More on how to abuse your favorite grant writer.
Sometimes we are philosophically opposed to something and just have to say “To be honest I disagree, but if that’s the way you want to do it, that’s the way I’ll write it.” It’s our job to provide options. It’s the client’s job to make the decisions. In most cases, though, when we disagree or take issue with a point, it’s because we feel it is not what they are asking for in the RFP. That argument carries more weight than anything. If we think it won’t get funded because it’s not aligned with the RFP than it’s our job to vehomently disagree.
Sometimes it gets down to crunch time and we’re the ones who have to say to the group, “stop you’re fighting, and maneuvering and bickering and MAKE A FREAKIN’ DECISION!!!” Okay, maybe we don’t say it exactly that way but it’s fun to fantasize.
This is the most common one we get: we’re told that the grant we’re about to write isn’t “really that much work” because you can “just boilerplate it.” What this means is that all a writer supposedly has to do is cut and paste responses and sections from previously written grants into sections of new grants — and then just update the name of the program. Say what?! That’s like telling a teacher, there’s not much for you to do — you already have your plans written for the day. Or a cop, it’s just another routine domestic dispute call. Or…or…or… The fact is. Every project is different and has new requirements. And while the bulk of the information may be the same, it has to be reshaped and reworded to support the point you are making for that particular grant.
For more about how a grant writer should work as part of a planning team for your grant proposal, please read my new book, RIGHT BEFORE YOU WRITE: THE GROUNDBREAKING PROCESS USED TO WIN MORE THAN $385 MILLION IN COMPETITIVE GRANT FUNDS. Go to www.SandyPointInk.com.