the actual market value of the contribution. Continuing with this thought, the Chapter says, “The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defines fair market value as “the price for which the given property would sell on the open market.” This price would be agreed upon between a willing contributor and a willing recipient of the goods or services. If restrictions are put on the use of the property donated, the fair market value must reflect that restriction.”

A collaborating partner or stakeholder may want to provide a cash match and other contribution for a grant funding request. It is the job of the grant writer to offer up a number of ways in which they can fulfill this wish. Grant writers should always be willing to brainstorm in order to gather more funds/cash matches. The Chapter includes a few effective brainstorming questions to help facilitate cash matches from willing donors:

• Will you have uncommitted cash available during the period of the projected grant funding cycle?
• Is your organization applying for any general operating fund grant funding that could function as an external cash match for our grant project?
• Are you expecting any unrestricted large donations from your funders that can be allocated, in part, for an external cash match?
• Will your governing board need to approve your cash match commitment for our grant project? Are they meeting before the grant application’s deadline? If not, how can we get a tentative commitment from your board’s executive committee? Can you facilitate a telephone meeting with the committee to get permission to make the commitment in writing prior to the full board’s meeting?

Chapter 3 and Lesson 10 conclude with the Learning Check matching game activity and the Lesson 10 Review, where a summation of the Lesson’s contents are available for reading. Next, I move on to the Lesson quiz, and finish Lesson 10.

July 22: Lesson 11 Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2

I begin Lesson 11: Funding Outcomes and Evaluation by reading the Lesson Objectives, which are as follows:

1. Define outcomes for the grant project
2. Outline the changes that will happen for the target population as a direct effect of the project’s funding
3. Explain how to evaluate the grant-funded project’s success

The entire Theory of Change project planning process can take place in one long meeting in one day, or during shorter meetings over the course of a week or several weeks. There are many components involved in the Theory of Change Project planning process, and each one is equally important in order to best ensure the chances of being awarded the grant which is being sought after. Lesson 11 covers a great deal of information, from leading the stakeholder evaluation discussions to writing a final evaluation plan for the project at hand.

Lesson 11 begins with Chapter 1: Developing Project Outcomes. While earlier in this course some curriculum was devoted to discussing the projected benefits and objectives of a grant project, this Lesson focuses on the outcome — the successful implementation of a grant funded project. Outcomes result when the stated goals are achieved, and the SMART objectives hit or exceed their promised percentage measurements.

When looking at the outcomes, it is important for the grant writer to look back at the projected end results of the project. Stakeholder’s meetings discussing the outcomes of the project if the conversations are centered around the following or something similar to the following:

• What was our first goal?
• What were the SMART objectives for the first goal?
• If we achieve the first goal and attain the full measurement in each of our SMART objectives for that goal, where will our target population be when the funding cycle has ended?
• What will we have increased or decreased for them?
• What will we have improved for them?
• How will our project have impacted their lives?

It is recommended to the grant writer during this part of the Theory of Change planning process to think about the past and the future, and then to engage in future thinking.

Even before the Theory of Change worksheet is completed and incorporated into and even before the project’s outcomes can be stated, it is the job of the grant writer to ask to himself whether the outcomes will match or exceed the original goals and objectives.

The Lesson continues by discussing the characteristics of outcomes, meaning how they should appear in the Theory of Change worksheet and, eventually, the actual grant application. The following are the characteristics of outcomes, as listed by the Lesson:

• The way things turn out
• A consequence
• The result of something
• Result when your goals have been achieved
• Result when your SMART objectives hit or exceed their promised measurements
• Level of performance achievement that has occurred
• Are always written in past tense

After engaging with all of the contents of Chapter 1, I enter Chapter 2: Forecasting the Impact on Target Populations. The Chapter begins with explaining several of the duties of grant writers that pertain to his role in leading the Theory of Change project planning meetings. The Theory of Change stakeholder meetings are a crucial half in making a grant funded project a reality. As the grant writer, it is his responsibility to lead stakeholders through the meetings by asking key discussion questions which are to result in starbursting. Each stakeholder has a personal vision for the project at hand, but in order to pull out each individual vision, detailed responses must be elicited via starbursting. Grant writers posing leading questions must develop questions through sound and evidence-based research so that he can keep up to speed with the stakeholders, who possess the best, first-hand knowledge of the topic at hand.

Grant writers should research best-practice models in surrounding areas which are characteristically similar to the target population he wishes to have an affect on. Researching factually-based, up-to-date case studies and best-practice models, and then bringing those reports to the stakeholder meetings will make the most use of the limited time a grant writer has available for review and discussion. Additionally, having some present outcomes of other projects on hand will allow for time to open dialogue for new outcomes which would be specific to the grant project at hand.

Chapter 2 concludes with a video and 5 format requirements when listing the outcomes of the grant funded project on the Theory of Change plan and the eventual grant application:

1. Outcomes are always written in the past tense.
2. Outcomes are always the anticipated results of the grantfunding’s impact.
3. Outcomes always start with verbs. Remember, goal statements always begin with a present- tense verb.
4. Outcomes are always followed by a measurement term i.e. increased or decreased.
5. Outcomes are always written in fragmented statements.

Week 5

July 23: Chapter 3

Chapter 3: Evaluate the Project’s Success is lengthier than past Chapters and covers the full range of evaluation standards which grant writers are responsible to account for when conducting a grant funded project’s evaluation process. The definition of evaluation as given by the course is “A structured interpretation and giving of meaning to predicted or actual impacts of proposals or results.” Looking back at the project’s SMART objectives and then looking at what was accomplished — and how it was accomplished — is a basic understanding of the entire evaluation process. During the Theory of Change grant project planning process, the evaluation process, in part, should be defined by the stakeholders, depending on their organization’s and stakeholders’ agency experiences with evaluating grant-funded projects.

The evaluation process is important to funders because it showcases the grant project’s achievements, and helps to make for a better future grant project. The complexities of the evaluation process involve many moving parts, and sometimes the total impact on the target population is varying and not as straightforward as wished.

There are four processes involved in developing a grant project’s evaluation plan: Thinking, Planning, Collecting, Communicating. The Thinking process requires the grant writer to clearly define why a project is being carried out, and what exactly are the kind of results that are being sought after. In the Planning process, the grant writer and his team should develop an evaluation plan that will guide all evaluation activities. Also during this process, the grant writer should define who the evaluation process is focused on; stakeholders, project team members, the public, project management, etc. The Collection process is simply when the grant writer defines what data he will collect and the methods in which that data will be collected. The Communication process is when the grant writer decides how the evaluation results will be used and to whom the evaluation report will be disseminated. The type of report produced is dependent upon who is receiving the information; it would be wise to give funders an official formal report, while the general public would best be served by publishing the evaluation in a periodical or on the Internet.

Chapter 3 lists six types of evaluations (plus one term) which the grant writer should be familiar with when writing a full evaluation report:

• Outcomes Evaluation: a type of evaluation which measures the effects in the target population by assessing the progress in the outcomes of the project.
• Process Evaluation: A type of evaluation which determines whether the project’s activities have been implemented as intended and have resulted in certain outputs. This type of evaluation collects qualitative data about the quality of the implemented project
• Summative Evaluation: A type of evaluation which analyzes all data collected at the end of the grant project’s funding period.
• Performance Evaluation: A type of evaluation which measures the progress of the project’s SMART objectives and/or goals. This time of evaluation collects quantitative data.
• Formative Evaluation: a type of evaluation which analyzes the data collected at intervals during the project’s implementation.
• Corrective Action: an action that occurs when the evaluation data show that the project is not impacting the target population as initially planned and proposed in the grant application. Corrective action consists of improvements to the grant applicant organization’s processes in order to achieve the evaluation plan’s qualitative and quantitative data results.

In every industry, there are standards which are a generally accepted way of carrying out the internal processes of that specific industry. In the grants industry, evaluation standards are looked for by funders to analyze a project’s total success. The Chapter lists the four types of standards which pertain to the grants industry, and lists the individual standard requirements of each (of which I’ve printed out for my personal notes):

• Utility Standards: exist to ensure that a grant project’s evaluation will serve the information needs of the grant applicant and that the evaluation findings will be useful to the project’s stakeholders.
• Feasibility Standards: exist to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.
• Proprietary Standards: exist to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as for those affected by its results.
• Accuracy Standards: exist to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine worth or merit of the project being evaluated.

Chapter 3 concludes with a Learning Check activity, where I am asked to match the definitions of key terms with their appropriate terms. After I do the activity, I move on to read the Lesson 11 Review, and thus finish Lesson 11.

July 24: Lesson 12 Introduction, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2

I begin Lesson 12: Developing a Project Budget by reading the Lesson Objectives, which are as follows:

1. Outline your project’s budget expenses
2. Explain why each line-item expense must be justified
3. Describe the difference between soft and hard cash leveraging funds

Chapter 1: Standard Project Budget Line Items begins by discussing the grant writer’s role in developing a project budget. Grant writers communicate and do work with a number of different people in different professions. Funders of grant funded projects will require an itemized budget, and so it is necessary for grant writers to work with their accounting or finance departments to develop a project’s budget. Developing the budget needs to be done with a high level of scrutiny, as a budget mired with mistakes will signal to funders that the grant applicant organization is not adequately able to manage a grant award, keep track of expenditures, and submitting financial reports on time.

In grant applications, funders will usually require a narrative in a budget explanation section, where the grant writer will input the details for the different in-kind and cash-matching contributions. The budget section should be one of the last things a grant writer should tackle during the Theory of Change project planning process; an accurate budget cannot be developed until all of the detailed expenditures are known and accounted for before implementation. There are a number of different types of expense points which grant writers should be aware of when developing a grant funded project plan:

1. personnel expenses: fringe benefits for salaried grant-funded staff
2. travel expenses: the costs that incurred to travel to stakeholder meetings, to training locations for specialized program staff, and reimbursements to staff for local travel and lodging
3. equipment expenses: the equipment that is needed to successfully implement the grant funded project
4. supply expenses: the materials and supplies needed to allow the grant funded project to run smoothly e.g. office supplies, program supplies, maintenance supplies, cleaning supplies.
5. contractual expenses: food services, contractor trainers, fundraisers, accountants, construction companies, evaluation specialists.
6. construction expenses: the expenses incurred when hiring a speculator, landscaper, or any other proposed construction work that will be funded by the grant award. Something important to remember about construction expenses is that the cost of goods and labor increase annually.
7. other expenses: other items that do not fit into the above budget categories (internet/fiber cable, janitorial, rent, security services, stipends for important speakers)

The budget development process begins with an itemized summary of the known, anticipated expenses that will incur during the grant funded project’s cycle. What funders want to see in the grant application will vary from funder to funder. Most funders require an itemized list along with the narrative budget section in the grant application. Some funders will only want a summary of the budget, while others may want a full account of all project expenses. For a visual example, the following is Standard Form 424A, the federal government’s standard grant application budget summary form:

The narratives of the implementation strategies, resources, and evaluation notes will be where the grant writer can locate the project expenses, if they are done correctly. The course recommends creating a three-column table in order to capture and organize the grant project’s expenses, as well as anticipated sources of revenue. The following is a visual example of such a table:

After reading through the contents of Chapter 1, I move on to Chapter 2: Budget Line Item Justification Requirements. Funders will have different requirements for how they would like to have the budget narrative section of the grant application to be organized. An example of a project budget narrative looks like the following:

The quantitative details of expenditures can be lengthy, as funders will likely want to see estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar details. Additionally, the complexity of estimating the costs of expenditures can be increased depending on the duration cycle of the grant project; the costs of goods, services, and labor typically increases every year. Justification for a project’s budget must be evidence-based and well-calculated, and each item of the budget must show to be necessary towards having a successful implementation of the project. The budget narrative should define the amount of work that is planned and expected to be performed, what it will cost, and an explanation of the result’s cost effectiveness. The same types of expenses that were listed and discussed from Chapter 1 must also be justified; in the budget list and narrative, there will be a list of the expense and then a written justification of those expenses.

Chapter 2 introduces a term which is important to know as a grant writer. Cognizant agencies is a term used to describe the federal agency responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and approving cost-allocation plans or indirect-cost proposals on behalf of all federal agencies. A list of all the cognizant agencies is published by the Office of Management and Budget, but Health and Human Services is the cognizant agency for most cities and all states. It is important for grant writers to understand the role of cognizant agencies because there will be many times when federal funds will be used towards funding a grant project, and where federal funds are incurred federal regulations typically will apply.

Indirect costs are organization costs that have been incurred to operate the organization and its programs and that are not readily identifiable with a particular project or program i.e. salaries & expenses of executive officers, staff costs, depreciation, the costs to operate and maintain facilities. Organizations that expend federal funds and allocate and claim indirect costs must negotiate an indirect cost rate with a cognizant federal agency. First-time grant applicants are advised to apply for an indirect cost rate through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, because it is the federal agency which is easiest to obtain approval from for first-time grant applicants. Each federal agency has specific guidelines on what to submit for an indirect cost rate approval. Such an approval is called a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). Below is an explanation from the Corporation for National & Community Service about how to obtain a Federally Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement:

“Any non-Federal entity [i.e., grant applicant] that has never received a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) may elect to charge a de minimis rate (de minimis describes something that is too small or insignificant to be of importance) of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely. Indirect costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology, once elected must be used consistently for all federal grant applications until a non-Federal entity (grant applicant) chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity (grant applicant) may apply to do at any time.”

Anything other than honesty, straightforwardness, and transparency in the budget section will certainly result in a grant application rejection from foundations and federal grant-making agencies. Below is a list of red flags that will be searched for when funders are reviewing a grant application:

• Including disallowed costs in the budget request
• Failing to write a detailed budget narrative
• Failing to include a budget summary with like line items from the detailed narrative
• Failing to calculate correctly
• Failing to explain every dollar or penny requested
• Failing to include in-kind or cash matches

The course continues Chapter by discussing a grant funded project’s longterm viability, termed as sustainability in the Chapter. Conveying grant project sustainability to stakeholders and funders is a concern grant writers keep in the back of their heads through the entire grant application process. Funders typically expect grant applicants to address the sustainability question — “How will we sustain our project when the grant funding cycle ends? How will we continue to serve our community and our clients, as well as continue to demonstrate to our stakeholders that we are a financially viable service provider” — towards the end of the grant application document, either in the last section of the grant application or at the end of the budget narrative. The sustainability question must be answered in a competitive, thoughtful way, and involves input from the governing board, executive director, and finance staff. While the grant writer has many roles to play, it is actually the role of the governing board to create a sustainability plan. Once a plan is made, the grant writer then can answer the funder’s sustainability question. It is important for the grant writer to remain within the confines of the sustainability plan when answering the sustainability question.

July 25: Chapter 3

After completing Chapter 2, I move on to Chapter 3: Distinguishing the Difference Between Soft and Hard Cash. The Chapter begins by noting the key characteristics of cash match contributions and in-kind match contributions.

Cash match contributions consist of either the grant applicant organization’s own funds or funds received from a third party, partner organizations. A cash match contribution is actual physical monetary donations, and when a cash match contribution is made it is documented in a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement (MOU/MOA).

In-kind match contributions also come from the grant applicant organization or the project’s stakeholders, but instead of the contributions being physical cash they actually consist of the goods and services that will be allocated towards the grant funded project, and can include direct and indirect costs. Personnel or equipment lended to the project by third party stakeholders at no cost to the project’s budget are considered to be in-kind contributions. In-kind match contributions are also to be documented in a MOU/MOA.

Securing matching contributions and funds are important to funders for several reasons. A grant applicant that leverages other revenue sources shows commitment and investment on behalf of the grant applicant’s organization. Funders would rather invest in projects which are not 100% funded by grant awards, as such projects are more likely to fulfill longterm sustainability long after the grant’s funds expire. If a grant applicant is to foster a positive opinion of its commitment to the success of a proposed project, then securing alternative sources of revenue — either from its own vault or third party sources — is the most assured way to do so. Awarded grant funds are not structured to last forever; multi-year grant awards are often structured to decline in the awarded amount each year after Year 1 so that the grant applicant is nudged to find an increasing amount of community-based funding each year thereafter.

Interestingly, according to the course, funders would rather see more cash-match contributions than in-kind contributions. The value of cash contributions is based on the present market value, and how the contributions were spent is easily tracked via receipts. The value of in-kind contributions is calculated by the stakeholders and MOU’s, and it takes more time to track the way in-kind contributions were used — how, when, and for what were the contributions used.

Chapter 3 and the Lesson conclude with a Learning Check activity, where I play a hangman game to guess the term that goes with the definition or hint given. After completing the activity, I move on to the Lesson 12 Review, completing Lesson 12 — which concludes the course.

Conclusion

This journal numbers well over 15,000 words, so it’s needless to point out that I’ve learned so much about grants and grant writing through this course. I was vaguely familiar with grants before I started this course, which is to say plainly that 1) I knew that grants existed and 2) that they were used towards scientific/political research. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the scope of grant funds is much wider and extremely expansive. This scope has only increased since the early 2010’s; the number of organizations who have applied for 501(c)(3) status has nearly doubled since 2000, and amount of annual giving has tripled. Grant writing is an exciting profession because money in itself and in general is exciting. Grant writers have the tools and skills to effect important change within their communities, but only those with the highest attention to detail, the most diligence, and the most commitment to the causes they serve will be awarded the grant funds they seek. Securing grants is more competitive than ever — one jaw-dropping statistic I read was of one foundation that received over 40,000 grant proposals, but awarded 1,400 grants — and so it is especially important for funders to see that not-for-profits are collaborative, have strong boards, and show that they have (or are pursuing) numerous & diverse sources of funding. Grant writers — effective, perfectionist, persuasive grant writers — are in high demand, and so long as there are societal issues that need repair, there will be a need for someone to secure the repair funds. Grant writing is a skill, and perhaps a profession, that I know would be a fantastic fit for my collaborative personality and my natural liking for research/learning. I am currently expanding my knowledge by reading more grant writing material — articles and blogs online and The Only Grant-Writing Book You’ll Ever Need by Ellen Karsh and Arlen Sue Fox — and I am actively searching for foundations and not-for-profits that are accepting volunteer work or internships. I am excited to see where my search leads, with the expectation that before the end of the year I will be actively developing experience in the grant writing field.