When applying for a grant that funds your job, is it wrong to simply update last year's application that was awarded?
January 6, 2012 10:17 AM   Subscribe

When applying for a grant that funds your job, is it wrong to simply update last year's application that was awarded?

My sister works for the county and is basically a court coordinator. Her job is funded yearly by a grant by our state's Office of State Courts. Her grant is running out soon and she has been tasked with re-writing/-submitting the grant. Best case scenario, her job is re-funded and she is again gainfully employed! Worst case scenario, they are denied the grant and she loses her job. Obviously, this would suck cheetah dicks and I'd like to help her avoid that by helping her write this grant.

I once wrote a grant to fund a walking trail in our city's park and we were awarded those funds. However, that was a good 15 years ago and I have no recollection of how I went about it.

Here's my question: She has a copy of last year's grant but is reluctant to just amend it with the new year's information. Is that a bad or good idea? Does the grant need to be completely re-written? The state offers very little guidance in this matter nor does her employer. Basically, there's no one around she can ask. The program has went well this year and is very much needed at the courthouse so she that be made known? Does she need to talk herself up with some nice meaty stats or is that unnecessary?

Any thoughts from those who deal with this would be ever-so-helpful.

(We're in Missouri, if that matters. I can add other details if it would contribute to better answers.)
posted by youandiandaflame to Work & Money (7 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
She should talk herself up with nice meaty stats!

She can adapt the text from last year (I work in a grant-based environment, though not in Missouri) but should not just cut and paste. In this era of budget cuts, I would suggest that she show 1. how she fulfilled last year's goals; 2. a continuation of last year's goals into next year; 3. a new "growth" goal, even if it's just "and I will learn to use Access to make a client database which we will use this way" and 4. some measurable information about how successful she was this year.

She has to assume that someone will have to argue for funding her again and they will need ammunition.

Also, granting bodies like to see not just continuation but growth and new initiatives/improvements. She should probably point to those.

It's a drag. I think it sucks that we're moving into this charity and grant-based model where more and more services are year-to-year precarious.
posted by Frowner at 10:23 AM on January 6, 2012 [5 favorites]


I think it's a pretty standard practice, provided that the information is still accurate. Grant applications aren't supposed to be original, just complete and informative.

Interestingly, intelligence analysts from the early Cold War also just kept copying their previous reports to the president when they didn't have anything new to say.
posted by jb at 10:26 AM on January 6, 2012


Grant writer for almost 10 years. At least in my state, it's very common, and likely expected, for folks to just update previous-year grants (especially lengthy government grants) with new information. It's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone at the state is going to remember what was previously submitted in detail and/or sit there and parse previous grants--no one has the time or the inclination.

Just be sure that the new info that's updated/added clearly highlights the good that the program has done, so her case remains strong. (Is there already a needs-assessment section in the grant? They're common in state grants, so there may already be meaty statistics that just need to be updated, if new info is available, but she doesn't have to kill herself looking for more.)

Also, does your sister know anything about the potential for re-funding (i.e., has the state made or, is considering making, any relevant budget cuts that may affect her, has she talked to a program or grants officer at the state agency, etc.)? If she knows that info that may also influence how hard she has to push on showcasing herself and the program.

(On preview, the list in Frowner's second paragraph is very good advice, although my one question about that would be whether or not your sister has to do an end-of-year grant report that would include much of that info anyway. If she does she may not necessarily need to repeat it in the new application.)
posted by dlugoczaj at 10:28 AM on January 6, 2012


I review government grants as part of my job and can tell you that this is a pretty standard practice. If her grant is not highly competitive, it's not particularly risky either. Frowner hits the hammer on the nail however with RESULTS. A grant renewal with positive results is far easier to swallow than a new grant to an unknown quantity while a cut-and-paste job is no better.

It's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone at the state is going to remember what was previously submitted in detail and/or sit there and parse previous grants--no one has the time or the inclination.

While, I don't have any experience at the state or local level or in the private sector, but this type of thorough review is a pretty standard part of the panel decision making and grant review is a voluntary, outside job function for almost everyone empanelled. For the grant review staff, it is their full time job, and their work is then reviewed by my agency's Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. And people say government is inefficient!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:45 AM on January 6, 2012


Nthing Frowner's advice. I worked for a number of years for a regional agency that operated in part through offering grants (disclosure - I wasn't directly involved in that side but saw and heard a lot about what made a good / bad grant application) and it seemed that you best secured continued grant aid through providing clear evidence of outputs and positive change.
posted by Martha My Dear Prudence at 10:55 AM on January 6, 2012


She should also review the grant carefully for references to things (sites, other agencies, etc ) that may have changed. I'd assume that's included in "update," except that I see people fail to do this all the time.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 11:03 AM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]


While, I don't have any experience at the state or local level or in the private sector, but this type of thorough review is a pretty standard part of the panel decision making and grant review is a voluntary, outside job function for almost everyone empanelled. For the grant review staff, it is their full time job, and their work is then reviewed by my agency's Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. And people say government is inefficient!

I'm not saying that the submitted grants don't get a thorough review--I'm saying that it's unlikely that anyone's going to do a side-by-side comparison of a grant submitted the previous year to nitpick about what might have been copied and pasted. Yes, you do have to make sure that your info is up-to-date and speaks well of the program's achievements in the most recently completed year, but you don't have to sweat the repetition of similar text from year to year, and I read that as the OP's (and sister's) primary concern.

(Lesser Shrew, your comment is spot-on, and worth noting--it's not just the stats/figures that need to be checked and updated!)
posted by dlugoczaj at 11:15 AM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]


« Older Search for apartments by age of building?   |   How did jazz become upscale? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.