Writing Goals and Objectives for Your Grant
Dcroom56 
grantwriting.pdf
25
Grant proposals are complex documents that can be dif-
ficult to write, and two of the most difficult parts are the
Statement of Need(s) and the concomitant Goal(s). One of
the most common reasons a grant proposal is rejected is
that the “[a]pplicant did not adequately define the need(s)
to be addressed by the proposal.”1 The statement of need(s)
must be precise and appropriate for funding to be attained.
Many writers experience problems with stating the real
need; instead, they describe superficial wants or items
related to meeting the need. In contrast, some writers have a
good understanding of the real need, but they state the goal
of their research or project in terms that are too vague to res-
onate with a grant-making agency. This article suggests two
prewriting exercises to help writers overcome these prob-
lems: logical mapping and a six-step method for articulat-
ing the goal. Logical mapping can help writers identify real
needs and clarify why they should be addressed; mapping
can also pinpoint the causes that a solution must address.
The six-step method can change vague claims about what
a solution-implementation project or research endeavor
will accomplish into clear, specific statements of the goal(s).
These two exercises are applicable to education and small
foundation grants; for more complicated grant proposals,
like those to the National Institutes of Health, these exercises
are useful but not necessarily sufficient.
It is always important to follow all instructions given in
the request for proposals (RFP) and to respond using key
words that reflect the values of the funding source. Many
proposals with great ideas are rejected because they fail
to follow all RFP guidelines. The RFP typically provides
explicit instructions about what information is needed in
which sections of a proposal; how to format that informa-
tion; and when, where, and how to submit the proposal.
RFPs give detailed requirements for font styles and sizes,
document length, due dates, and the types of projects that
can be funded for each specific grant. Sloppy formatting or
grammar and spelling errors will reflect poorly on the cred-
ibility of everyone involved with the project. Furthermore,
the “shotgun” method of proposal submission—sending a
proposal to several foundations or government agencies—
typically “results in high rates of rejection and negative posi-
tioning with funding sources.”2 Sending a proposal in this
manner, especially when some of the foundations or govern-
ment agencies have interests only marginally related to the
topic, not only garners rejection of that specific proposal,
it also reduces the credibility of the project team members
and their organization. Showing that good research has
gone into selecting potential funding sources as well as
developing the project will enhance credibility and help
persuade a reviewer that the applicant’s organization is
capable of sound judgment in handling money, activities,
and individuals.
Solving Problem 1: Distinguishing Needs from Wants A grant proposal can request funding to conduct research
(eg, to test a hypothesis) or to solve a problem (eg, to change
treatment protocols or clinical procedures). The major task
of writing a grant proposal involves describing a research
question that needs to be answered or a problem (such as a
high level of sepsis among patients after surgery in a hospi-
tal) that needs to be resolved. Too often, grant writers make
the mistake of confusing a need with something that will
meet a need. This mistake indicates to a funding agency that
the project team does not share the agency’s values and ide-
als. Many RFPs contain a statement of need section, and it is
imperative to be specific in showing the difference between
what the beneficiaries of the research or project currently
have and what they need.
First, you must clearly separate the need from the solu-
tion you are proposing to meet the need. Chavkin provides
a simple example of this confusion in describing school
social workers who “need” a van to transport children to
and from afterschool tutoring activities.3 It is obvious to the
school social workers how helpful the van will be. By focus-
ing the proposal on getting a van, however, they are focusing
on one part of a solution and not on the needs that the van
will meet. The message would be clearer if the social work-
ers explained the learning needs of the students who will be
transported in the van and how the van will help improve
learning by getting students to tutoring. It is important to
stay focused on the problem and not become distracted by
one possible solution. A hospital does not “need” a super-
fast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine; however,
the hospital may need a means of providing diagnostic
imaging services within a workable time frame to a larger-
than-average number of patients in an area where head
Writing Clear Statements of Needs and Goals for Grant Proposals
By Karina Stokes, PhD
Assistant Professor of Professional Writing, Department of English, University of Houston Downtown, Houston, TX
PRACTICAL MATTERS
26
and joint injuries are common because of a local tradition
of skateboarding. The super-fast MRI is one possible way of
meeting the need, but it remains to be proven that it is the
best and most cost-effective solution. Perhaps local laws
against skateboarding could resolve this problem at a much
lower cost.
Most grant-writing experts recommend writing logi-
cal, factual descriptions of needs, including a brief review
of what relevant experts have said, to verify the existence of
these needs and either to document an ongoing history of
a problem or to show how a recent change in some circum-
stance causes the problem. In his step-by-step guide on
grant writing, Henson notes, “By simply reviewing the litera-
ture and reporting the research conducted by others, grant-
proposal writers can build convincing support for their
grants.”2 A viable proposal demonstrates a need for specific
knowledge in a discipline or for changes in physical circum-
stances among a specific population or within a specified
physical location. Because the need must not be confused
with a solution that might help to meet the need, it is a good
practice to brainstorm all aspects of the problem, includ-
ing causes and effects, in order to ensure that the message is
clear to the grant writer before he/she attempts to explain it
to proposal reviewers.
A statement of need examines one of the two main
aspects of a problem (effects and causes). The seriousness
of a problem can be established by looking at its effects.
To mentally explore a problem’s effects, begin with a logi-
cal map, sometimes called a mind map (Figure 1). Focus on
naming all the effects of a problem. Showing the connec-
tions between the real problem and its consequences can
help to prove that a problem deserves to be solved. If the
consequences of doing nothing would involve letting people
suffer unnecessarily, then a good case can be made for the
need to change the situation.
Solving Problem 2: Articulating Goals Precisely A goal statement in a grant proposal focuses on the sec-
ond aspect of a problem—its causes. In writing a grant,
one must demonstrate that the cause(s) of the problem is
understood. The effects are often the perceived problems,
but the cause is the underlying problem that produces the
effects.4 To help explore the possible causes of a problem,
create a logical map and ask the questions “Why is this hap-
pening?” and “What changed to bring about these unde-
sirable effects?” until the ultimate cause is uncovered.4 A
viable solution must target an actual cause of a problem.
If one discovers that the problem has multiple causes, one
should select the most likely target for an intervention on
the basis of what can be feasibly accomplished with limited
time and resources. Still, it is a good idea to demonstrate to
a funding source that the larger causal chain is understood
and that a specific intervention is being advocated because
it is the most practical or has the best chance of success-
fully producing a helpful change in the outcomes. At times,
when multiple causes contribute to a problem, it might be
feasible to target only one or two of them. Identifying causes
of a problem in this way allows one to express a clear and
specific goal for producing an identifiable and appropriate
change.
These mapping activities can provide the raw mate-
rial for the introduction section of a proposal that identifies
a real need, explores the issues of who is affected and how
severely, establishes when the need began and how long
it has been a problem, and persuades readers that a solu-
tion is needed. One must first argue for the importance of
a problem (based on its effects) so that the readers are con-
vinced that it is truly worth resolving. One can then explain
how and why a particular project will solve or mitigate the
problem. For research, a proposal writer can first argue for
the need for research in an area where knowledge is lacking
Problem
Effect
Effect
Effect
Global effects
Resulting event
Local results
Possible consequences
Effect of the effect
Changes that may occur
Resulting event
Possible consequences
Consequences
Changes that may occur
Figure 1. Logical mapping exercise to prove the severity of a problem.
Problem
Effect
Effect
Effect
Change that occurred
Precipitating event
Local events
Contributing factor
Cause of the cause
Change that occurred
Contributing factor
Contributing factor
Precipitating event
Change that occurred
Figure 2. Logical mapping exercise to determine the real problem and its causes.
27
on the basis of undesirable consequences that result from
this lack of knowledge or the desirable potential outcomes
that might result from gaining this knowledge. One can then
clearly articulate the goal along with arguments for how
and why the chosen methods will lead to a valid answer to
a research question, phrased in terms of testing a specific
hypothesis.
Once it is demonstrated that a need exists, a proposal
writer can provide a goal statement. The purpose of a goal
statement is to hypothesize how much of what kind of
change will occur in a target area or population within a
specified time for a set cost. One can create a goal statement
for a grant proposal by following six steps to articulate the
goal clearly (see list at right).
Six-Step Method for Articulating Your Goal
The first step in articulating a clear goal is to determine what
kind of results are needed in what location or arena. For
example, a project may focus on reducing sepsis among
surgical patients in a free, inner-city clinic.
The second step is to identify how change will be mea-
sured; for example, what test result or clinical outcome
determines the extent of the presence of sepsis in the clinic’s
surgical patients?
The third step requires estimating how much change
will be considered “good enough” to be called a success-
ful outcome. Most clinicians and funding agencies will not
consider a 3% reduction of sepsis in surgical patients to be a
success worth funding—it might even be seen as a random
change. In contrast, a 100% reduction is unrealistic. The
key is to determine an amount of change that is reasonably
attainable and worth the money and effort. For example,
one may compare the sepsis rate at one clinic with the rate
at a model clinic and strive to match that standard.
The fourth step is to set a deadline: in what timeframe
can the desired change be achieved? Will it take weeks,
months, or years?
The fifth step is to determine the costs, and it is impor-
tant to not inflate or underestimate the costs. Cost is, of
course, an issue of great concern to grant-making agencies,
and the predicted costs must be reasonable and allow for
the change to be made or the hypothesis to be tested. It may
also be of value to note exactly how much benefit would be
produced for the stated costs so that proposal evaluators
can compare the likely return on investment that each com-
peting proposal promises.
The sixth and final step in articulating a clear goal recaps
the previous steps in a comprehensive statement of what
change will be made (or what knowledge will be gained),
according to what measurable criteria for success, by what
deadline, and at what cost.
It is possible that you might never write the goal state-
ment obtained from the six steps verbatim in a proposal;
however, this statement will be the guiding light for writing a
proposal because nearly all of the information that must be
included in a proposal is based on this goal statement.
Applying These Techniques to Basic Science Research Although these techniques for clarifying needs and goals are
most relevant to proposals for applied research and program
development, they can also be of some use for proposals for
basic science research. The main difference between the two
types of research is that applied research creates change in
physical or social outcomes, whereas basic science changes
the body of knowledge available to others who later apply
it. Thus, in the case of basic science, the need is for knowl-
edge, the lack of which impedes progress in understanding
the causal mechanisms involved in some disease or envi-
ronmental process. If logical mapping can identify effects
but not causes, then basic science research may be needed
to explore possible causal connections. In such a case, the
need for the research can be explained in terms of what
problems arise from the lack of knowledge. In some cases, it
may be difficult to describe an expected benefit; it is simply
a matter of producing knowledge that will have unforeseen
potential applications. For example, the discovery of nuclear
fission resulted in the production of atomic weapons as
well as nuclear power. If one is writing a proposal for a basic
science research grant, one should focus on the generally
accepted benefits of expanding human knowledge. The
1. Identify areas in which results are needed.
2. Specify measurable indicators for these result areas; these indicators should tell how well one is progressing toward the desired results.
3. Determine performance standards to answer the ques- tion: How much change of the measurement indicator will signify success (eg, a 5%, 20%, or 100% reduction or increase in the factor being measured)?
4. Specify a timeframe for accomplishing the desired change, then view this as a deadline.
5. Determine the cost range within which the project will operate (the amount of money the project will spend to meet the goal by using the methods described in the rest of the proposal). One can also identify how many benefi- ciaries will be served for this cost.
6. Articulate a goal statement in the following format: “To action-verb + statement-involving-measurement-indica- tor by performance-standard by deadline at a cost of no more than cost-range.” Example: To test the hypoth- esis that radiofrequency thermal coagulation denerva- tion procedures are effective for reducing pain levels experienced by patients with chronic back pain (defined as pain lasting for more than 1 year) by at least 40%, as reported by patients on a 10-point pain scale, with the reduction expected to last at least 6 months, in 50 patients within 1 year, for a cost of $800,000.
Six Steps to Writing Clear, Specific Goals
28
mapping exercise suggested here may
provide limited benefits for proposals
related to basic science research with
unknown effects and causes, but the
six-step method for articulating the goal
can still be used to explain how much of
what kind of change may be produced in
the body of scientific knowledge avail-
able for application in the future.
Conclusion A clear and specific statement of need is
a key feature of a good, fundable grant
proposal. Logical mapping exercises
can identify or clarify real needs as well
as causal mechanisms that viable solu-
tions must target. The six-step method
described here can enable a grant pro-
posal writer to state the goal(s) of a grant
proposal in terms that respond directly
to a RFP. These two prewriting exer-
cises can make a grant proposal more
appealing to potential funders by giving
proposal reviewers exactly what they are
seeking. Providing this information in a
succinct manner enhances the likeli-
hood of attaining funding for worthwhile
projects.
Author disclosure: The author notes that she
has no commercial associations that may pose
a conflict of interest in relation to this article.
Author contact: [email protected]
References 1. Texas Education Agency Contracts and
Grants Administration. Hints for pre- paring grant proposals. A Grantseeker’s Resource Guide to Obtaining Federal, Corporate and Foundation Grants. June 1999. Available at http://ritter.tea.state. tx.us/opge/grantdev/seekers/docu- ment2.html#hints. Accessed January 20, 2012.
2. Henson, KT. Grant Writing in Higher Education: A Step-by-step Guide. Boston: Pearson Education; 2004:4.
3. Chavkin, NF. Funding school-linked services through grants: A beginner’s guide to grant writing. Soc Work Educ. 1997;19(3):164-175.
4. Johnson-Sheehan, R. Writing Proposals: Rhetoric for Managing Change. New York: Pearson Education; 2002:58-61.
CALENDAR OF MEETINGS
For a complete list of meetings, visit
Conferences > Related Meetings on the
AMWA Web site (www.amwa.org).
APRIL American Society for Indexing April 19-21, 2012 San Diego, CA E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.asindexing.org
Association of Health Care Journalists April 19-22, 2012 Atlanta, GA E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.healthjournalism.org
International Society for Medical Publication Professionals April 23-25, 2012 Baltimore, MD Web site: www.ismpp.org
MAY International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers May 1-3, 2012 Washington, DC Web site: www.stm-assoc.org
European Medical Writers Association May 14-18, 2012 Paphos, Cyprus E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.emwa.org
Health Academy, Public Relations Society of America May 16-18, 2012 Philadelphia, PA E-mail: [email protected] (Don Bill) Web site: www.healthacademy.prsa.org
Council of Science Editors May 18-21, 2012 Seattle, WA E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.councilscienceeditors. org
Society for Technical Communication May 20-23, 2012 Chicago, IL E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.stc.org
Society for Scholarly Publishing May 30-June 1, 2012 Arlington, VA Web site: www.sspnet.org
JUNE Canadian Science Writers Association June 2-5, 2012 Windsor, Ontario, Canada E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.sciencewriters.ca
European Association of Science Editors June 8-10, 2012 Tallinn, Estonia Web site: www.ease.org.uk
Health and Science Communications Association June 20-23, 2012 Providence, RI Web site: www.hesca.org
Drug Information Association June 24-28, 2012 Philadelphia, PA Web site: www.diahome.org
OCTOBER Public Relations Society of America October 13-16, 2012 San Francisco, CA Web site: www.prsa.org
American College of Clinical Pharmacy October 21-24, 2012 Hollywood, FL E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.accp.com
Association for Business Communication October 24-27, 2012 Honolulu, HI E-mail: [email protected] (Dr Betty S. Johnson) Web site: www.businesscommunication. org
Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society October 26-30, 2012 Seattle, WA E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.raps.org
American Medical Writers Association October 4-6, 2012 Sacramento, CA
Copyright of AMWA Journal: American Medical Writers Association Journal is the property of American
Medical Writers Association (AMWA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
