I’m going to tell you how I approach grant proposals, especially when working with others. It’s not just about getting the money, but about making the best proposal possible.
If you’ve ever tried to write a grant on your own, you know how it feels – like you’re trying to climb a mountain all by yourself. You’re writing, checking facts, trying to understand complicated rules, and sometimes, you just doubt yourself late at night. But here’s the thing: lots of the really successful grant applications aren’t done alone. They’re the result of teams working together, really well. For writers, this isn’t just about splitting up tasks; it’s about making a bigger impact, bringing in different kinds of smart people, and creating a proposal so good, it’s impossible to ignore. I’m going to share how to strategically and precisely work with others on grant proposals, turning something that feels overwhelming into a shared success.
Why Working Together is So Important: It’s More Than Just Sharing the Work
Working together on a grant proposal isn’t just about dividing up the writing. It’s a completely different way of thinking that gives you a huge advantage, especially when you’re trying to get money that lots of other people want too.
Let’s Look at Two Scenarios: The “Solo Struggle” vs. The “Team Triumph”
Imagine Sarah, a writer working by herself to get a grant for a program to help people read better in her community. Sarah is really passionate and good at explaining things, but she might:
* Not Have Enough Specific Information: She might have good stories, but it’s hard for her to find exact numbers about how many people in her community struggle with reading or what other similar programs have achieved in the long run.
* Miss Important Viewpoints: Her story might be compelling, but it could be based only on her own experiences, missing key details about what the community really needs or potential problems.
* Get Completely Burned Out: There’s so much to do – research, writing, creating a budget, making sure everything follows the rules – it can be exhausting, and that can make the quality of the proposal suffer.
Now, let’s think about that same reading program, but with a team working on it:
* The Teacher: This person provides real-world data on reading gaps, how to teach effectively, and how to measure success. They make sure the part about how the program will work is authentic.
* The Community Organizer: They know everything about the community’s demographics, cultural sensitivities, and how to reach people. They make sure the “Needs Statement” truly connects with the community.
* The Data Analyst: This person gathers compelling statistics, creates impressive charts and graphs, and makes sure every claim is backed up by solid data. This makes the “Impact” and “Evaluation” sections much stronger.
* The Finance Expert: They create a strong, justifiable budget, find other funding sources, and navigate the complicated financial reporting requirements.
* My Role as the Lead Writer: I focus on making sure everything flows together, the story is clear, the language is persuasive, and the entire proposal tells a single, powerful story. I’m the one who designs the narrative, bringing together all these different ideas into one smooth piece.
The proposal created by the “Team Triumph” is richer, stronger, and much more aligned with what funders are looking for. It speaks with multiple, authoritative voices, creating a powerful song of purpose and potential.
Phase 1: Before We Start Writing – Building a Super Strong Foundation
Before I even think about writing a single word, careful planning and clear communication are essential for success. This isn’t just an option; it’s the absolute base.
1. Defining Our Main Goal and How It Fits with the Funder
Every collaborative project starts with everyone understanding why we’re applying and who we’re asking money from.
- What I Do: The “Grant Fit” Matrix Meeting. I bring together potential collaborators. We don’t just talk; we use a shared document (like an online whiteboard or a spreadsheet).
- Column A: What the Funder Cares About: I list the specific goals, target groups, and funding areas mentioned in the Request for Proposals (RFP) or the funder’s guidelines.
- Column B: Our Program’s Goals: We clearly state how our proposed project addresses each of the funder’s priorities. We’re completely honest. If there’s a mismatch, we discuss how to adapt or if this isn’t the right funder for us.
- Column C: Shared Values: What are the funder’s stated values (e.g., fairness, new ideas, helping the community)? How do our organization’s or project’s values align with theirs?
- For Example: If a grant is about environmental sustainability, my matrix might show “Funder Priority: Reduce Carbon Footprint” aligning with “Our Objective: Teach young people about renewable energy.”
- Why This Matters: This initial check helps us avoid opportunities that aren’t a good fit, saving us wasted effort. It makes sure everyone is working towards the same goal from the very beginning.
2. Finding and Bringing in the Right People to Work With
Not everyone who is an expert is good at collaborating. I look for a mix of expertise, commitment, and good rapport.
- What I Do: A Skills Audit and Gap Analysis.
- List What We Need for Each Section/Expertise: Based on the RFP, I identify every distinct area that needs specialized knowledge (e.g., program design, budget, how to measure success, legal rules, community outreach, data analysis, specific subject knowledge).
- Check Our Internal Team: Who on our team (or in our wider network) has these skills? I rate their availability and suitability (e.g., technical knowledge, how they communicate).
- Find Help Outside: If we have gaps, I identify potential partners (other non-profits, universities, community leaders, independent consultants). I prioritize those who have a proven track record of working well with others or who we already have a strong relationship with.
- For Example: If the grant requires a strong plan for measuring impact, and my team doesn’t have an expert in Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E), I might reach out to a local university’s research department for a professor interested in practical research.
- Why This Matters: The right team brings credibility, fills important knowledge gaps, and distributes the workload smartly. The wrong team leads to frustration, delays, and a lower-quality proposal.
3. Setting Up Clear Roles, Responsibilities, and What Needs to Be Delivered
Confusion is the enemy of collaboration. Everyone needs to know what they are responsible for and when it’s due.
- What I Do: The “RACI” Matrix. This powerful tool helps define:
- Responsible (R): The person (or people) who do the work.
- Accountable (A): The person ultimately answerable for the completion of the task (there should only be one “A” per task).
- Consulted (C): People whose opinions are asked for before something is done.
- Informed (I): People who are simply kept up to date.
- My Process: I create a spreadsheet with rows for each section or part of the grant proposal (e.g., Executive Summary, Needs Statement, Program Design, Budget, Evaluation Plan, Appendices) and columns for R, A, C, I. We fill it out together.
- For Example:
- Task: Draft “Needs Statement”
- R: Program Coordinator
- A: Lead Writer (Me)
- C: Community Organizer, Data Analyst
- I: Executive Director
- What’s Due & When: For each person who is “Responsible,” I assign clear deliverables (e.g., “Draft needs statement, 500 words, including 3 data points, by Oct 15th”).
- Why This Matters: It stops people from doing the same work twice, makes sure nothing is missed, and holds everyone accountable. It creates a clear workflow.
4. Setting Up How We’ll Communicate and Our Rules
Good communication is essential for collaboration. Without it, even the best plans can fail.
- What I Do: The “Communication Charter.” We discuss and agree on:
- Our Main Communication Platform: What tool will we use for ongoing conversations? (e.g., Slack, Teams channel, a dedicated email address, project management software like Asana or Trello).
- Where We’ll Share Documents: Where will all our working documents, research, and drafts live? (e.g., Google Drive, SharePoint, Dropbox). I emphasize how we’ll manage different versions.
- How Often We’ll Meet: How often will we meet? What kind of meetings? (e.g., weekly check-ins, quick discussions as needed).
- How We’ll Make Decisions: Who makes the final decisions if there are disagreements? (e.g., Me as Lead Writer, the Executive Director, or by everyone agreeing).
- What Happens if Problems Arise: What do we do if someone misses a deadline or there’s a conflict?
- For Example: “All working drafts will be shared via Google Drive with comment access. Important decisions need to be discussed on our Slack channel, followed by a weekly Tuesday 9 AM video call for final resolution. Small questions can be asked via direct message.”
- Why This Matters: It eliminates guesswork, reduces misunderstandings, and ensures everyone has the information they need when they need it. It builds trust.
Phase 2: While We’re Working Together – Making the Story and Ensuring Accuracy
This is where the magic (and the hard work) happens. In my role as a writer, I’m crucial in shaping all the different ideas into one clear, powerful story.
1. My Role as the Lead Writer: Directing the Story
I’m the storyteller, the one who brings all the pieces together, and the guardian of consistency. My ability to take different pieces of information and turn them into a strong narrative is incredibly important.
- What I Do: Developing a Master Outline and the Flow of the Story.
- Before Anyone Writes: Before anyone starts writing, I create a detailed outline based on the RFP’s structure and the logic of our project. I assign approximate word counts to each section.
- Identifying the Core Message: What is the single most important message I want the funder to take away? Every section should reinforce this.
- Planning the Story: I map out the flow: How does the “Needs Statement” lead to the “Program Design”? How does the “Program Design” lead to the expected “Impact” and methods for “Evaluation”?
- For Example: My outline for the literacy program might start with “The Urgent Problem (statistics and stories of low literacy)” leading to “The Innovative Solution (our program components),” then to “The Measurable Impact (what will change, for whom),” ending with “The Sustainable Future (how it continues beyond this grant).”
- Why This Matters: A strong narrative flow holds the proposal together, making it logical, convincing, and easy for reviewers to understand and score. Without it, you end up with a bunch of disconnected sections.
2. Smartly Dividing the Work, Not Just Equally Dividing It
I distribute tasks based on what people are good at, not just who’s available. This makes sure the quality is high and we’re efficient.
- What I Do: Smart Assignment of Section Ownership.
- Assign “Ownership” by Expertise: The person with the most expertise in a section (e.g., the financial expert for the budget, the M&E expert for evaluation) creates the first complete draft.
- Review Teams: I designate a small “review team” for each section (e.g., 2-3 people, including myself). Their job is to provide feedback, find any gaps, and make sure everything aligns.
- For Example: For the “Budget” section, the Financial Specialist “owns” it. The Program Coordinator reviews it to make sure it aligns with the program, and I (as Lead Writer) review it for clarity, justification, and consistency with other sections.
- Why This Matters: It uses individual strengths, reduces extra work, and increases the chances of a high-quality initial draft for each section.
3. Drafting in Stages and Getting Feedback
Grant proposals are rarely perfect the first time. I always plan for multiple rounds of drafting and helpful feedback.
- What I Do: Phased Review Schedule with Specific Questions.
- Draft 1 (Raw Input): Collaborators submit their assigned sections. My role as Lead Writer is to check that everything is complete and initially aligns with the outline. I don’t make major edits yet.
- Draft 2 (Integration & Cohesion): As the Lead Writer, I bring all the sections together, ensuring smooth transitions, a consistent voice, and a good story flow. I identify any parts that are redundant or contradict each other.
- Draft 3 (Targeted Feedback): I share the integrated draft with specific collaborators. I give them targeted questions instead of just saying “review this.”
- “Does this budget explanation clearly justify the personnel costs mentioned in the program plan?” (to the Financial Specialist)
- “Are the evaluation metrics strong enough to capture the impact of [specific program component]?” (to the M&E expert)
- “Is the tone persuasive and aligned with our organization’s mission?” (to the Executive Director)
- For Example: After incorporating the Program Coordinator’s draft of the “Activities” section, I might send it back to them with: “Can you add a sentence explaining why we chose this particular workshop format over others? Also, clarify how often mentor meetings will happen.”
- Why This Matters: It ensures all voices are heard, catches errors early, and improves the proposal through successive refinements. It takes the proposal from “good” to “exceptional.”
4. Integrating Data and Writing Based on Evidence
The credibility of grant proposals depends on strong evidence. Collaboration ensures I have access to diverse data points.
- What I Do: Dedicated Data Collection and Verification Protocol.
- Centralized Data Storage: I create a shared folder for all data, research, and source documents. Everything is clearly labeled.
- Assigning Data Stewards: One or two individuals (e.g., a Data Analyst, a Research Assistant) are responsible for finding, verifying, and organizing all data points.
- Mandatory Citations (Internal): Even if the funder doesn’t require it, internally I require all factual claims, statistics, and reported impacts to be sourced. This speeds up verification and strengthens future proposals.
- For Example: When the Community Organizer states “X% of local families lack access to high-speed internet,” the Data Steward makes sure a reputable source (e.g., Census Bureau, local government report) is linked and verified.
- Why This Matters: It prevents unsubstantiated claims, strengthens our argument, and makes our proposal more defensible when reviewed.
5. Creating the Budget Together and Justifying It
The budget is more than just numbers; it’s a financial story that must perfectly match our program’s narrative.
- What I Do: Parallel Development and Inter-Sectional Review.
- Program Team Informs Budget Team: As the program design becomes solid, the program team gives detailed input on staffing needs (full-time equivalents, roles), materials, travel, and other direct costs.
- Budget Team Informs Program Team: The budget team identifies ways to be more cost-efficient or limitations that might impact the program’s scope, creating a feedback loop.
- Narrative Justification: The financial specialist drafts the budget, but I (as Lead Writer) am responsible for ensuring the budget narrative clearly explains why each cost is necessary and how it directly supports program activities.
- For Example: If the program proposes “3 full-time literacy coaches,” the budget must list their salaries and benefits, and the budget explanation must explain why three coaches are needed given the target population size and intensity of services.
- Why This Matters: A well-justified budget shows financial responsibility and makes the entire proposal more credible. A mismatched budget is a clear red flag.
6. Managing Conflict and Disagreements
Differences of opinion are bound to happen. How we handle them determines the success of the collaboration.
- What I Do: An Agreed-Upon Conflict Resolution Ladder.
- Level 1: Direct Discussion: I encourage individuals to talk directly about concerns with the person involved.
- Level 2: Team Mediation: If there’s no resolution, I (as Lead Writer or the designated project manager) facilitate a discussion with everyone relevant. I focus on objective facts and the grant’s goals.
- Level 3: Executive Decision: For ongoing disagreements that affect the proposal’s quality or deadlines, the designated “Accountable” person (often me as Lead Writer or the Executive Director for the entire project) makes a final decision. This should rarely happen.
- For Example: If the M&E expert insists on a specific data collection method that significantly increases the budget beyond our allocation, I’d facilitate a discussion about trade-offs, alternative methods, and whether the funder’s priorities allow for a more cost-effective approach.
- Why This Matters: It prevents disputes from getting out of control, maintains team morale, and keeps the project moving forward efficiently.
Phase 3: After We’ve Collaborated – Polishing for Perfection & Learning for Future Success
Submitting isn’t the end; it’s a chance for a final polish and incredibly valuable learning.
1. The Power of “Fresh Eyes” Review
After weeks of being deeply involved, my team and I can become blind to errors. External review is absolutely critical.
- What I Do: Structured External Review.
- Identify Reviewers: I choose someone not involved in the writing process. This could be a colleague from another department, a trusted board member, or an external consultant.
- Provide Specific Instructions: I don’t just hand them the draft. I ask them to look for:
- Clarity and conciseness (Is the language easy for someone who isn’t an expert to understand?)
- Consistency (Do the numbers in the budget match the narrative?)
- Persuasiveness (Is the “why” compelling?)
- Grammar, spelling, punctuation.
- Adherence to all RFP guidelines (internal teams often miss these).
- For Example: “Please read the entire proposal as if you are a funder with no prior knowledge of our work. Do you understand exactly what we propose to do, why it’s important, and what impact it will have? Are there any questions left unanswered?”
- Why This Matters: It catches subtle errors, ensures clarity for external readers, and provides a final quality check.
2. Final Compliance Check and Formatting
Even the most brilliant proposal can be rejected for failing to follow instructions.
- What I Do: The “RFP Checklist Audit.”
- Team Task: I designate one person (often myself, the Lead Writer, or a project manager) to go through the RFP guidelines line by line.
- Checklist Creation: We create a checklist with every requirement (font size, margins, page limit, required attachments, specific naming conventions for files, submission method).
- Double Check: A second person independently verifies that this checklist is complete.
- For Example: “Page limit: 20 pages (check). Font: Arial 11 (check). Appendices: bios, letters of support, 990 (check). Submitted via online portal by 5 PM EST [Date] (check).”
- Why This Matters: It ensures technical compliance, preventing immediate disqualification. This is non-negotiable.
3. Submission Protocol
The very last step requires precision.
- What I Do: Designated Submitter and Backup.
- Who Submits: I assign one person primary responsibility for the actual submission. This reduces confusion and potential errors.
- Backup: A second person should be ready and trained to submit in case of an emergency.
- Confirmation: I ensure there’s a system for confirming successful submission (screenshot, confirmation email).
- Why This Matters: The final act should be as organized as the initial planning.
4. Post-Submission Debrief and Knowledge Capture
Whether the grant is funded or declined, the collaboration offers invaluable lessons.
- What I Do: The “Lessons Learned” Session.
- Schedule Promptly: While details are fresh, I gather the core collaboration team.
- Structured Discussion:
- What worked well during our collaboration? (e.g., communication tools, clarity of roles)
- What challenges did we face, and how can we prevent them next time? (e.g., missed deadlines, data sourcing issues, conflict resolution)
- What content felt strongest/weakest in the proposal? Why?
- How can we improve our processes for future grant cycles?
- Document Learnings: We create a “Grant Proposal Collaboration Playbook” detailing best practices, common pitfalls, and revised protocols.
- For Example: “Lesson learned: Next time, schedule weekly check-ins specifically for budget vs. program alignment; the ad-hoc approach led to several revisions. Also, pre-collecting Letters of Support took longer than anticipated; start that earlier.”
- Why This Matters: It turns experience into shared knowledge, making future collaborations more efficient and effective. This is how you build a stronger grant-seeking engine.
My Final Thoughts: The Collaborative Edge
When I approach grant proposal writing collaboratively, it’s more than just a task; it becomes a powerful strategic asset. As a writer, my ability to facilitate, unify, and articulate diverse expert contributions is what truly sets us apart. It’s about more than just securing funding; it’s about building stronger teams, deeper understandings, and ultimately, creating more impactful projects. I embrace collaboration not as a compromise, but as the pathway to maximizing our chances and achieving truly remarkable grant success.