What about boilerplate?
“Grant writing doesn’t require any special skills or talents. Grant writers just create a standard “boilerplate” proposal or letter and send the exact same thing to many different grantmakers.”
Well, a little bit of a boilerplate approach can help, but it’s not the whole answer. Yes, many novice grant writers use a boilerplate, but few achieve success with such an uncritical approach. Carefully researching and selecting appropriate grantmakers will make it clear that each potential sponsor, whether a foundation, a government agency, or a corporate giving program, has its own personality and criteria—its values, interests, and mission.
It just doesn’t work to send the same thing to everyone. Most grantmakers have different and often very specific requirements for grant applicants. Grantmakers also talk with one another and can easily tell when you’ve simply changed the names and sent an identical proposal to different foundations. Choosing the right grantmakers carefully, and then customizing your proposal to maximize your potential for success—winning a grant—is smart.
Tailor your proposal to make your case clear. Why should THIS grantmaker give money to THIS organization for THIS program? That’s even smarter. This isn’t the time for shotgun target practice. Aim directly for the bulls-eye. You have plenty of competition for those funding dollars. Your proposal needs to stand out.
By the way, everyone cuts and pastes text between proposals these days, but thoughtful customization for each proposal is still absolutely essential. And beware! When re-using text, be careful that you change names between documents! Proofread carefully. If ABC Foundation receives a letter referring to the XYZ Foundation, your chance of success just dropped to zero.
I agree that boilerplate language is a good place to start, but close examination of the documents from the funding organization will likely give a grant writer some essential hints about what this particular audience wants to hear.
In my professional career, I often drafted my company’s response to RFPs and new business proposals. This experience offers a little insight into some aspects of grant writing. I found that speaking the language of the funding organization (or potential client) in my response is essential to success. Using the language of the funding organization can help the evaluating committee easily see that this proposal offers what they’re seeking.
However, it’s likely that this language is not the way your group usually describes itself and its capabilities. This difference could pose a challenge in terms of crafting a response that also appeals to internal audiences. (After all, some of the stakeholders are very attached to the definitions they’ve carefully crafted for the organization!)
Kim, your experience is so valuable to our class. You make a great point here about the difference in grant writing language for internal and external audiences.
Readers: To what extent does grant writing need to satisfy stakeholders? How much does it need to appeal to the grant maker? What factors influence the balance between the two? And just exactly what does it mean to “speak the language” of the funding organization?
I’d liken the grant writing to a handshake – if it is too strongly worded one way or the other, it’s going to come off like someone is being muscled.
You’re really trying to serve two masters, while, although difficult, can be achieved. In my experience doing interviews, boilerplate questions get you the information you need (serving your stakeholders), and the researched questions directed at your subject allow them to speak on a subject they are interested in (serving the grant maker).
It’s a delicate balance, but it can be done.
Fred, this post on boilerplate is more about the advisability of submitting boilerplate writing to a prospective grantmaker and not so much about the use of boilerplate questions to elicit information. And I’m not sure what you mean by “it’s a delicate balance, but it can be done.” Can you expand/clarify your comment, please?
What I meant was that you need to strike a balance between your boilerplate questions and your researched questions. There is a certain amount of required information that you can attain with the boilerplate questions, but too many of those and you can lose some really good information that you could get from the researched questions.
On the opposite end of that spectrum, too many researched questions may not get you the information that you need from the boilerplate questions because interviews can (and will) go off track … invariably.
As a novice grantwriter, I would imagine that there needs to be somewhat of an equal balance between both the organization and the grant funder. Foundations have X amount of funds they must disperse annually and they certainly want to make sure that the funds go to organizations who clearly outline their needs. Also, in this economy, I would assume that the funding organizations are looking to ‘spread the wealth’ as equitably as possible and might be more receptive to dispersing funds to organizations with like goals, or those who can/will collaborate on programs if possible. In like fashion, I’m sure the non-profits want to present worthy/concise/properly submitted proposals that include requests to meet all their needs.
Bev, you’re right. Grantmakers are certainly looking to spread the wealth to maximize impact, now more than ever. Addressing the degree to which your organizational goals are similar to the grantmakers’ is essential. Collaboration has been increasingly valued by grantmakers in the past 10 years and will continue to be, as it also increases impact. Our job as grantwriters is to help nonprofits understand how to develop meaningful programs that are also “fundable.”
This is the attitude I have most run into when telling people I am taking a Grant Writing course – “What can possibly take a whole semester to learn about Grant Writing?”
And Bev’s comment about the economy really speaks to this attitude for me. While there are some aspects that stay the same year to year, and certain statistics a writer will always need, a grant writer needs to figure out a way to make things “fresh” (for lack of a better word).
Everyone has a story, but it is all in how you present it, how you represent it. If you approach grant writing with a boilerplate attitude, how can you expect success for your organization? Somehow, in my opinion, you have to take all the belief, all the passion that you have toward an organization and what they represent, and find a way to convey and convince the individuals with the money that your organization is most worth its support.
I think it is okay to boilerplate certain parts of a grant proposal. Basic information that is repeated in multiple grants, such as the company’s goals, objectives and needs, can easily be used again and again. These statements usually do not make mention of other grant opportunities and are usually focused on the organization. If these sections are written well enough, they can be used for any grant opportunity.
However, like you said, the rest of the grant should be centered toward the organization that is giving out the grant. It would make it look like the nonprofit cares deeply about those giving out grant funds if research was done on the grant and mentioned in the proposal. And like you said, it would be very detrimental if the proposal writer gets some information wrong, especially the name of the grant providers.