I began my grant writing career accidentally. Due to lack of staffing (sound familiar?), I was asked to take on two projects outside my primary expertise area, at my first nonprofit job in New York City.
I’m proud that both projects were funded, including the organization’s first National Endowment for the Arts grant of $30,000. As an accidental grant writer, what business did I have succeeding?
Turns out, I had good instincts. I stuck with it, and the experience I’ve gained helped me become an on-purpose, high-impact grant writer whose firm has raised over $8 million dollars in the past three years.
I’ve encountered a number of myths about grant-writing along the way. In this post, I debunk two of the myths that most often derail grant applications, and share what I’ve learned about what works.
Whether you’re an individual artist, a large nonprofit, or somewhere in between, this information is for you.
Myth 1: Grant applications don’t need to appeal to a funder’s emotions
Imagine you are interviewing for a job. The interviewer asks you to tell a story about what motivates you, what you’ve learned as a professional, and to share a clear vision about where you’re headed now and how you’re going to get there—but you only have 60 seconds.
Plus, your performance will give your interviewer a firm, lasting impression of your leadership prowess that they’ll be weighing against 20 to 200 other candidates, sometimes openly discussing the vulnerabilities and flaws they perceive in you, based on that 60 second performance, in public.
Q: Who would sign up to do such an insane, impossible thing?
A: Anyone who puts together a grant application. And successful ones are as compelling as bedtime stories.
Funders put a lot into creating their grantmaking strategies. They are excited to consider applications for their funding, and a lot of excitement typically goes into weeding through the submissions to find the gems of the funding cycle. They love the drama of the “interviews” (applications) and the beautiful new discoveries they encounter in the applicants and their submissions, even year after year.
That’s why effective grant writing stands out:
It doesn’t just talk about what you do and want to get funded;
It also conveys a compelling story that excites the funder.
Myth 2: Grant writing is a “cut and paste” endeavor using “set it and forget it” copy.
Over the years, I’ve heard a lot about how people approach grant copy. The most common well-meaning (but uninformed) take on it is:
Grant writing does not require brainpower.
Thus, beyond the initial creation of “boilerplate” verbiage,
Grant writing shouldn’t require further (compensated) work.
Compelling, effective grants are stories that entice funders and move them to action.
If you’re serious about getting significant, multi-year, or unrestricted grants, this work requires much more thought, imagination, strategy, and clear, simple writing than you might imagine.
Add to that an additional layer of creativity, because there is a lot to cover, and you must convey it in the most concise possible way, often 500 characters or less (a couple of sentences, less than 60 seconds spoken out loud).
That’s why, with my clients, my approach to grant copy is always to find the angle that positions their work and projects as impossible for the funder to resist—and to do so in the shortest possible way.
That means that each grant requires consideration and strategy. It also means a continual refinement of even “standard” copy, to ensure what is shared speaks to the funder and directly to their strategic grantmaking goals (and thus the questions they are asking), not to mention so it fits the allotted length of each (always-different-for-each-application) response.
This work requires thoughtfulness, care, and incredible creativity. That’s why “set it and forget it” is a delusion for anyone new to grant writing; even if you set out to recycle copy, with each new application, you will continually meet new limitations, new questions to answer, and unique allotted answer lengths that require you to recalibrate and recreate—often in shorter length.
This work is anything but static. I love the continual challenges of refreshing and refining copy, particularly as I learn more about a client’s work, or as their work evolves or grows. It’s part of what keeps me excited about partnering with clients, and why many of them are relieved to have me doing that heavy lifting so they can focus on what they are best at (and where their attention is most valuable): focusing on their work serving their beneficiaries.
Over time, it’s wonderful to see when copy shifts as a client’s story gains clarity or gains momentum, not to mention the satisfaction of celebrating funding wins together!
What grant writing myths, truths, questions, and experiences have you encountered? Feel free to ask, suggest, or weigh in by leaving a comment below. I read each one and would be happy to respond!