How the Trump Administration Intends to Dramatically Cut Federal Grants, Part 2

In the coming months, we will gain a more precise understanding of what will be in and what will be out over the next four (and possibly eight) years after the OMB releases the full budget, and Congressional committees start sorting through and adjusting these priorities on their own. Nevertheless, it seems likely the Congress will follow Trump's emphasis on Homeland Security, Defense and Veterans Affairs. One response to his budget cuts might be to adjust (or re-imagine) your existing programs so that they align with the priorities he is setting. Below, the folks from Management Concepts review how Trump proposes to impact the budgets of still other federal departments, as follows: 

Department of the Interior

• Eliminating the Abandoned Mine Land grants, National Heritage Areas, and National Wildlife Refuge fund payments
• Reducing funding for more recent demonstration projects and initiatives that only serve a few Tribes.
• Leveragin] taxpayer investment with public and private resources through wildlife conservation, historic preservation, and recreation grants. These voluntary programs encourage partnerships by providing matching funds that produce greater benefits to taxpayers for the Federal dollars invested.

Department of Justice

• Safeguarding Federal grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement and victims of crime to ensure greater safety for law enforcement personnel and the people they serve. Critical programs aimed at protecting the life and safety of State and local law enforcement personnel, including Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement Officer Resilience and Survivability and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, are protected.

Department of Labor

• Eliminating the Senior Community Service Employment Program
• Eliminating the Bureau of International Labor Affairs' grant funding
• Decreasing funding for job training and employment service formula grants
• Eliminating the Office of Disability Employment Policy's technical assistance grants
• Eliminating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's "unproven" training grants

Department of Transportation

• Eliminating funding for the TIGER discretionary grant program

Department of the Treasury

• Eliminating funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund grant
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Reducing categorical grants by $482 million
• Eliminating more than 50 EPA programs, including: Energy Star, Targeted Airshed Grants, and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native Villages and the Mexico Border

Small Business Administration

• Eliminating PRIME Technical assistance grants, Regional Innovation Clusters, and Growth Accelerators
• Following the budget’s release, Congress reviews the proposal and adopts a budget resolution, which sets spending thresholds. Congress then begins the appropriations process, which determines funding for each program.
• Since the President and members of Congress are elected by different constituencies, the priorities for Congress frequently differ from the President’s, therefore it is important to note that many of the budget’s proposals are unlikely to be enacted. 

Once OMB releases the full budget, and Congress begins its work, we will have a better understanding of how grant programs will fare in the coming years. If you are like me, you may be surprised to learn that some of these programs even existed in the first place. It is so easy to underestimate the size and scope of the federal government. Many of its programs only appeal to small, distinct interest groups and the rest of us do not have the time or the incentive to learn about them. 

In my experience, the best place to look for guidance regarding your own agency's federal grant supply is through your Washington lobbyist or through the staff of your local congressional representative. 

How the Trump Administration Intends to Dramatically Cut Federal Grants, Part 1

Last month, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released president Trump's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2018. (We are, of course, still using president Obama's budget.) The presidential budget typically lays out a president's priorities. As the analysts at Management Concepts indicate, Trump's budget for next year intends funding decreases for nearly every Federal department, except for Homeland Security, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Additionally, Trump is calling for the elimination of 19 independent agencies, including grant-awarding agencies such as the African Development Foundation, Appalachian Regional Commission, Corporation for National and Community Service, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities

. 

While the documents we currently have available are only the general outlines of Trump's budget, they do provide us with a heads up on what to expect for the next four years. Significantly, analysts can glean the following guidance for grant writers who include federal applications in their grant campaigns. In sum, Trump is calling for: 

Department of Agriculture

• Eliminating the Water and Wastewater loan and grant program
• Reducing funding for Rural Business and Cooperative Service by $95 million
• Eliminating the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education program

Department of Commerce

• Eliminating the Economic Development Administration
• Eliminating the Minority Business Development Agency
• Eliminating NOAA grants and programs supporting coastal and marine management, research, and education including Sea Grant

Department of Education

• Increasing funding for charter schools, new private school choice program, and Title I
• Eliminating Supporting Effective Instruction State Grant programs
• Eliminating the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program
• Eliminating the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program
• Reducing the Federal TRIO and GEAR UP programs by $193 million
• Eliminating or reducing funding for over 20 categorical programs, including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership, Impact Aid Support Payments, and International Education programs

Department of Energy

• Reducing $900 million from the Office of Science
• Eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program

Department of Health and Human Services

• Increasing SAMSHA funding by $500 million to expand opioid misuse prevention efforts
• Reducing NIH spending by $5.8 billion
• Restructuring similar HHS preparedness grants to “to reduce overlap and administrative costs and directs resources to states with the greatest need”
• Eliminating the discretionary programs within the Office of Community Services, including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

Department of Homeland Security

• Eliminating or reducing State and local grant funding by $667 million including the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, which is “unauthorized by Congress,” and Homeland Security Grant Program.
• Establishing a 25 percent non-Federal cost match for FEMA preparedness grant awards that currently require no cost match

Department of Housing and Urban Development

• Eliminating the Community Development Block Grant program
• Devolving community and economic development activities to the State and local level.”
• Eliminating funding “for a number of lower priority programs,” such as: the Home Investment Partnerships Program, Choice Neighborhoods, and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program
• Increasing funding by $20 million for the mitigation of lead-based paint and other hazards in low-income homes
• Eliminating funding for Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing

One Key Question: Does Donald J. Trump Really Mean What He says?

My study of similar charismatic leaders indicates that charismatic leaders like Donald J. Trump really do mean what they say. Since they are traditionally seeking to upset existing power structures, they cannot survive unless they take care of the followers who they ask to trust them and be willing to follow them despite high risks and potential social pressure. Unlike Obama, demonstrably Trump cannot lean on the support of a sympathetic press or the adoration of Hollywood. Instead, he has to rely on his relatively smaller base of working class voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to hold on to power. Given the narrowness of that band of political support, he really cannot afford to offend that base or back off his promises to them. 

Indeed, one of the consistent patterns seen in charismatic leaders like Lincoln, Washington or Napoleon is that they were known for their commitment to strong principles of justice and fairness. If charismatic leaders were simply chaotic, insincere liars, then it would be difficult for them to attract die-hard followers. Their key inner core of supporters would abandon them if they lacked fidelity to their closely cherished beliefs. Followers maybe patient with their leaders, but they are not stupid about them. Like Napoleon and other leaders, you have seen and can count on Trump to say different things to different audiences to win their support. We can predict that he will occasionally offer alternative facts to get temporary advantages. In the long-run, however, it is a safe bet to assume that Donald Trump believes what he says and that he fully intends to make the sort of changes he promised during his campaign, particularly on the big picture issues like trade, immigration, and fighting ISIS. 

The most important question is not whether Trump is sincere, but to what extent will he be able to do what he wants given the constraints of our U.S. Constitutional system.

 

The simple answer is no, as the highly charismatic Barack Obama learned. It is not so easy to get things done and make them stick because the U.S. Constitution created three separate branches of government and gave to each its own tools for protecting its turf, i.e. the famous checks and balances. 

One of the best ways to improve your predictions of how much of their agenda any president will accomplish is to pay attention to the priorities of the legislative branch, Congress. In this regard, Trump does have an advantage in getting his policies put into law. His party controls both parts of the Congress, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Perhaps due to all the media attention focused on the president, one of the truisms of American government is that, the legislature has a lot more power than people think it does. After all, most of us do not pay much attention to how government really works and fail to follow how the actual details of a president's legislative agenda are hammered out in the House, the Senate and then the conference committees which combine their separate bills into one law that the president can then either sign or veto. 

Unlike many U.S. governors, the president suffers from limits to his executive power because he does not have a line-item veto. Such a veto power would allow him to pick and choose which parts of a proposed law to accept or reject. 

In view of these real world constraints, I think it is a wise bet to assume that President Trump will end up approving a lot of the existing, conservative, Republican policies that have been bottled up in the legislative branch under the Obama administration. This is because the quickest and safest way for Trump to get quality legislation completed quickly is to simply rubber stamp the legislative changes which have been consistently repressed and vetoed by Obama. If you know what the Republicans have been wanting to do in your particular field of interest, then it is a safe bet to assume they will get their way under President Trump. 

How to Win Grants from the Trump Administration

NON PROFITS FACE UNCERTAINTY AND ANXIETY REGARDING FEDERAL GRANTS.

Trump's stunning win will install a president in the White House who is likely to shake up federal grant making just as aggressively as he plans to disrupt Washington. Consequently, the unexpected results of the 2016 Presidential election have triggered profound questions regarding the future of federal grants for California and across the country.

President-Elect Donald J. Trump

While we do not yet know the specific policy changes that the new President-elect and Republican-led Congress will pursue, we can make reasonable guesses about the increase, repeal, rollback or decrease of various federal grants. We can make sense of the a priori questions about American politics and government, including:

• Does Trump mean what he says?
• Will Trump be able to do what he says?
• What programs will be nourished and which ones will be starved?
• How long will the Trump administration last, and what will happen with Congress?
• How significant will Trump's appointees be to changing federal grants?
• What hot button issues should non-profits avoid to stay fundable?
• How much, if at all, will the federal bureaucracy change under Trump?
• What is in store for healthcare, science, education, or climate change grants?
• What Obama administration achievements are most likely to be reversed?
• How can we keep our critical programs funded in this dramatically new season?

For most grant writers, it is far beyond their job descriptions to embrace the expertise needed to anticipate the impact of a new administration on federal grants. Nevertheless, this knowledge is crucial to grant planning, strategies, research and time management. Although there are on-line resources available to answer the above questions, it is difficult for grant writers and agency leaders to know which ones to trust, which ones are biased, and which ones have the best reputations for making accurate predictions.

The wealthiest institutions, including colleges and universities, often have high-paid Washington lobbyists available to answer their questions. For most of us, however, this is an un-affordable luxury. Even worse, the new Trump administration is so radically different than its predecessors, that even professional analysts and political pundits are hard-pressed to provide reliable insight into what will take place. After all, most of them have been wrong about Trump from the beginning.

You owe it to your staff and clients to get the answers to these questions from a reliable source, a source who understands Trump, politics, elections, American government and the field of non-profit grant writing. Once you know how to answer the big questions, you will find that your own intuition and specific program knowledge will be empowered to provide you with an excellent grasp of the best and most profitable path for your upcoming federal grant campaign.

DR. DREW'S SECRETS OF SUCCESS FOR WINNING FEDERAL GRANTS FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

Course Description

"Winning Grants from the Trump Administration" is a four-hour workshop, including lunch, handouts, and a PowerPoint presentation that applies the insight of an award-winning political scientist to make sense of the risks, threats, challenges and opportunities for California's non-profit agencies and educational institutions seeking federal grants in the foreseeable future. "It is easy to predict political trends," says Dr. Drew, "if you understand the enduring patterns of behavior associated with political realignment, the roles of Congress and the President, the key features of charismatic leadership, and the role of bureaucracy in American government." 

In this workshop, Dr. Drew provides a simple, common sense, research-based model which tells you what to expect regarding grants over the next four years of the Trump administration. 

Applying this model, Dr. Drew answers the most important questions facing non-profit leaders, including what to expect regarding education, science, environment, juvenile justice and social service funding. In addition, he will layout simple suggestions for repackaging existing programs so that they appeal to the core values of the Trump administration including its commitment to economic nationalism, and assisting the working class.

While the federal bureaucracy is slow to change, elections do have consequences. Understanding those consequences will be the key to keeping your federal revenue flowing no matter who is living in the White House. This knowledge will help board members, volunteers, executive directors, principle investigators, and grant-writers secure millions in federal funding and avoid the costly mistakes associated with misunderstanding the current political environment.

 

Course Topics

In this workshop, Dr. Drew will supply the general principles used by political scientists to predict and explain political behavior as it affects specific field of federal grants. These principles will give participants the framework needed to leverage their own unique knowledge and to make strikingly compelling predictions about the key issues and trends that will impact federal grant writing for the next four years of the Trump administration.   

1. Guerrilla Political Science: The Most Important Variables for Predicting Presidential Behavior

• Do elections have consequences?
• Why we can predict Trump's behavior on the basis of his prior statements?

2. The Unprecedented Value of Predicting Congressional Behavior

• Why congressional priorities are ultimately more important than presidential priorities?
• Who will win and who will lose under the Trump administration? 
• What Obama administration achievements are most likely to be reversed? 

3. What are the Specific Implications for Healthcare, Science, Education Grants?

• How will grants for healthcare change under the Trump administration? 
• How much of our science funding will remain the same or similar? 
• Will Trump continue to support career technical education and community colleges? 

The end result of this workshop is that you, your staff and your clients will benefit financially from a clear, no nonsense understanding of how the basics of political science will allow you to predict the trends which will control federal grants for the next four to eight years or more relative to your specific field. 

Time in class will be allotted to giving the participants the opportunity to test their own predictions for their fields given the logic of Guerrilla Political Science. The ultimate benefit of this program will be to foster a clarity and understanding which will allow you and your agency to understand the risks, threats, challenges and unique opportunities you will face over the years no matter which party controls Congress or who is occupying the White House.  

Course Schedule

"How to Win Grants from the Trump Administration" will run from 10:00 a.m. to 11:55 a.m. on Thursday, January 19, 2017. Snacks and soft drinks will be provided for all participants. The location for this workshop will be Coaching Center of Orange County located at 1231 East Dyer Road, Suite 215, Santa Ana, CA 92705.  

 

Course Fee and Early Bird Rate

The program, "How to Win Grants from the Trump Administration," will be offered at a discounted rate of 50% for non-profit organizations including charities, schools, colleges, universities, county and state agencies. The total fee for non-profit organizations will be $125 per person. The early bird rate will be $95 for all registrants who pay for the workshop prior to January 12, 2017. All participants will receive handouts, and an easy to refer to fact sheet to provide a reminder of what was taught in the class for future reference. 

Event: "How to Win Grants from the Trump Administration

Instructor: John C. Drew, Ph.D.

Time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.

Date: January 19, 2016

Location: 1231 East Dyer Road, Suite 215, Santa Ana, CA 92705

Early Bird Price (Before January 12, 2017): $95

Regular Price $125

JOHN C. DREW, PH.D. AUTHOR, TRAINER, CONSULTANT

Your Instructor

Before Dr. Drew became a grant writer he was an award-winning political scientist who taught the presidency, elections, and public policy at Cornell University, University of Oregon and Williams College, the nation's number one liberal arts college according to U.S. News & World Report. As a grant writing consultant, Dr. Drew and his team have consistently won large federal grants, through the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations for charitable organizations, community colleges and universities. All together Dr. Drew has won more than $40 million in funding. "I've consistently won large federal grants," said Dr. Drew. "The secret of my success has always been my understanding the most urgent needs of the new administration. By quickly adapting your programs to match their needs you can almost always find the support needed to maintain or grow your existing programs."

 

What Workshop Participants Say About Dr. Drew

"Very informative, with positive energy transferred to the students."

"The course was very inviting. Dr. Drew was very clear and knowledgeable. He made it worth my while to achieve my goal and have success in life."

"Dr. John Drew was very knowledgeable, invigorating, timely, and made learning interesting and clear."

"This was constant, good practical information. The first 15 minutes made the whole class worth it!"

"Dr. Drew is wonderful. He taught me a lot in a very short time."

Dr. Drew is a native of Southern California. He attended Occidental College in Los Angeles on a track scholarship in 1975. While at Occidental he won a scholarship to study in Europe where he was first exposed to the horrors of the poverty associated with child labor. Later, he won another scholarship to earn his Ph.D. in Government at Cornell University. Later, he taught politics, economics and leadership at Cornell University, Hope International University, University of Oregon, and Williams College. He is a published author on the topic of child welfare and protective programs. Dr. Drew remains active in political and economic matters by contributing articles to American Thinker, David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine and PJMedia. To wind down from grant writing, Dr. Drew enjoys walking, studying foreign languages and acrylic painting. He and his wife, Patricia Drew, live in Laguna Niguel CA where he serves on the board of directors of his HOA.

Dr. Drew's Expertise: A Partial List of My Grants Applications

Federal Applications

U.S. Department of Agriculture (1) U.S. Department of Education (2)
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (2)
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev. (3)
U.S. Department of Justice (2)
National Endowment for the Arts (1)

State of California Applications

California Arts Council (2)
California Council for the Humanities (1)
California Dept. Health and Human Services (1)
CA Comm. College Chancellor’s Office (3)

Local Applications

City of Long Beach Community Development
City of LA Cultural Affairs Department
CDBG – City of Mission Viejo
CDBG – City of Newport Beach
Los Angeles County Arts Council Grant (6)
LA Co. Dept. of Children’s Services
LA County Department of Senior Services
Orange County Probation Department (2)
OC Department of Children’s Services
Orange County’s United Way (2)
OC Workforce Investment Act/ARRA
Public Corporation for the Arts – LB

Representative Foundation Applications

Allergan (2)
Angel’s Care
Bank of America
Baker
Boeing
California Endowment
California Wellness
CA Consumer Protection Fund
DeMoss
Edison International
Fluor Corporation
GTE
In-N-Out
Isuzu
Joseph Drown
Mark S. Taper
Merrill Lynch
Mighty Duck’s Care
Norris
PacifiCare
Pacific Life
Pfaffinger
Parsons
Samueli Family
Southern California Gas Company
Steele
Stillwell
Taper
Target (6)
Tides
Toyota
VSAarts/MetLife
Warner Bros.
Walt Disney Co. Foundation (2)
Weingart Foundation (6)
Wells Fargo Foundation
Wynn

As of March 30, 2011

Weeks Ahead of Your Deadline: Understand Why Small Breaks Cost You Big Money

As a management consultant, I've come to believe that most people underestimate how costly it is to indulge even a small break in mental concentration.

I learned this valuable lesson while I was writing my award-winning doctoral dissertation. In contrast to most of the other graduate students, I made it a habit to work every day on my thesis - and not just focus on it on the weekends.

The problem with the weekend warrior approach to writing is that it takes a couple of hours each weekend just to remember where you were at mentally and theoretically prior to breaking off from your work. By writing every day, I saved valuable time because I did not need to invest additional time in warming myself up mentally to do my writing.

My normal procedure then, and still now, is to start by editing what I've written the day before. Then, I launch into writing fresh materials following the rule of NEVER rewriting anything the same day that I write it.

In addition, I understand that the same principle applies even to short breaks of just five or ten minutes.

Once my concentration is broken, it takes a bit of a time wasting struggle to get back to writing. This is true if only because I need to get back into the emotional spirit and energy of writing on behalf of a client.

Although I cannot shield my work from all interruptions, I have benefited by doing what I can to bring them to a minimum. For example, when I'm working on a grant application, I do not answer the phone; I do not check my e-mail. I shut the door and hang a sign on it that my wife created to remind me to say hello during my breaks. It says:

"MAN WORKING - Tricia: Please do not disturb me. I'll come chat with you when I take my break. Love, John."

I have also found that it works for me to write late at night when there are not as many people sending me e-mails or trying to connect with me by telephone. All in all, I think it's wise to select the office for the grant writer very carefully with an eye for... peacefulness, quiet, isolation, and tranquility.

At its highest level, grant writing is not a standard business procedure. To do it right, I think we will need to be much more sensitive to adapting the grant writer's physical environment so that it is a much better match with the functions essential to implementing this sort of high speed writing.

Accordingly, I think a fresh look at the physical environment of the grant writer will result in happier grant writers, happier clients, and happier results for everyone.

A Couple of Great Ideas for Researching Grant Possibilities

My aim is to speed up the process of winning grants. This means that I like to bring fresh eyes to the grant writing process and place my stress on techniques that make it easier for you to move decisively and quickly when it comes to researching funders and preparing applications for them.

One of the ironic things about teaching "grant writing" classes is that a lot of the success you experience is actually due to "grant researching." Accordingly, it is important to know where to look for funding for your project.

In my experience, people who dive into the Internet searching for grants are quickly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information available to them. I like to simplify things by recommending the three most important sites I use to get information about potential grant opportunities.

I turn to the Foundation Center in New York for information on corporate and foundation grants.

http://www.foundationcenter.org

I turn to the federal government's special site for federal grants.

http://www.grants.gov/

And, finally, I look to another site for full information on potential scholarship applications.

http://www.fastweb.com/

With these three sites at hand, you'll have about 90% of the resources you need to find grants for yourself, your clients, or your non-profit agency. Also, please don't forget that it is okay to ask other for help. In a fix, I like to contact the staff members of your Congressional representative for your district or your city manager's office for assistance.

Keep on Keeping On: Don't Get Spooked By a Bad Economy

As you may know, Tricia and I are enjoying a good year economically. Although she was laid off in March 2009 - and is still looking for work - our grant writing consulting business is growing nicely and producing more than enough to keep us afloat. Nevertheless, these are dark times for our U.S. economy.

As you can see from the private employment chart above, this particular recession is much worse than previous recessions from the standpoint of overall employment numbers. The good news for grant writers, however, is that foundations are still required to give away 5% of their assets no matter what. Even if the charity doesn't have enough money for staff, it usually has enough money squirreled away to cover the cost of a grant writing consultant to help them put together a series of winning grant proposals.

Moreover, there are a lot of people making a lot of money. Government employees are doing well. Certain sectors of the economy are taking off even as other portions of the economy slide. The danger kicks in only when you allow yourself to get discouraged and stop trying with your soliciation efforts, grant writing, and normal follow-up activities. No matter what, tough times don't last...but tough people do.

Quick Overview of Foundation Center's New Mapping Capacity

For a long time now, I've been sold on the advantages of subscribing to the services of the Foundation Center in New York. This year, their Professional-level services gives you access to the Foundation Center's latest tool, the Map of Cross-Border Giving. I checked out their webinar and I can see that the Map of Cross-Border Giving will be a powerful tool for me as I teach workshops on grant writing because it illustrates U.S. grantmaking to non-U.S. recipients.

The Map of Cross-Border Giving is limited to the top 30,000 grants totaling more than $8.5 billion.

This new feature should be particularly helpful to those of us presenting seminars on grant writing. For example, you will be able to show your clients and your students:

•See grants from U.S. grantmakers to non-U.S. recipient organizations.

•View grantmaker data from independent, community, company-sponsored, and operating foundations as well as corporate giving programs and grantmaking public charities.

•Filter your map view by fiscal year, grantmaker type, or giving based on recipient type, primary subject, or type of support.

•Mouse over a country to see the total dollar amount and number of grants awarded, along with the number of grantmakers and recipients giving and receiving funds. (In my experience, this is particularly useful in illustrating the uneven distribution of grants - particularly for countries in the Middle East.)

•Change your display options to see grantmaker or recipients lists, and then click to see descriptions of the grants awarded to recipients in each country.

This tool is also useful for illustrating the concentration of grants from places like the Ford Foundation. To get started, log in to FDO and look for the Map of Cross-Border Giving box on the left, then click the "Visit Map of Cross-Border Giving" link.

Thought on Lightning Fast Grant Writing: Using Your Intuition

As I'm refining my ideas about lightning fast grant writing, I'm intrigued by the role that sports psychology plays in training someone to be a highly successful "great" grant writer.

One of the definitions of a great grant writer that I heard from someone else was that a great grant writer can write quickly about something they know absolutely nothing about. The ability to pull this off is important because the rules for writing the grant are constantly changing and grant writers are forced to stay ahead of the competition by understanding the latest developments in their charitable field.

To a certain extent, it helps to have a high level of self-confidence and a certain degree of detachment from what you are writing.

Technically, it also requires some skill in conducting research. The internet, of course, has made this process a lot easier. It is so much more fun to do grant research now when all I need to do is launch a Google search.

There are some other habits I've found helpful in writing quickly about things I don't understand.

First, I always write the grant first and then do the research later. The reason is that I have a tendency to over research if I haven't done my first draft first. If I force myself to go through the grant application questions and answer them to the best of my ability, I end up with a much clearer picture, practically speaking, of what I really need to be researching. Often, the things I thought were important at first, really aren't so important once I fully understand the grant.

Finally, I don't mind relying on my intuition when I create a first rough draft. Even if my ideas are completely wrong, they still provide a framework for the "experts" to tweek and adjust what I've provided as a framework for them. Also, using my intuituion is fun...and it often produces surprising, original, and helpful ideas. This is part of the reason I don't mind writing grants for a living...it give me an opportunity to let my imagination soar.

Carl Walsh: Remembering That People Depend on Us and Listen to Us

Recently, I got a chance to meet Carl Walsh, an exceptional public speaker who compteted to be a finalist at the World Championship of Speaking conducted by Toastmaster's International in 2009. Carl has a powerful, touching message of hope.

http://blog.angieflinn.com/2009/08/2009-world-championship-of-public-speaking-recap-part-1.html

He reminds me that as public speakers (and as grant writers) people do listen to what we say.

Of course, they may not show it right away. They will apply our words to change their behavior, make a decision, or turn around their lives, but never even let us know that we made a difference for them. Sometimes, they may even be hostile to the suggestion we provide.

Nevertheless, it is a good bet to suppose they do listen. It is usually our low self-esteem, focus on showmanship, and ego which keep us from slowing down and making sure that what we are sharing with the audience is important.

Remembering the powerful influence of our words is the sort of back-to-the-basics concept that I like to apply to grant writing. The work of grant writers changes lives and makes possible innovative programs. Remembering the impact of our word should be a daily habit that helps us, our clients, and our client's clients.

Sign Up for Our Free Quarterly Newsletter, Drew's Views, To Learn Great Tools for Winning Grants

Join Our Mailing List

Email:

For Email Marketing you can trust

Dr. Drew Says Write a Quick First Draft

Back to Basics: Don't Forget to Start with the Project Innovator Form

The grant innovator form is a simple document I use to organize an agency as it seeks grants. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with this surprisingly by following this link.

http://grantwriters.ning.com/profiles/blogs/first-things-first-launch-your

By asking your colleagues to fill it out, you will subtly motivate them to help you get grant funding. The form also subtly calls upon you and your associates to think through why a program is needed by your clients in the first place. It reminds you that the clients are the reason why the Foundation feels comfortable in giving money to your non-profit organization.

This form is also a useful way for helping your colleagues determine how much they know about a particular project, where funding for that project might come from, and even some of the details about how the project would be organized.

As a grant writer, use of this form can spare you from many difficulties. It will allow the agency to really think through whether or not it really wants a project completed well before a particular funding source becomes surprisingly available to you. It will also encourage the agency staff and leadership to have their political struggle now, and not later when you are in the midst of trying to complete the last minute grant application.

Over the years, I have found that there is surprising wisdom in this form. (I am always sorry if I neglected taking the time needed to persuade others to fill it out.)

If you are the Executive Director of an agency, I think you will also find that this is a convenient tool for helping your subordinates identify and prioritize the most important projects before them. Having a set of these forms filled out for your agency will give you an excellent overview of the most important projects which need to be accomplished by your staff. It will also give you the opportunity to prioritize the projects and to shape the agenda for your agency’s future.

A Quick First Draft Will Make It Easier to Research Your Grant

To me, grant-writing is more like a sport than a science. Like any sport, it is a game that richly rewards quick, high-volume producers.

From this perspective, a quick first draft does wonders for your financial success. Sometimes the best thing to do is to write the entire proposal out - from beginning to end - as quickly as possible.

This is what Peter Drucker called the "zero" draft. In this draft, I like to write as quickly as possible while still following all of the funders' directions. This way, I get a good overall picture of the scope of the grant application, and I can identify what exactly the funder really expects from my non-profit client.

Finally, I like to do my research after I have created the first draft...otherwise I just do not know what facts and figures will be really needed to create a credible argument.

In the past, I used to do a lot of reading and internet searching to make sure that I collected all the right information. Unfortunately, I soon realized that 96% of all that data never appeared in the final grant application. Today, I write my conclusions first...and then research only what it takes to make the most credible case for that particular grant.

The Golden Rule: Understand the Funder's Fears

Empathy for the funder can be a touchstone for success as a grant writer. When we visited China to lecture on grant writing, we got a chance to visit the Great Wall. It wove its way through the landscape as far as I could see in either direction. To me, the wall represents a powerful human need for self-protection. I think grant writers can sometimes make mistakes if they underestimate just how wary the funders are of non-profit organizations.

To help workshop participants understand the funder's point of view, I typically ask them to answer some key questions as if they were the ones giving away money to charities:

Do you trust the non-profit executive?
Should the grant you give away be large or small?
Should the proposal be neat or sloppy?
Do you prefer giving money to old friends or to brand new charities?
As a funder, what are you most afraid of?
As you work through these questions, I think you will start feeling some of the nervousness that the funders feel about even well-run and well-known charities. I think my job, as a grant writer, is to make the funders feel as safe and as comfortable as possible.

To me, the otherwise dull grant writing literature suddenly comes to life when I see the standard operating procedures of the profession as tools for reducing the funder's deepest fears. I like to build trust by appropriately mirroring their ideas and buzzwords, by supporting my arguments with recent research citations, and by avoiding the red flags that make it easy for funders to toss out an application without thoroughly reading it. Ideally, I like to make the grant package look so safe that the funder will be afraid not to fund my client's project.