This is a slideshow from a 9/18/2018 presentation by Dr. Bev Browning to the Grant Professionals Association (GPA) - Southern Arizona Chapter. It is applicable to anyone writing grant proposals where performance reviews are solely based on coveted grant win/success rates.

1. Grant Win Rates
(aka Success Rates)
September 18, 2018: Southern Arizona Chapter of GPA
Dr. Bev Browning, CSPF 1

2. A Journey Built On My Win Rate
 Before 1980 – 1983: Volunteer board member and
pro bono grant writer. Wrote and won first
foundation proposal (C.S. Mott Foundation)!
 1984 – 1985: Early revenues based on first grant
proposal written & funded and a job managing $14
million for summer youth employment programs.
Won first federal grant: $300K!
 1986 – 1989: Hired to setup and co-manage a
grants and development office for a large
intermediate school district (over 38 LEAs)— a
performance based employment contract.
 1989 – Current: Still providing win-rate statements
to potential clients that request them!
Assumed
Definition!
2

3. Before Today’s Technology:
A Document Nightmare!
3

4. The Trail of My Win Rates
1. 1980 –1983
2. 1984 –1985
3. 1986 –1989
4. 1989 – Current
1. 100%
2. 100%
3. 100%
4. 90%
4

5. What Happened: 100% > 90%
5

6. Pros & Cons of Win Rates for Grant Writers
Pros
1. Employers and potential clients are
impressed with any win rate over 50%.
2. A quote that has a significantly higher win
rate than another consultant or potential
employment candidate is likely to get the
job or contract.
3. High grant award win rates can lead to
promotions in pay/title and increased
consulting contracts.
Cons
1. Quoting win rates can drastically alter an
employer’s or potential client’s mindset of
what constitutes a return on investment for
the organization.
2. What you quote is what you have to prove
(documentation, letters, and more) and also
maintain (comparable or increased rates of
wins as time goes on)!
3. Low win rates can lead to demotions,
getting fired, or decreased consulting fees.
Feedback? 6

7. Um…
NIH
 “Our official success rates for the fiscal year
are based on the number of awards made
divided by the sum of the [number of]
applications reviewed that fiscal year where
revisions submitted in the same fiscal year
are collapsed and counted as one
application. ”
Translation for Grant Writers
 Our official success rates are based on the
most recent fiscal year’s grant request
submission tracking (# of grant applications
submitted versus # of grant applications
awarded funding…at any level).
 Concern: What about pending requests?
Feedback?
7

8. One Point of View…
The Query Posted
 I have written grants for years. I believe I
have been fairly successful. My grant
submission in relation to funding rate
averages ranges from 6–12%. However, I just
applied for a full-time position where the
organization listed that it REQUIRED
applicants to have a history of a 60% funding
conversion rate for grants submitted.
A Reputable Consultant’s Response
 The industry rule-of-thumb I've heard is that
1 in 12 proposals gets funded, or about 8.5%,
and that's in a good year.
A professional grant writer should be able to
do better than that, hopefully 1 in 4 or better,
but it really all comes down to the
organization for whom they're writing the
grant, that organization's reputation, and its
existing relationships with foundations.
Feedback? 8

9. Another Point of View…
 Funding is a major priority for virtually all types of grant
seeking organizations.
 However, finding and securing grants is a time-consuming
and increasingly competitive process.
 To succeed you need to gain insight into the complicated
funding landscape, discover hidden opportunities, and
make informed decisions.
9

10. Grant Industry’s Viewpoint About Win Rates
 Grant writers touting a past high percentage
of grant attainment to impress potential
employers are in danger of setting
themselves up for future failure. How many
of us would want to go into a new work
environment with the expectation that 80%
of the grant applications we submit would be
approved? Not me!
 Executive directors who see the success or
failure of grant-getting as residing only in the
hands of the grant writer are failing to take
into account something even more
important than the grant application—the
purpose of the funding.
 Poorly delineated projects, “soft” budgets,
and a host of other weaknesses cannot be
overcome even by a well-crafted grant
proposal.
 The awarding of grants has more to do with
function than form. Grant writers are not
usually the ones who make the policy and
practice recommendations that lead to a
search for funding.
10

11. Quality!
When it comes to measuring performance, I
believe grant writers should be evaluated on
the quality of their work.
11

12. What
Defines
Our
Quality?
Audience Index Cards
Write one or two words
reflecting your definition of
quality for a grant writer 12

13. Should Win Rates Be a Part of
Performance Metrics?
Let’s talk about this!
13

14. Today’s Grant Professional:
 Researching grant funding
 Prospect research for individual giving
 Coaching administration and board
members on making the first contact with
potential funders
 Attending potential and current funder
workshops, webinars, and meetings
 Creating grants management spreadsheets
 Developing project budgets
 Attending board meetings
 Defending what you do with all of that time
you spend sitting at your desk
 Creating program designs with little input
from program staff
 Researching program-area needs and best
practices
 Writing, editing, and spinning magic
language
 Submitting an application when everyone
else is sleeping
14

15. We Are Spinners of Grant Magic!
 Spinning a statement of need when you know the money will supplant,
not sustain!
 Creating goals!
 Creating SMART objectives!
 Digging up program evaluation data!
 Interpreting evaluation data!
 Updating staff resumes and bios!
 Estimating line item expenses for the project budget!
 Creating magnetizing graphics!
 Dreaming up logic model input!
 Writing about project sustainability when there is no formal
sustainability plan! 15