This document provides an overview of strategies for effective grant writing. It discusses finding appropriate funding sources, components of a successful grant, and the grant review process. The key components of a research grant are an intriguing title, summary, goals/objectives, background and significance, experimental design, qualifications, timeline, broader impacts, references, budget, and budget justification. The grant review process involves submission, external review by experts, and a funding decision. Overall, the document offers best practices for crafting a competitive grant proposal.

1. Gail E. Gasparich, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, Fisher College of
Science and Mathematics
Towson University
STRATEGIES FOR
EFFECTIVE GRANT
WRITING

2. Workshop Questions:
1.Where do you search for appropriate
funding sources?
2.What should you know before
beginning the grant writing process?
3.What are the main components of a
research grant (Best Practices and What
to Avoid)?
4.What is the general grant review
process?
5.What if you do not get funded?

3. What is a Grant?
♦ A sum of money given by an organization
(esp. a government) for a particular purpose
♦ What would be your expectations as the
grantor?
– Return on investment
– Worthy of risk
♦ You have to become a salesperson of sorts
—convince the grantor your idea is worthy
of funding

4. STEM Granting Agencies
♦ Government
♦ Foundations/Non-Profit Organizations
♦ Business and Industry (e.g. contracts)

5. Important Considerations
♦ Be aware of the mission and criteria of the
funding agency
– Read RFPs/RFAs carefully (Request for
Proposal/Application)
– Discuss ideas with Program Officers (check fit)
– Review recently funded grants by same
program

6. Where is the Money?
Major Agency/Field Shares of Federal Academic Research Obligations
Source: NSF Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08

7. Government Sources
♦ Most can be found consolidated on
www.grants.gov (26 agencies consolidated)
– NSF -NIST
– NIH -EPA
– DOE -DHHS
– NASA -DOD

8. Foundation Grants
♦ Foundations Interested in Engineering:
– AT&T
– Exxon/Mobil
– Intel
– W.M. Keck Foundation
– Luce Foundation
– Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
– Alfred R. Sloan Foundation
– Verizon Foundation
– Foundation Center (foundationcenter.org)

9. Databases Requiring Institutional
Subscriptions
♦ GrantSelect
♦ SPIN (Sponsored Programs Information
Network)
♦ ResearchResearch
♦ IRIS (Illinois Research Information
Service)
♦ GRC (Grants Resource Center)
♦ COS (Community of Science)
♦ Grant Advisor Plus

11. Getting Started!
♦ Review Guidelines Carefully!
♦ Contact the Program Officer
♦ Review Abstracts of Past Awardees
♦ Contact your Sponsored Project Office
♦ Create a Timeline for Preparation
♦ Organize Narrative Outline Following the
Sequence of Components in RFP/RFA

12. Title
♦ The reader’s first impression
♦ Should capture and intrigue the reader
♦ Should be clear, concise and meaningful
♦ Too detailed appears too narrow and too
broad appears unachievable

13. Elevator Speech Activity
1.Find a partner
2.In two minutes convey your project to
them and then switch
3.Try to cover the following:
What is the problem you are
addressing?
How will you address it?
What is the significance?
What is the likelihood of success?

14. Summary
♦ Written last to summarize, aim for non-
technical audience and will be made public
if funded
♦ What do you intend to do and why is it important?
♦ How are you going to do it and what has already
been done?
♦ Why are you, rather than someone else, qualified
to do the project?
♦ What difference will the project make to: your
university, your students, your discipline, the
state, the nation, etc.?

15. GoalsObjectives/Specific
Aims
♦ AimsHypotheses driven and testable with
defined measurable outcomes
– based on new ideas
– should be succinct
– should be independent
♦ Potential Problems with specific aims:
Too ambitious, Too much work proposed;
Unfocused and/or limited aims

16. Background and Significance
♦ Why is the problem important to the agency?
♦ What have others done to address this problem
and why wasn’t that sufficient? (Literature
Review)
♦ What do you plan to do that is different from
previous studies?
♦ How will your research have an impact on the
public?
♦ Why is your plan novel, cutting edge, and
exciting?

17. Literature Review
♦ Support proposal’s significance with a
balanced literature review
♦ Establishes the framework for the study
♦ Demonstrates your knowledge of the field
♦ Incorporate references that support and
conflict with your contentions if appropriate
♦ Be as comprehensive as possible—never
know who will be a reviewer
♦ Include your work to show expertise!

19. Preliminary Data
♦ Your chance to highlight your ability to be
successful with what you propose
♦ Demonstrate feasibility of project
♦ Data should be unequivocal and clearly
presented
♦ Discuss limitations
♦ Balance unpublished data with published
work

20. Experimental Design
♦ Organize according to specific aims
♦ Provide enough detail (published vs.
unpublished) including controls
♦ Provide alternate approaches
♦ Justify the approach you will use
♦ Explain how data will be collected,
analyzed and interpreted
♦ Discuss potential difficulties and limitations

21. Experimental Design (cont.)
♦ Potential problems:
– Inappropriate level of experimental detail
– Feasibility of each aim not shown
– Little or no expertise with approach
– Lack of appropriate controls
– No discussion of alternative models or
hypotheses
– No discussion of potential pitfalls
– No discussion of interpretation of data

22. Personnel Qualifications
♦ Indicate your expertise in the area
♦ PI vs. co-PI
♦ Collaborators
♦ Bottom Line-Are investigators competent to
perform the experiments described in the
proposal

23. Timeline
♦ BE REALISTIC
♦ Not too overly ambitious
♦ Show you are familiar with the techniques
and know how long it should take for each
of your objectives
♦ Good place to use a graphic to save space

24. Sample Timeline

25. Broader Impacts
♦ Includes discovery, increasing knowledge
base (basic and applied), promoting
teaching, training and learning
– Technology transfer
– Science policy influence
– K-16 STEM education and teacher
development-broadening participation
– Increase science literacy and public
engagement
– Broad dissemination of results

26. References Cited
♦ List all relevant literature
♦ You never know who will be reviewing!

27. Budget
♦ Be realistic--Do not be excessive or a
bargain-be "just right"
♦ Check what is allowable and median
funding level in RFP/RFA to use as guide
♦ Direct Costs: Personnel costs, Tuition
remission, travel expenses, equipment and
maintenance, supplies, consultants, pub
costs, etc.
♦ Indirect Costs: “Tax” to university for
overhead—rate negotiated with agency

28. Budget Justification
♦ Explain time and effort for salary and wages-
describe what each person will be doing
♦ Explain why equipment is needed
♦ Explain specifics on travel (what meeting, when,
who to go)
♦ Explain supply budget (in sufficient detail to
demonstrate you have anticipated needs for
proposal)
♦ Cost share??? Only if needed usually

29. Appendices
♦ Only if allowed—read RFP/RFA carefully
♦ Letters from collaborators showing
agreement with what is written and what
their role will be

30. SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF!
♦ Follow the guidelines (font size, font type,
margins, page limits….)
♦ PROOFREAD
♦ Get outside critiques
♦ Use “friendly” writing style for reviewers

31. Grant Review Process
♦ May request someone be excluded as reviewer
♦ Grant submitted and reviewed for general
compliance and fit to guidelines (6-9+ months)
♦ Sent out for review (ad hoc)
♦ Review by grant panel
♦ Program or foundation officers determine funding
based on panel review
♦ Might be follow up questions and budget issues to
grantee before final answer

33. Foundation Requests
♦ May require letter of inquiry and/or pre-
proposal (~3 pages):
– succinct description of problem
– proposed project
– your qualifications
Determine if the fit is right to get invitation to
submit a formal proposal

35. Rejection…………..
♦ Allow 8 hours of depression and
commiserate with friends, then….
♦ Use the comments to make a better proposal
♦ Resubmit an improved proposal (address
ALL comments and questions)
♦ Usually 3-4 attempts max-then move on to
modified or different project

36. Key Points
♦ Match the mission of the funding agency
♦ Read funded grants and talk to program
officer
♦ Follow the instructions
♦ Make friends with your Institutional
Sponsored Projects officer

37. Questions?
Contact Information:
Gail Gasparich
ggasparich@towson.edu

38. Websites for Granting Agencies
♦ NSF Engineering: http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=ENG (can get email alerts)
♦ Grants.gov provides funding for most other government agencies--keyword Engineering
(can get email alerts)
♦ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA):
http://www.darpa.mil/Opportunities/Solicitations/DARPA_Solicitations.aspx
♦ Air Force Research Laboratory:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8981
♦ Office of Naval Research:
http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Contracts-Grants/Funding-Opportunities.aspx
♦ Army Research Laboratory: http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=8
♦ NIH: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm
♦ NIST: http://www.nist.gov/director/ocfo/grants/grants.cfm
♦ NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/about/research/
♦ EPA: http://www.epa.gov/
♦ DOE: http://www.doe.gov/
♦ STEM Grants: http://stemgrants.com/

39. Websites for Foundations
♦ Annenberg Foundation, http://www.annenbergfoundation.org
♦ ExxonMobil Education Foundation,
https://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_foundation.aspx
♦ Ford Foundation, http://www.fordfound.org
♦ Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, http://www.rwjf.org
♦ W. K. Kellogg Foundation, http://www.wkkf.org
♦ John D. and Catharine L. MacArthur Foundation, http://www.macfdn.org
♦ Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, http://www.mellon.org
♦ David and Lucille Packard Foundation, http://www.packard.org
♦ Pew Charitable Trusts, http://www.pewtrusts.com
♦ Rockefeller Foundation, http://www.rockfound.org
♦ AT&T Foundation, http://www.att.com/gen/corporate-citizenship?pid=7736
♦ Intel Foundation, http://www.intel.com/intel/community
♦ W.M. Keck Foundation, http://www.wmkeck.org
♦ Luce Foundation, http://www.hluce.org
♦ Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, http://www.mellon.org
♦ Alfred R Sloan Foundation, http://www.sloan.org