http://blog.seliger.com/2008/10/28/alls-well-that-ends-well-a-tale-of-hope-on-the-grant-writing-trail/ Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:06:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://blog.seliger.com/2008/10/28/alls-well-that-ends-well-a-tale-of-hope-on-the-grant-writing-trail/comment-page-1/#comment-2826 Liz Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:31:42 +0000 http://blog.seliger.com/?p=80#comment-2826 I agree, reviewers comments should always be taken with a grain of salt, if not ignored completely. I would go so far as to say that even the advice from technical assistance firms contracted to work with applicants before the proposal submission should also be critically evaluated before altering your plan significantly. Without getting too specific, let me tell you briefly about my first ANA grant: I went to a pre-application training with the friendly TA folks, who were very thorough and my boss and I had left with a good understanding of the projects we would create for the upcoming ANA cycles. The TA folks kindly offered their services for draft reviewing, and two weeks before the deadline, I took them up on it, sending my draft their way for review. The response was surprizing. They liked the concept, but suggested an entirely new way of organizing the objective work plan, which meant restructuring the whole project. Our contact made it sound like we needed to do this or else it just wasn't fundable. I followed my instincts, and revised only a small portion of the project, keeping it basically the same. We got funded. I agree, reviewers comments should always be taken with a grain of salt, if not ignored completely. I would go so far as to say that even the advice from technical assistance firms contracted to work with applicants before the proposal submission should also be critically evaluated before altering your plan significantly. Without getting too specific, let me tell you briefly about my first ANA grant: I went to a pre-application training with the friendly TA folks, who were very thorough and my boss and I had left with a good understanding of the projects we would create for the upcoming ANA cycles. The TA folks kindly offered their services for draft reviewing, and two weeks before the deadline, I took them up on it, sending my draft their way for review. The response was surprizing. They liked the concept, but suggested an entirely new way of organizing the objective work plan, which meant restructuring the whole project. Our contact made it sound like we needed to do this or else it just wasn’t fundable. I followed my instincts, and revised only a small portion of the project, keeping it basically the same. We got funded.

]]> http://blog.seliger.com/2008/10/28/alls-well-that-ends-well-a-tale-of-hope-on-the-grant-writing-trail/comment-page-1/#comment-2817 Kathy Daugherty Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:52:48 +0000 http://blog.seliger.com/?p=80#comment-2817 One of the things I do in my spare time is review grants - primarily for HHS. I have worked as both a reviewer and chair. The past few years, they have been remote grants, where we review the grants on our own and get together via conference call to talk about the proposals under review and reach a consensus. I must say that I have yet to run into anyone who fits your description of a reviewer! I got started in this because I thought it might make me a better proposal writer (and I believe it has), but I stay with it because of all the great proposals I have gotten to review. Let's face it, there were some stinkers, too, from folks who had obviously NOT read the RFP or put any thought into what they were proposing, but mostly the writers were trying hard to get money for what they thought was a worthy cause. The reviewers I have worked with put just as much effort into a thoughtful review and into the comments - both strengths and weaknesses. Sadly, we were unable to fund some really worthwhile ideas because they did not meet the criteria of the RFP. I cannot tell you how many heartfelt discussions I have had with fellow reviewers, and, as chair, how many times I had to reel in reviewers who were excited by a proposal that did not fit the requirements of the review tool. Reviewers DO care! Maybe I have just been really lucky, or you have been really UNlucky! As a grant writer, I must admit to reading some reviews of my work and wondering whose proposal they had been reading, but I have not worked with any of those folks! One of the things I do in my spare time is review grants – primarily for HHS. I have worked as both a reviewer and chair. The past few years, they have been remote grants, where we review the grants on our own and get together via conference call to talk about the proposals under review and reach a consensus.
I must say that I have yet to run into anyone who fits your description of a reviewer!
I got started in this because I thought it might make me a better proposal writer (and I believe it has), but I stay with it because of all the great proposals I have gotten to review. Let’s face it, there were some stinkers, too, from folks who had obviously NOT read the RFP or put any thought into what they were proposing, but mostly the writers were trying hard to get money for what they thought was a worthy cause.
The reviewers I have worked with put just as much effort into a thoughtful review and into the comments – both strengths and weaknesses.
Sadly, we were unable to fund some really worthwhile ideas because they did not meet the criteria of the RFP. I cannot tell you how many heartfelt discussions I have had with fellow reviewers, and, as chair, how many times I had to reel in reviewers who were excited by a proposal that did not fit the requirements of the review tool. Reviewers DO care!
Maybe I have just been really lucky, or you have been really UNlucky!
As a grant writer, I must admit to reading some reviews of my work and wondering whose proposal they had been reading, but I have not worked with any of those folks!

]]>