Strategies for Increasing the Efficacy of Collaborative Grant Writing Groups in Preparing Federal Proposals.

Abstract

Introduction Required collaboration is becoming the norm for organizations in pursuit of Federal grant funding. While collaborative partnerships have long been encouraged, mandatory collaboration, in which the type of partner organizations (e.g., workforce development boards, K-12 schools, non-profits, community or faith-based groups, industry or businesses, etc.) are designated by the sponsoring agency, has not traditionally been required. However, many Federal departments recognize that in order to achieve the greatest return on the public investment that grants represent, a comprehensive solution that taps into the variety of resources available within a given community must be encouraged (Baker, Homan, Schonhoff & Kreuter, 1999). This commitment to protect taxpayer interests is set forth as part of a Federal agency's strategic plan, and reflects its priorities through integration of these interests with its mission and program authorities. Mandatory grant collaboration means that collaborative writing has become a necessary skill for those charged with drafting the proposal document. The opportunity for collaboration presents many advantages for writers such as maximum input, checks and balances, access to a depth of experience, resources, joint knowledge, error reduction/achieving a more accurate text, and potentially, a higher quality document (Appel, 2005; Noel & Robert, 2004). However, these benefits hinge upon the ability of the collaborative group as a whole to carry out interactions and subsequent writing tasks effectively. This is often simpler in theory than in practice, given that the turnaround time for many requests for grant proposals is now 30 to 45 days from announcement in the Federal Register. When such collaborative structures are not already in place (i.e., ... an alliance among individuals linked by a common problem in order to develop a viable solution for addressing that problem) (Crawley, Hughes, Dopke & Dolan, 2007, p. 184), creating an innovative program that represents a true collaboration of organizational resources and ongoing reciprocity can be difficult to achieve within these constraints. Moreover, even when underlying structures for collaboration are in place, the communication required to orchestrate a diverse team through a successful grant writing endeavor, and subsequent implementation (if funding is awarded), tends to be challenging from the outset for a number of reasons. For instance, group members from representative organizations may play diverse roles and/ or have differing levels of influence within and outside of their organization (Bacon, 1990), leading to dissention in assignment of tasks. Partnering organizations also do not necessarily share similar missions and organizational acculturation (Palmeri, 2004), which dictate how and when work is accomplished. The group's ability to mediate these, and other differences, therefore likely plays a significant role in whether or not they can achieve a successful outcome. In addition, because collaborative work often places unique demands on participants --requiring some unfamiliar attitudes and behaviors and a wide range of specialized skills--collaborative is greatly influenced by both the existing skills, knowledge and attitudes members bring to the table and efforts taken to build, support, and access this capacity (Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz & Lounsbury, 2001, p. 243). In other words, not only is it essential to strategically select the group's members, as each individual's skills, talents and work habits must provide an added value to the whole, but the ability of the group to communicate and work together to achieve its collective purpose also largely depends on how effectively its dynamics are organized and managed to create conditions that promote collaboration. Ensuring the success of collaborative grant writing endeavors is of utmost importance for organizations seeking Federal grant funding. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.