Following Up after Proposal Submission
Public and Private Grants
Public Grants
With public agencies, once proposals are submitted contacts at the agencies tend to limit themselves to procedural matters: Was the proposal received in a timely manner? Are there any changes in the proposal review procedures that you need to know? When will you hear? In order to assure equitable review procedures for tens of thousands of proposals, public agency officials will most likely keep their opinions on proposals to themselves until all submitters are notified. So until you get your results, keep your contact short and formal.
Private Grants
Active follow up is a critical step in the process of obtaining private sector support. While government agencies typically have dates by which they decide upon proposals and advise applicants of results, the same is often not the case when foundations, corporations, nonprofit associations, and individuals are the proposal reviewers.
Consequently the post submission phase is extremely important. The applicant should consider strategies to ensure that letters of inquiry or proposals are reviewed and, hopefully, the subject of a full discussion by phone or – preferably – in person.
Dawn Duncan will be pleased to discuss the post-submission phase with you and help you to develop strategies that can help you quest for funding.
The Post-Submission Call
- It is usually important to call the potential funder within 10 business days after your proposal or letter of inquiry is submitted. In the first instance, the call will allow you to ask whether your material has been received. Funders receive a heavy volume of submissions and their staffs are often small. Consequently, it is vital that you check that your request has been received.
- Second, you can inquire during the same conversation whether your submission has been assigned for review to a particular individual. This information allows you to consider whether and when to call the reviewer for a full discussion.
- Third, the call helps to place your submission on the “radar screen” of the grant or gift prospect. This is always helpful.
- Finally, the post-submission call may offer the opportunity to request a meeting with the reviewer. As discussed below, an in-person discussion can be extremely valuable in the effort to secure funding.
Request a Meeting on Your Submission
Most foundations, other nonprofits, and corporations hold meetings with grant seekers. The number of such meetings that they can hold is limited, but trying to secure an in-person discussion is almost always helpful. These talks are useful for several reasons. There is an old adage in the funding world that says, “People really fund people, not projects.” In other words, those awarding funds are really making their decisions on the basis of their personal confidence in the person, or team of individuals, who are requesting support. Such factors as track record and relevant experience are key – but so too is personal chemistry and a sense of confidence and enthusiasm that can best be relayed in person.
These discussions are also valuable because they allow you to hear and immediately respond to the prospect’s questions or suggestions on the shape of your proposed undertaking.
In-person discussions, especially with foundations, also have a benefit not offered by routine correspondence back and forth, or by quick phone calls. That benefit is the ability to obtain information on the directions that the funder may be pondering for future grant making, allowing you to obtain significant early information that can be followed up on at a later point, whether or not the prospect responds positively to the proposal or letter of inquiry at hand.
And, finally, the discussion will give you the chance to ask whether the reviewer or prospect wishes additional information or would be interested in a site visit, a meeting with other members of the project team, etc.
After the Meeting
Depending on the content and tone of the meeting, there may be several steps to consider next. A brief letter expressing thanks for the time spent and for the consideration your request is receiving should always follow a meeting. The letter may also refer to enclosed materials that will advance your submission.
When a Meeting Cannot be Secured
With many submissions to review, the staff of private sector grant making organizations is often unable to meet with grant applicants. In such cases, it makes sense to make periodic calls to check on the progress of the review underway and to, again, keep your request on the “radar screen.” As with all these suggested steps, judgments must be made as to the frequency and nature of the follow up so that reviewers do not become annoyed with the inquirer. While it is wise to be cautious, rest assured that many competitors will be quite aggressive.
Responding to a final decision
If the review process leads to a grant award or gift, you will have the chance to build a relationship that should benefit the funded project as it proceeds (possibly including the opportunity to request refunding), as well as increase the likelihood of favorable decisions on other project requests you or your colleagues may submit in the future. This stewardship process will be described in a subsequent section of this site.
If, on the other hand, the decision you receive is not favorable, consider a simple call or letter expressing thanks and suggesting that perhaps other possibilities will arise for you to work in tandem with the funder. Relatively few people take this step, so that it is noticed and appreciated when done.
Responding to Reviewers
Public Grants
If your request for funds has been successful, you can clarify funding procedures with the program officers listed in the award notice and they will become your new and welcome acquaintances.
Suppose, however, that your proposal has not been funded for this round, or a second submission, the program officers at the funding agency then may become another kind of acquaintance. Once your disappointment in not getting funded has abated, call or email the program officer to get feedback on what they liked or did not like. Usually the program officer will share his or her opinions; if the officer reads you chapter and verse, then you can take comfort in at least having tried. It is important to listen carefully and to avoid appearing defensive. Program officers, particularly at the federal level, tend to rotate infrequently. Their institutional memories are very often excellent and can be beneficial. In addition, the vast majority of these high-level civil servants are dedicated to the missions of their agencies and to funding the best research possible. In short, program officers are there to help you. Get to know them and treat them well.
Most public agencies allow resubmission. Be sure to check each agency's individual and updated guidelines. Several, including the NIH, require a brief introduction in which you address the reviewers’ concerns and cross-reference the most salient parts of your proposal. These introductions are very important and are worth your time and energy. Always ask a colleague to compare the reviewers’ comments with your responses to ensure that you have responded optimally to all reviewer concerns.
While contact with program officers at public agencies is encouraged, the same does not apply to proposal reviewers. In competitions involving public funds, reviewers are required to provide comments that back up funding decisions to all applicants. This extensive review process is in place to guarantee fair and equitable distribution of public funds, particularly at the federal level. While many federal agencies provide reviewers’ lists, the identities of your particular reviewers are still protected. Do not contact reviewers about your proposal.
Private Grants
Only a limited percentage of private sector funders use external reviewers to assist with funding decisions.
Most foundations have program officers working with individual perspective grantees.Those employing reviewers are usually foundations which support substantial research efforts, such as The Spencer Foundation and The William T. Grant Foundation. Reviewers are often selected from among scholars in the field. When used by foundations, their comments and insights are given substantial weight. Upon receiving the written responses of reviewers, especially if they include questions and concerns, it is natural to be taken somewhat aback by the critique. But the reviewers’ questions often stem from a perceived need for greater clarity – perhaps in the framing of the research questions themselves, in the explanation of the proposed research methods, or in the relationship between the research questions and the suggested research methodology. In some cases, reviewers may merely wish to see additional evidence of your familiarity with relevant theories or literature in the topic area.
Program officers at some foundations may be willing to discuss reviewers’ comments with you and to address questions or concerns you may have.The cover letter from the foundation may, in fact, invite such a discussion which can be quite helpful. As you prepare your response it may be useful to share a draft of your letter with colleagues. Keep in mind that both the content and the tone of your response are important. You need not assume that the reviewer must be correct nor must your response suggest that you take no issue with the substance of the comments, but you should always respect the questions and criticisms you have received. If you have reason to disagree with a reviewer's points respectfully indicate as much and respond fully. The raising of questions is designed to yield such a dialogue and to gain further insights about your approach. Use your response as a valuable opportunity to advance your case and to demonstrate your knowledge in a thoughtful and confident manner.