Writing For Education Grants

My first 5 grant applications were rejected. Every single one. Here's how I went from £10k to £10m in research grant funding: I remember opening that fifth rejection email and thinking maybe my research just wasn't good enough. Maybe I wasn't cut out for this. Then a panel reviewer told me something that changed everything. She said: "I stopped reading on page 2." Not because the science was weak. Because the way I presented it was. I had buried the real-world impact on page 3. I led with the literature gap instead of the problem. My methodology was sound but my narrative was invisible. I was writing for academics. I should have been writing for funders. So I rebuilt my entire proposal structure around three principles. I now call it the 3P Proposal Structure. P1: Problem Framing. Lead with the real-world problem and its cost. Not the gap in the literature. Funders don't fund gaps. They fund solutions. "This problem costs the NHS £2.3 billion annually" hits harder than "this area remains under-explored." P2: Path Innovation. Show what you will do differently. Not just what you will study. Every applicant studies something. Very few explain why their approach is the one that will actually work. P3: Projected Impact. Connect your outcomes to the stakeholders who fund research. If the funder can see themselves in your story, you win. Same research question. Completely different proposal structure. The next application secured half a million pounds. Then a million. Then over the course of my career, more than £10 million in research funding. Grant writing is storytelling. Your research is the plot. The funder needs to see themselves in the story. What's the most frustrating feedback you've received on a grant application? Save this framework. Repost for anyone applying for funding. #GrantWriting #AcademicFunding

Crafting the perfect corporate training proposal. A Deep dive into proposal components Writing proposals is a chore. What to include? what not to include? Having written hundreds of them, here's what I include and why: 1. Executive Summary: ↳ Think movie trailer, not dry summary. Captivate with the vision, not just the facts. 2. What We Heard: ↳ Mirror their language, not yours. Show you've listened, by reflecting their words, not just their needs. 3. The Opportunity: ↳ This isn't just a gap to fill. It's a launching pad for their potential. Highlight the transformation, not just the transaction. 4. Consultation Service: ↳ Position this as a partnership, not a service. Emphasise collaboration, not just consultation. 5. Approach and Methodology: ↳ Innovate, don't regurgitate. Present methodologies that are as unique as their challenges. 6. Project Roadmap: ↳ This is the journey, not just the route. Make it visual, engaging, and clear. 7. Investment: ↳ Transparency builds trust. It's not just about costs; it's about value creation 8. Terms: ↳ Make this easy to say 'yes' to. Simplify legal jargon into clear commitments. 9. The Team: ↳ Sell the dream team. Highlight unique strengths and past successes as a cohesive unit, not just individual CVs. 10. Case Studies/Testimonials: ↳ Show, don't tell. Use stories of transformation and success that resonate with their specific context. Each section of your proposal should not just inform but also engage and inspire. Think beyond the conventional and inject each part with a strategy that shows you're not just a provider, but a partner in their success. What are your top tips for great proposals? #ProgrammeBuilder #OfferActivator #BusinessDevelopment #LearningAndDevelopment #TrainingAndDevelopment #Facilitation #Workshops

"If you're not using AI for your grant applications, you are falling behind." A colleague at a large European research centre told me competition for big EU grants is getting fiercer this year. Why? Because AI now allows smaller centres to submit big, complex grant applications. This means one thing: Others are going to submit more applications and, dare I say, better-written ones?! This is a shift I'm seeing everywhere, and the demand for this new skill set is exploding. Over the past two weeks, I've delivered packed "AI for Grant Writing" workshops at UniSA (Adelaide) and QUT (Brisbane). My key goal is to help researchers make a crucial shift: ❌ Stop using AI "a little bit here and there." ✅ Start making it a habit to involve your personal AI assistant to every single step of the grant writing process. From finding a grant you're eligible for to doing a mock peer review before you submit, AI becomes a partner with in-depth knowledge of the specific grant you are applying to. The feedback has been more than excellent. We're tracking a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of 84 (> 80 is considered world-class!), and one participant told me: "This is so good I do not want you to share this with my colleagues and competitors!" 😄 To make this practical, researchers leave the workshop: 1) Knowing how to create their custom AI grant writing assistant 2) A powerful prompting framework. 3) A detailed handout with notes, links + prompt library The message is clear: The game has changed. Have you invested in up-skilling your researchers on AI for grant writing? This is the time to do so before you get left behind.

Make writing a proposal for research funding easy. Here is how. There is a tendency to rapidly begin filling in the parts of the application form as soon as possible. With a deadline looming, I used to ask all the partners in a consortium project to state filling in their work packages right away after the first meeting. I had a sooner the better mentality. My plan would be that once we had work packages written I would piece them together. The result. Frankenstein projects. Work packages that did not align, and objectives that sounded like they were each describing different projects. It was a writing nightmare. I was trying sew different ideas together. Reviewers see stitches. Like a good scientific paper, a funding proposal has to have a good logical flow. I now realize that the panicked approach I took previously to funding proposal development is not how to do it. It is much better to be 100% certain of the concept. Then write. For some projects this happens very quickly. Other projects take much more time. Sometimes what you are aiming to do is just complicated and full of uncertainties. Take that time. For scientific papers an outline works. For funding proposals the first step is to get all those involved aligned on the concept. This is not to say you don't write anything at all. To the contrary writing is a way to think. But you need to build up the layers. 1️⃣ Describe the problem and what you will do on a high level. 2️⃣ Then the impacts, outcomes and outputs you intend to have 3️⃣ Then the methods. ➡️ Methods are where you often uncover subtleties and problems that were not apparent at first. You need to solve those problems and the accompanying doubts before you can really begin to write. 4️⃣ Then you can build a project plan. Not before. "Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." -Abraham Lincoln Take the time to get the concept right, then write. 

There's nothing more painful than watching a data scientist stumble through a presentation without a framework. They dump data, show too many charts, forget to make a recommendation - and wonder why nothing happens. What they're missing is a proven structure that actually persuades. Here's the battle-tested structure that data scientist Russell E. Walker, PhD taught me from his experiences in competitive debate, that transforms technical presentations into persuasive business cases: 1. 𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗠 - 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺? ✴️ Don't just state facts - frame the problem in terms your audience cares about For example: ✴️ For a medical audience: "Patient hospitalizations increased 20%"   ✴️ For a finance audience: "Hospitalization costs increased 20%" Same data, different framing 2. 𝗦𝗜𝗚𝗡𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 - 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁? ✴️ Quantify the harm in dollars, time, or other metrics that matter  ✴️ Put it in context (e.g. "This represents 15% of our annual profit") ✴️ Make it material to business goals 3. 𝗜𝗡𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗬 - 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳? ✴️ Identify the root cause  ✴️ Show the problem is systemic, not temporary   ✴️ Prove intervention is necessary (e.g. "This trend has continued for 18 months despite normal business cycles"). 4. 𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗬 - 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘁? ✴️ Present your plan or recommendation  ✴️ Connect the dots: show exactly how your solution addresses the root cause  ✴️ Loop back to the original harm (e.g. "This will reduce hospitalizations by X%, saving $Y annually") This works because you're taking your audience on a logical journey from problem to solution - each step builds on the previous one. And it works for any data science presentation - whether you're presenting a model, recommending process changes, or requesting resources. Try this structure in your next presentation. Start with the business problem your audience cares about, not with your methodology. Stop watching your brilliant insights get ignored because of poor presentation structure. How do you currently structure your data science presentations? #datascience #business #career --- 👋 If you enjoyed this, you'll enjoy my newsletter. Twice weekly, I share insights to help data scientists get noticed, promoted and valued. Click "Visit my website" under my name to join.

Gearing up to secure funding for your research project? OR Applying for your PhD and need a Proposal? Crafting a compelling research proposal is your ticket to making a strong impression. Here's my detailed guide to help you put your best foot forward: 1. Start with a Strong Introduction: Your introduction is your chance to grab attention. Clearly state the problem your research aims to solve and why it matters. Think of it as your elevator pitch – concise, engaging, and to the point. 2. Define Your Objectives: Outline your research goals and objectives. What do you hope to achieve? Make sure they’re SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound). This helps funders understand the impact of your work. 3. Conduct a Literature Review: Show you’ve done your homework. Summarize the current state of research in your field and highlight gaps your project will fill. This demonstrates your knowledge and the necessity of your research. 4. Describe Your Methodology: Detail your research design and methods. Explain how you’ll collect and analyze data, and why you’ve chosen these methods. Be clear and thorough – funders need to see you have a solid plan. 5. Highlight Your Team : Introduce your research team and their expertise. Showcase previous work and successes to build credibility. Funders invest in people as much as they do in ideas. 6. Present a Realistic Budget: Break down your budget, explaining how funds will be allocated. Be transparent and realistic. Justify your expenses by linking them to your research activities and goals. 7. Outline the Impact: Discuss the potential impact of your research. Who will benefit and how? Highlight the broader implications and the value it will bring to the field, community, or society. 8. Include a Timeline: Provide a detailed timeline for your project. This shows you’ve planned your research carefully and can manage time effectively. Include key milestones and deliverables. 9. Proofread and Peer Review: Before submission, proofread your proposal meticulously. Consider having colleagues review it for clarity and coherence. Fresh eyes can catch errors you might miss. 10. Tailor to the Funder: Finally, customize your proposal to align with the specific interests and guidelines of the funding body. Show you’ve done your research on them too, and explain why your project is a perfect fit. Remember, a well-crafted proposal is not just about presenting your research. It's about telling a compelling story that convinces funders of its value and feasibility. Good luck, and happy writing! #ResearchFunding #GrantWriting #AcademicResearch #ResearchProposals #HigherEducation #FundingSuccess #ResearchTips #researchers #phd

For those seeking NIH grant funding, there are changes to the review process, now called the Simplified Peer Review Framework. The 5 traditional criteria (significance, innovation, approach, investigators, environment) have been collapsed into 3 factors. While it may look the same on the surface, there are changes to the way each factor is defined and weighed. Below I outline the 3 factors and explain how they matter: 1. Importance. This is the single most important score-driving factor. The goal here is to demonstrate why the proposed work is significant. Why is your research important? What specific scientific or clinical gap does your study address? How will your work change clinical practice, scientific paradigms, policies? Innovation is part of demonstrating importance - but significance trumps innovation. The best overall score you can get for a proposal is bound by your importance score. 2. Rigor and reproduceability (R/R). This factor covers your methods. Obviously important to have strong methods but R/R don’t matter much if the proposal isn’t deemed important. A weak score on Factor 2 will bring down your overall score. 3. Expertise and resources. This factor covers the PI, co-investigators, other contributors, and institutions involved. Same as with R/R: it’s important to make sure your team has the necessary expertise, but a strong team can’t make up for an unimportant research question and a weak team will bring down your overall score. These were points covered during reviewer training held by NIH’s Center for Scientific Review - see link below for more info. Later this summer, I’ll have a chance to see the Simplied Framework in action. Would love to hear from those of you who’ve experienced the new review approach. Please comment below! https://lnkd.in/g_CWNMbn

It hurts my heart when I hear that small organizations are applying to 50+ grants a year. That's a massive drain on time and resources. And most of the time the ROI just isn't there. At that rate, there's no time for relationship building. Most applications go in cold. And research shows cold applications have just a 7% success rate. (I'll link to this research in the comments). That means 93% of your effort generated zero return. You're stuck on the grant hamster wheel - constantly writing, rarely funded, always starting from scratch. Here's what works: fewer applications, stronger relationships. Research funders carefully. Meet with them if you can. Build trust before you apply. Make sure your programs align with their values and priorities. Then apply when you're actually a good fit. You'll get more funding. You'll waste less time. And you'll build partnerships that last beyond a single grant cycle.

Everyone wants grants—until you ask for their numbers. “How many people have you reached?” “Umm… plenty.” “What changed after your program?” “Well… people smiled?” If your best answer is “we’re trying,” then you’re not ready for grants yet—at least not serious ones. Because funders aren’t dashing money like it’s a Christmas hamper. They want receipts. Real ones. They want to see what worked, what changed, and what’s next. Let’s be honest: You can’t track nothing, measure nothing, document nothing— —and then be shocked when the funder says, “Thanks, we’ll get back to you.” No data = no proof. No proof = no money. Want to fix that? Start here: • Know what you’re doing and why. • Track real outcomes, not just activities. • Build a simple monitoring plan (yes, even if it’s Excel). • Learn how to report your work without sounding like a motivational speaker. Look, your story is powerful. But your numbers? They seal the deal. Grants are not emotional—they are evidence-based investments. So next time you apply for a grant, don’t just write paragraphs. Drop the data. Show the growth. Prove the change. Laura Temituoyo Ede Helping nonprofits go from noise to numbers #NonprofitLeadership #GrantWriting #FundraisingTips #ImpactMatters #MonitoringAndEvaluation #DonorEngagement #NGOStrategy #SocialImpact #CapacityBuilding

Winning a six-figure grant can be a complete game changer for a nonprofit. It can stabilize operations, fund staff and systems, expand programs, and significantly increase community impact. Yet many small nonprofits never pursue grants at this level, not because they aren’t worthy, but because they underestimate their readiness and think “big grants are for big organizations.” That mindset keeps great missions small. It’s time to play bigger. Here is a simple but powerful 5-step framework to position your nonprofit for six-figure funding: 1. Lead With Impact, Not Need Six-figure funders invest in outcomes. Be clear about the problem you solve, who you serve, and what measurable change you produce. 2. Show Financial and Organizational Readiness Strong financials, a functioning board, and basic systems signal that you can responsibly manage large awards. 3. Align Directly With the Funder’s Mission These grants are not generic. The strongest applications clearly mirror the funder’s priorities, language, and values. 4. Demonstrate Capacity to Scale Funders want to know: if we give you more, can you do more? Staffing plans, partnerships, and infrastructure matter. 5. Apply With Confidence and Consistency Six-figure grants are won by organizations that apply strategically and repeatedly, not by those who wait until everything feels “perfect.” 6 grants over $100,000 that small and growing nonprofits should be tracking right now: 1. PMI Educational Foundation (PMIEF) $356,000 Empowering youth ages 14–24 through leadership, project management, and career-readiness education. Deadline: Rolling https://lnkd.in/e3z-YZyP 2. Smart Family Fund – First-Time Grants ($25,000–$100,000) Ideal for first-time applicants focused on education, youth services, community development, and social impact. Deadline: Rolling https://lnkd.in/er98axwH 3. Deaconess Foundation – Up to $100,000 General operating support for advocacy, organizing, and public policy efforts advancing community health. Deadline: January 30, 2025 https://lnkd.in/eE6dTiFc 4. Alliance for Social Trust – $100,000 Focused on building trust and strengthening civic life. Deadline: January 30, 2026 https://lnkd.in/eXDVdShH 5. Roger I. & Ruth B. MacFarlane Foundation – Up to $250,000 Supports education, health, economic empowerment, environmental justice, and programs for women and girls. Deadline: Rolling https://lnkd.in/ewVwQ6jY 6. GM on Main Street Grant Program – Part of $300,000 Nonprofit and municipal-led revitalization initiatives in eligible counties near GM facilities. Deadline: February 13 at 11:59 p.m. https://lnkd.in/eeuYTZQG Pick one opportunities Review eligibility Start the application Come back and tell me which grant you’re applying for #NonprofitFunding #GrantFunding