Grant Writing Guidelines

The funder website is often the best resource grantseekers can have besides a Request for Proposal (RFP) itself. Often funders include lists of previous awardees (which could be useful for comparison purposes), sample applications and proposals, as well as more detailed descriptions of project and budget guidelines. Don’t neglect this!

Do not be afraid to engage with a program officer or associate at the funding organization if you have questions on fit or relevance to their mission. Remember, they are there to help you.

Use your network. You may know other colleagues who have received similar grants, perhaps from the same funder as your target. Engage with them on strategies that worked or feedback they might have gotten on a rejected application. They may also introduce you to other opportunities or means of support.

More information (e.g., pilot studies and supplemental documents) is sometimes welcomed in application materials, though be sure to focus on including and refining all required information/documents.

Grant writing is essentially project management, and relatively little of the process is actually writing the proposal. Keeping that in mind, try to conceptualize as much of a clear timeline—not just of the project itself, but of the process towards submission—and try to get ahead of administrative tasks (portal/website signups, Institutional Review Board approval, departmental budget approval, etc.) if possible. Save as little as you can for the final week before submission. Don’t wait for the last minute!

The grant writing process is a shared responsibility between applicants and the Office of Research and Strategic Partnerships (ORSP) staff. Our primary goal is to help you navigate the complexities of prospecting and applying for external grants, but we are still a small team with limited capacity; please be mindful of timelines and what your specific strengths are in relation to our support.

A complete proposal should have the following key elements that together compose a cohesive and clear project narrative:

1. Project description: a concise yet detailed explanation of the project’s goals, objectives, and the specific problem or need it addresses.
2. Rationale: this clearly describes the problem being addressed by the proposed research, summarizes the existing research on the topic, highlights the gaps in the field the project is intended to fill, and previews the potential implications of the research findings. Why is this a worthwhile project for funding?
3. Statement of significance: this describes how the research will add to existing scholarship, discusses the potential impact of the work on real-world applications or policy, and connects the study to broader theory or societal issues.
4. Impact statement: a concise explanation of how a project will have a positive effect on a given population or audience, demonstrating the value add of the work being proposed. Who will benefit from the research, and how?

Clearly articulate, in language tailored to your audience, the following:

• What your project is specifically intending to do
• The project timeline
• How it fits with the broad mission of the funding organization
• How the requested funds will be used

Avoid jargon or overly specific language. Regardless of the disciplinary of the opportunity, at least some of your application should be written for a non-expert audience. Some program officers or reviewers may be experts, but others are often generalists.

Use numbers and data to your advantage to highlight your project’s potential impact. If you have it, include quantitative data, or the results of a pilot study.

It is imperative to adhere strictly to any proposal guidelines. For example, if an RFP is asking for a four-page maximum proposal, use the entire four pages; unutilized space is space that is wasted by not including more detail. Similarly, don’t exceed page limits. They will notice!

Make sure the proposal is balanced. Devote the bulk of the proposal on the work. In other words, information about researcher qualifications, a literature review, programmatic links to the funder, etc., are less important than a detailed description of 1) what you are doing, why you are doing it, and 3) how you are going to get it done.

It might be helpful to articulate some gaps that your project may not cover, or potential areas for future research. Further, it may open a future conversation with the funder regarding follow-up grants. That said, do not make your proposal seem limited; focus instead on packaging it as novel and necessary.

Begin thinking about the project budget early. Many applications do not require one in the early or Letter of Inquiry (LOI) stages, but it is strongly recommended to have at least a general sense of most line items of the project for ORSP to be able to better effectively aid in proposal development. Feel free to use this budget template.

When building your budget, take into account the broad scope of your project, as well as funder requirements and guidelines. For example, different funders have different indirect cost (IDC) rates (see Pratt’s Indirect Cost Policy for more information), or restrictions on the amount of salary support they can offer. It’s often key to find the right balance between the two.

If needed, don’t be afraid to ask for the full amount of the grant that the RFP allows. Applying for less than the maximum allowed funding does not make you a more attractive candidate, especially if you actually need the funds. Funders want to make sure you can successfully accomplish what you are claiming to do. Don’t be afraid to ask for what you need!

If a proposal is rejected, find out if there are future rounds of funding and try to get some feedback, especially if it was rejected in an advanced stage (e.g., past an initial LOI or a request to revise and resubmit). Early stage rejections are likely not to have detailed information beyond concerns around eligibility or fit, but sometimes they offer more information if requested, or offer advice on how to successfully apply again.

Furthermore, funders may refer you to other organizations in their network who could be a better fit for your research.

• What is the value added by this research project? What is the potential innovation?
• Do the Principal Investigators (PIs) have the necessary expertise or insights to carry out the project? If not, is there a contingency plan for acquiring this expertise or potential collaboration?
• What about this particular project/method is uniquely positioned to address this particular problem/research question?