EXPERT WITNESS: Sufficient affluence/sustainable economy (episode 24)--The secrets of grant-writing for attorneys

By Dr. John F. Sase, Ph.D. Gerard J. Senick, chief editor Julie G. Sase, copyeditor William A. Gross, researcher Most attorneys whom I know well write better than most of us. Also, they value giving back to their larger communities in ways that include helping not-for-profit organizations as a volunteer or at a greatly reduced fee. All of us hope that this terrible pandemic concludes soon. As we wait, we watch many not-for-profit endeavors struggle to survive (more than usual) due to the increased demand for their services during this extended period of funding difficulties. As the eagle in my opening cartoon suggests, we need to pull together as one. Our Democracy cannot fly without the unity of the left and right wings that are attached to the central body. Therefore, we need to focus on making a united effort to keep our social-benefit organizations aloft. In writing this month's column, I share my direct participatory experience, which contributed to the survival of some of these organizations. Between graduate degrees, I served through the Jesuit Volunteer Corps to help Gleaners Food Bank, which had lost their accounting person six months earlier due to a prolonged illness. Since Gleaners is a not-for-profit, founder Brother Gene Gonya needed to pull together their accounting records and food-donation valuations in order to ensure the flow of ongoing grants. I dedicated two years to developing a computerized desktop system and to representing the Food Bank at the audits required by their major funders. At the end of my two-year stint, we united our online system with the emerging national network of food banks centered in Cleveland, by which I intentionally put myself out of a job. Over the years, I have involved myself with establishing and developing several small not-for-profits in the arts, such as the Dramatic Research Company of Detroit (aka The Freezer Theatre) and the independent label Freezer Theatre Records. However, with my newly minted doctorate in hand, I put myself forward and joined Focus: HOPE. This Detroit-based organization pledges intelligent and practical action to overcome racism, poverty, and injustice. Through my role as a Senior Program Developer/Head of Research, most of my work at Focus: HOPE contributed to the grant-writing efforts of Lead Grant-Writer Charles Grenville and the other team members during the years of leading founders Father William Cunningham and Eleanor Josaitis. All of us who worked at Focus: HOPE viewed Charlie's grant proposals as virtual "works of art" that contributed to maintaining our annual budget of $80 million per annum. Our referees included Sen. Carl Levin, his brother Rep. Sander Levin, Rep. Barbara-Rose Collins, Rep. John Conyers, and similar public figures. With all of these good folks in mind, I have composed this article in order to share what I have learned through the decades. For additional background, please see the Focus: HOPE Collection, a compendium of records housed at the Walter P. Reuther Library at Wayne State University (reuther.wayne.edu). ----- Drawing the Smaller Picture Let us begin with the approach used by smaller organizations that need limited resources in order to achieve their goals. This arena serves the requirements of groups that seek approximately five to ten thousand dollars for a limited or localized project. Often, the funding agencies exist under the umbrella of a local government or university. The goals of these agencies focus on helping smaller and start-up projects. These actions seek to minimize agency overhead while supporting more modest but still-worthwhile projects. In order to achieve their mission, these agencies usually provide "standard" forms for small-dollar simplified grants (for examples, search Google for "standard format for grant applications"). If an agency posts its preferred standard grant application form in a PDF format, this may serve as an excellent place to begin. Essentially, these common forms instruct applicants how to format a standard grant application that benefits grant-seekers, review organizations, and decision-makers who review the proposals. However, we (the writers seeking grants) still should compose a meaningful cover letter first. Second, we need to develop a brief but thorough executive summary. Third, the writers will want to provide a needs statement as the meat of the grant application, one that describes the needs of our project thoroughly and clearly. Fourth, we want to summarize our reasons for submitting the grant application by making our goals and objectives clear. We hope that this brief review of the basics of grant-writing gives some guidance for those starting out. Furthermore, these essentials remain similar for funding agencies and applicant projects of any size. However, large-dollar grants require greater investment of time and money. Now let us look at the big picture. ----- Learning to "Paint the Big Picture" At the conceptual level, viewing the big picture as a whole within the context of a larger field requires the abstraction of what we do, how we do it, and why it has significance. Like all writing, grant development requires a set of conventions that vary by disciplines and by depths of knowledge. Therefore, we need to stand back from our project in order to abstract it and to distill more effective themes and methodologies while avoiding an over-immersion in proposal details. Meanwhile, we need to bear in mind that proposals must demonstrate the richness and fullness of the proposed project while we reflect our knowledge of relevant fields of thought. Conceptually, we must illustrate our approach with a necessary, evidential precision. Generally, proposal writing does not demand a literature review as would a more academic paper (such reviews often appear counterproductive to the purposes of grant proposals). Instead, our objective in writing requires the maintenance of a strong focus with minimal adornment. Granting agencies concentrate their focus on documents that allow them to find evidence of well-established projects. Funders understand that some relevant form of public benefit and knowledge results from the grant. Therefore, agencies must determine whether or not applicants understand the larger picture upon which their applied work contributes to the common good before, during, and after the proposed grant period. ----- The Introduction Any grant proposal must explain clearly and precisely what the applicant, either individual or group, intends to accomplish while describing how s/he/they will do it. Agencies have come to expect a vivid opening paragraph that summarizes the above issues in a direct and concise manner. Submitters of proposals with such a presentation of essential information tend to organize this opening section around a straightforward, overarching question or statement. Alas, project proposals usually do not reflect any specific topic or thesis. Therefore, as applicants, we must focus this opening volley on the significant issue at hand, how we plan to address it, and what considerable contribution the expected outcome will make, both to relevant fields of knowledge and to human society as a whole. Statements that address the significance of the project carry great import. Therefore, we should explain what interventions a proposed project will make to ongoing debates within the immediate field of concern. In addition, the writer should highlight the more significant contributions that the project may bring to human and to scholarly knowledge. At this point, we can allow ourselves to "think big" as we communicate in a buoyant manner as to what we put at stake in the enormous scope of life. If we cannot achieve this, why would we expect anyone else to care about our project? Therefore, we should not assume any self-evident importance in our ideas and plans. Rather, we need to explain the "whys and wherefores" for which our project deserves the available funding offered. From funders to those being served directly by the project, we need to consider all relevant stakeholders while developing projects that could lead to a grant proposal written for readers at the funding agency. We should ask ourselves early on if the road to approval requires a tiered approach involving a multidisciplinary panel of outside experts along with Agency Program Officers. Consequently, we need to learn more about the readership before we draft our proposal and even while we are writing it. Depending on the size of a grant, we must remain aware that Agency Program Officers often bring outside experts to their panels. Therefore, we need to write strong, understandable proposals that persuade a range of evaluators. ----- KISS (Keep It Simple, Simon) Overall, we need to avoid professional-field jargon and acronyms when writing for proposal readers outside of our respective areas. A word or phrase considered ordinary discourse within our immediate fields probably will not communicate intelligibly or accurately to many readers on a grant-agency panel. Vocabulary and phrasing that sounds normal and natural only to a few may lead to a plummeting probability of receiving funds. In other words, avoid the obscura that may pose a significant challenge to many proposals in favor of clear, straightforward writing. We need to require clarity and simplicity in order to communicate the conceptual framework and content of our project effectively. We should do this with precision, specificity, and particularity of data, concepts, and other information needed to accomplish the work. It does not help our case if the panel members need to dig for a coherent vision within a pile of impenetrable discourse. Also, we must remain aware of and supportive of personal views on many subjects. Therefore, we should strive to avoid the tangles of debate and political contention. Though we may desire to remain true to ourselves and to our own set of beliefs, we need to assess the issues at hand as they affect many parties involved with and served by the funded projects that we promote. Therefore, we should get to know and to understand the driving forces held by these many parties. Most cordially, we need to direct this attention toward decision-makers that provide the flow of funds through us to the people ultimately served. With the preceding statement in mind, a bit of research may produce profiles of possible panel constituents. Depending on their professional backgrounds, some panelists may move around the field of granting agencies. In-house Program Officers tend to remain stationary for more extended periods, since these officers, aided by their staff members, must make the final funding decisions. We might suggest that one do research on Web sites of agencies for additional information before starting a proposal. Smaller agencies focus on narrow fields of need while larger ones may serve a wider-range of programs and projects. Often, small and large groups overlap (as in a Venn diagram) and specialize on one or a few elements of more complex project proposals. We maximize the probability of getting funded by determining whatever we can about the interests, needs, and processes of the agencies to which we apply. Summing up this matter, clear and direct communication will help us to make our points even if we do not find more thorough information about our probable proposal reviewers. Furthermore, we need to remember that agency readers typically evaluate a large number of proposals. Assisting panelists by submitting clearly understandable applications saves time and makes life easier for them as well as for us. In addition, this may increase our chances for acceptance (and, yes, for grant money). Nevertheless, we may need to help the panelists to assess some of the more significant but erudite social/political issues related to our projects. As colorful as language may seem, inflammatory rhetoric does not serve the purposes and goals of anyone. In contrast, a milksop approach generally makes readers suspicious of a cover-up of critical issues. Therefore, communicating our strong beliefs in our projects in a kind, balanced, apolitical, and humane manner helps us to translate the significant importance of our goals. ----- Sections of Persuasive Proposals Some granting agencies explicitly state the preferred or required structure for proposals received and will delineate the topics, themes, and values that they wish to see addressed in submitted proposals. Therefore, we need to read, to understand, and to follow their directions carefully as requested. Knowing the desires of these agencies helps proposal writers to avoid the sand trap of "one size fits all" when considering submission to multiple sources of funding. These groups seem to find a comfort zone when multiple agencies come together in support of major projects. Therefore, we may want to prepare our proposals for submission to numerous sources for delineated funding of a focused set of project sub-elements. This makes sense for everyone involved and economizes the investment of time needed to develop and to address a basic, general proposal for our project. Then, we can adjust the work carefully to match the differentiated foci of multiple potential funders for carefully delineated parts of the larger project. On this point, we may address the specifics of the differentiated elements that form the combined set of grant proposals. We can address these points especially in the Introduction and Conclusion of each proposal. ----- Schedule of Work Our proposal needs to inform agency panelists why the members of our workgroup have the qualifications and time to complete the project successfully. This section stands at the conclusion of our proposals, as our "track record" from similar projects offers solid evidence that we will complete the final work promised in a timely fashion. Therefore, this section should state project status succinctly, should itemize the planned use of funding during the grant period, and should estimate the completion date for the specified project. Also, we will divide the grant period into stages and include detailed plans for completing each step in a final and decisive manner. Let us note that funding proposals that seek to "cover the waterfront" by addressing a diversity of topics with any lack of certainty tend to have a very low probability of receiving funding. Though many projects evolve through execution, our proposals have a greater likelihood for success when written in the declarative mode, e.g. "I will" rather than "Perhaps I will." Terms such as "perhaps" and "maybe" belong on a fishing expedition, not with major community endeavors searching for funding support. ----- Letters of Recommendation Third-party support is a significant factor in putting together successful applications. Grant committees tend to find that most support letters tend to suffer from inflation. Therefore, grant committees often will take them less seriously. The committees have become adept at reading between the lines as they assess the weight that praise should be given. In selecting a group of individuals for writing these letters of recommendation, let us think in terms of the whole package. Not every note has to accomplish the same thing; different letters make distinct contributions to our case. Thus, we might pick one not-so-well-known person who will write a highly detailed letter based on thorough knowledge of our project and another person with national visibility who may not know our work as well, though s/he/they tend to write concise and effective letters. One of these letters might attest to our knowledge of a particular field necessary for our project, while another note might discuss the significance of our prior research or work in detail. Lukewarm letters often hurt a proposal. A negative sentence or two in a letter generally kills a proposal on the spot. Therefore, it pays for us to remain as confident as possible so that our recommenders will approach our proposals with enthusiasm. Let us note that the conventions of letter writing (and letter reading) can vary significantly from country to country. Yes, a pattern exists. In Great Britain, these specific kinds of letters tend to understate praise and to include some slightly negative criticism or qualification in order to build credibility. Contrastingly, letters containing qualifications tend to signal significant concerns in the United States. Therefore, we should do what we can reasonably to acquaint our letter writers with the usual conventions of the country of the award. For U.S. agencies, we should ask our referees to write their letters in Business English or to arrange for high-quality translations. When we develop a list of feasible writers, we should consider those who know our past work and who indicate a professional admiration for it. Potential candidates for this invitation may include respected officeholders at the national and state levels, major newspaper and journal editors, editors of relevant collections of works in the appropriate field, conference conveners, and other luminaries from our professional network. If they express a willingness to write supportive letters well before the posted deadline for submission, we will want to provide them with a submitted or finalized draft of our proposal and our up-to-date vitae. In addition, we may want to remind our references that granting agencies often ask those who submit these letters to comment on proposal cogency in specific terms and on the feasibility of our submitted completion schedules. Therefore, we want to keep our referees updated with any additions or modifications that we make to the original submissions because their letters may lose influence with the grant-agency committee if they fall out-of-sync with our original and updated submitted proposals and vitae. Finally, we should write sincere thank-you letters to our referees for their time and effort. ----- Conclusion Attorneys may become involved in the grant-writing process when asked to contribute legal expertise and high-level writing to the development of proposals. This may include reviewing proposals for legal requirement and accuracy as well as for the effectiveness of the original draft(s) of proposal. In addition, attorneys may review drafts for their correctness in grammar, sentence structure, and other basics of formal writing. Not-for-Profits call upon those in the field of Law according to their respective niches appropriate to the specific project, e.g. discrimination, labor issues, and immigration, to name but a few. Therefore, we hope that we have illuminated our readers to the inner workings of grant-writing and the interdisciplinary talents needed to develop or redevelop organizations that benefit our society at a fundamental level. -------- Dr. John F. Sase teaches Economics at Wayne State University and has practiced Forensic and Investigative Economics for twenty years. He earned a combined M.A. in Economics and an MBA at the University of Detroit, followed by a Ph.D. in Economics from Wayne State University. He is a graduate of the University of Detroit Jesuit High School (www.saseassociates.com). Gerard J. Senick is a freelance writer, editor, and musician. He earned his degree in English at the University of Detroit and was a supervisory editor at Gale Research Company (now Cengage) for over twenty years. Currently, he edits books for publication (www.senick-editing.com). Julie G. Sase is a copyeditor, parent coach, and empath. She earned her degree in English at Marygrove College and her graduate certificate in Parent Coaching from Seattle Pacific University. Ms. Sase coaches clients, writes articles, and edits copy (royaloakparentcoaching.com). Published: Thu, Jul 22, 2021