by Sandra Jewell for the Dance Journal

This four-part series, written by the reviewer of numerous government grant applications, provides a first hand account of the federal review process. It discusses the process involved in creating a federal Request for Application (RFA), or a Request for Proposal (RFP), and chronicles the journey a submission makes once it reaches the funding agency. The series also describes factors that can summarily disqualify an application and others that can make it memorable.

Part 1 may be read here.
Part 2 may be read here.
Part 3 may be read here.
——————————————————————————————-

Part 4:  Submit and Wait

A Final Check Before Clicking the ‘Send’ Key

It goes without saying that the reviewer must be convinced that the applicant organization is capable of effectively completing the activities it proposes.  To be convincing, the application must be a picture of competence.  So, before the successful grant writer signs off for the last time, s/he takes one last look to make sure that it is neatly buttoned up and all visible details are under control.  Some examples:

• The table of contents is coherent with all pages numbered and accounted for.

• The numbers and statements in the various parts of the RFA match.  Don’t think, for example, that someone     won’t notice if the budget narrative doesn’t match the budget numbers.

• The activities presented are realistic and likely to produce the results listed in the statements of objectives and goals.

• The activities are do-able within the proposed budget.

• The application is clear, concise and logical.  All required sections are present and accounted for, in the order mandated in the RFA.

• There is a sense of urgency built into the application. If there is no indication of an imperative, immediate need, the funding will likely go elsewhere.

WERE WE FUNDED?

OK.  Everything was done right: The specifications of the RFA were followed to the letter; the proposal included terrific ideas that were coherently and cogently presented. All ‘i’s were dotted and ‘t’s crossed.  Does that mean the application will be funded?  Unfortunately, there are never any guarantees. The competition is usually fierce, the propensity of the reviewers, despite best intentions, an unknown.  If not funded this time, the application may be successfully revised and submitted again, maybe at another time or place.  Don’t waste your time resubmitting the same application to the same agency without revision.

Always, whether funded or not, the grant writer should request a copy of the written assessment that each reviewer was required to complete for the application.  It should give some useful clues about what went right or wrong in the review.

After the review process is finished, the applications that scored highest are reviewed by the branch that produced the RFA and that will monitor the funded projects.  If there are close calls among the proposals or in the scoring, the final funding decision is made by the branch in accordance with the agency’s goals.  That’s one of the reasons for the grant writer to be in touch with the branch producing the RFA at the time the decision is made to apply.  There is no substitute for being on the same page as the funders.

In the end, the very best that a grant writer can do with a federal RFA is to make sure that the application is conceived and written in such a way that reviewers regard it as a serious, important and fundable proposal.  Grant writers who can do that are well on their way to success.

Sandra Jewell lives in Atlanta, Georgia.  She is a former employee of the Department of Health and Human Services where she was an award winning biostatistician, analyst and writer.  She is now an author and grant writing consultant.  She can be reached at WrittenMagic.sej@gmail.com