ACET, Inc. Blog

This July I participated in a “multi-tier” review of grant applications for the U.S. Department of Education. It was a great experience! I learned a lot about how grants are reviewed at the Federal level and would like to share those processes and some advice with you.

Review Processes

Under a multi-tier review, the required proposal elements are divided into sections and reviewers assess and score specific sections of the proposal. Reviewers are assigned to different tiers based on their level of expertise. At the end of each tier of reviewing, the highest scoring applications move on to the next tier for additional review. Checks-and-balances are built into the entire process to ensure that the entire review process is fair and equitable.

For example, I was a Tier II reviewer and the applications had already been scored on four proposal elements. The Tier II reviewers read and scored the applications for two additional sections: the research foundation of the application and proposed evaluation activities (we did have to read the entire proposal, but scored only those two sections). After reading the assigned applications, I participated in a conference call with another reviewer assigned to the same applications and a panel monitor (an employee of the U.S. Department of Education). During the conference calls, the reviewers discussed the merits and challenges of each application and how well each met the scoring criteria. The reviewers also worked towards aligning the assessments so that we were consistent in our application of the review criteria for all of the applications.

Grant Application Advice

Three key themes emerged from my review:

1 – Make sure the application covers all of the required elements outlined in the RFP.
One of the proposals I read did not include background research or theory in the narrative. As a result, the reviewers scored that section quite low. Although this advice may feel self-evident, it’s a pretty good bet that elements listed as ‘required’ in the RFP will be included as scorable criteria in the review phase. It is very important and very beneficial to have someone read the application and verify that it covers all required elements before submitting it.

2 – Ensure space and point allocations are proportional to application pages.
One of the applications I read included more than five pages describing background research (worth up to 10 points) and but fewer than five pages describing the proposed evaluation (worth up to 15 points). While the research section was very detailed (and was scored highly), the description of the proposed evaluation was very short and the lack of detail resulted in a lower score for the proposed evaluation section. When writing a grant application, it’s important that sections that are worth more points be allocated more space in the proposal than sections worth fewer points. This is especially true when there is a page limit to the proposal!

3 – Review, re-read, and edit the application to ensure an appropriate breadth and depth of the narrative.
Several of the applications I scored included descriptions of proposed evaluation activities that were so broad and sweeping it was difficult to determine what the evaluation would be. With highly competitive grant competitions such as the one I reviewed for, it’s very important to give the reviewers enough breadth and depth in the narrative so they get a sense of proposed program activities, why the program is needed, when the program has been successful in the past, and how the proposed program will be evaluated.

I hope this information is useful to you and your agency when you prepare an application for a grant. Please comment below or email me if you have any questions or would like additional information!

Kirsten

In September Kirsten and I attended a “Grant Writing Boot Camp^TM” facilitated by Dr. Bev Browning and co-sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention, and Parenting (MOAPPP). As evaluators, we don’t write a lot of grants, however sometimes we do help our clients write the evaluation sections of their proposals and both Kirsten and I have interest in building our grant writing skills. In our capacity at ACET, however, we are always on the look-out for funding opportunities that might be of interest to the organizations we work with, so it was really helpful that Dr. Browning covered popular and less utilized resources used to identify potential funders and gave insightful tips on grant writing in the workshop. Participants practiced writing grant applications including powerful statement of need, goal statements, and SMART objectives.

Dr. Browning spent a fair amount of time focusing on the importance of writing “great” goal statements (i.e., the end one strives to obtain) and the difference between the three types of objectives (i.e., major milestone or checkpoint on your rout to reaching a goal): outcome, process, and impact.

Dr. Browning’s suggestions for writing “great” goal statements include:

• Goal statements should be only one sentence in length;
• Goal statements should be clear and concise (i.e., who is the target population and where should they be at the end of the grant period);
• Goal statements should be action-oriented and full of verbs; and
• Goal statements should not include any measurements or timelines.

Here is an example of a good goal statement: The Earthquake Relief Organization will design a new program to educate government officials on building code standards to prevent future injuries and casualties from building collapse.

In her book Grant Writing for Dummies, Dr. Browning encourages grant writers to provide objectives for each goal (and each year) for which they are requesting funds, and outlines the differences between the three types of objectives.

Outcome objectives show what the project will accomplish with the planned activities and should include terms such as increase and decrease. Dr. Browning suggests thinking SMART when writing outcome objectives: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.

Here is an example of a SMART outcome objective: Participants who have been in the program for one year or more will have maintained safe and stable housing for at least 3 months.

Process objectives are the activities needed to reach your goals and meet or exceed your measurable outcomes, or SMART objectives. Process objectives should include the actual, chronological activities that need to occur from the time you received grant funding until the monies have been spent. Dr. Browning suggests the best way to present your process objectives is in a table format (e.g., timeline chart). Process objectives should not include measurable terms (e.g., increase or decrease), they should, however, be written quantifiably.

Here is an example of a process objective: Six new staff will be trained to administer family counseling to program participants in the first year.

Impact objectives demonstrate the achievement of the goal of the project or program and show the reader there has been an impact or change on the target population. They are generally used when grant writers are asked to write about benefits to participants. There are no common words in impact objectives, but they should include signs of significant change.

Here is an example of an impact objective: Prevents family disruptions by providing intensive residential family services to women and children experiencing substance abuse.

I hope this information has been helpful. Do any of you have grant writing tips you would like to share with us?

Heather