Advice on Preparing Your Grant

Some NEH divisions have provided the following advice to help applicants prepare their applications.

DIVISION OF RESEARCH

The best single piece of advice we can give to prospective applicants is to read the guidelines and application instructions very carefully. The criteria on the basis of which the application will be judged are very clear and need careful consideration in the narrative portion of the application. These criteria will be used by the peer-review panelists in evaluating the proposal. Especially important is the criterion having to do with the significance of the contribution that the proposed project will make to thought and knowledge in the humanities. Many applicants simply assume that their project is highly significant without attempting to answer this question directly.

It is very important to try to write in a clear, jargon-free style and to answer all the questions that are posed in the application. A proposed project is often part of a larger research endeavor. The nature of both must be addressed in the application. Applicants must indicate clearly exactly what it is that they propose to do during the period when they will be receiving NEH support for their research. Some applicants think that simply by describing the larger project of which the proposal is a part, they have satisfied the requirement to describe the proposed study.

It is not enough to set out specific research goals; applicants must be able to say something about the methods they will employ to achieve those goals. The reader of the application needs to understand not only the research question to be addressed, but also the way in which the applicant proposes to deal with it.

Since the applicant is not working in a vacuum, it is important to indicate in the body of the narrative what relationship the project has to the already existing research efforts of other scholars. Unless a proposal is "situated" in the context of research already undertaken by others, it cannot expect to garner the highest ratings from panelists. There are very few instances in which a project is being proposed where there is no work at all that has been done previously by others that bears on the proposal.

DIVISION OF PRESERVATION AND ACCESS

Successful applicants for grants from the Division of Preservation and Access make a compelling case for the importance of the proposed project by justifying its need and priorty on the basis of its potential value for research, education, or public prgramming in the humanities. They also thoroughly explain and justify the procedures and standards employed in accomplishing the goals of a project and include a detailed plan of work for the organization and implementation of the project, a description of the duties and qualifications for the project's staff, and a discussion of the dissemination of a project's results.

CHALLENGE GRANTS

The purpose of NEH Challenge grants is to assist non-profit institutions in making long-term improvements in their humanities programs and resources. To be competitive, an application should describe an exciting step forward in the humanities, usually building on prior successes in humanities teaching, research, or public programming (or a combination of such activities). This program is highly competitive, and receives proposals from a wide range of non-profit humanities institutions (for example, colleges, art museums, universities, historical societies, research centers and libraries, public libraries, and public television and radio stations). Most successful applicants begin planning their proposals many months in advance of the application deadline and take advantage of the opportunity to have drafts reviewed by the Challenge Grant staff prior to formal submission.

Peer review panelists look for a clear explanation of the intellectual importance of the humanities focus and the likelihood that the proposal will have a major impact on an audience or audiences in a community, a region, a field of inquiry, a kind of institution, or in the national or international sphere. Descriptions of outreach to student audiences, collaboration with K-12 teachers, the engagement of public audiences with humanities professionals, and the creative use of electronic technologies can underscore the potential impact of a proposal.

Strong proposals show evidence of good institutional planning and demonstrate the support and engagement of administrators as well as faculty, curators, and other humanities personnel. Applicants must clearly distinguish between the current context for the humanities in the institution and the proposed enhancements that the Challenge funding will make possible. Successful applicants must raise matching funds on a three-to-one or four-to-one basis, so a good fund-raising plan should be included along with a description of the institution's fund-raising track record. An applicant institution relatively new to fund-raising may seek one of the these grants in order to strengthen its financial base, but an explanation of the feasibility of meeting the match becomes very important in such cases. Reviewers tend to favor endowment or some combination of endowment and direct expenditures for capital improvements as the focus of Challenge Grant budgets, but grants totally focused on construction are sometimes supported if the structures are essential to the humanities goals described in the proposal.

Our best advice is to begin early, read the guidelines carefully, talk with a program officer at the outset, and send a draft for review at least two months before the May 1 annual receipt deadline for formal submission. If an application is turned down, ask for the panelists' reviews, which will be sent along with a summary letter from the program officer, and take advantage of that feedback in preparing a resubmission.

DIVISION OF EDUCATION

1) Run your ideas by a Division of Education Program Officer way ahead of the deadline date.

After you have read the guidelines carefully, it is always a good idea to contact a program officer in the division to discuss your application plans. Telephone numbers and e-mail addresses are included in the guidelines. The most efficient way to make first contact is by putting your ideas down in a short e-mail or letter. That way, you and your program officer will have some common ground. The program officer will be able to give you advice based on the responses of past panels; it is even possible that you would do better applying in another program.

2) Read the criteria for selection carefully and note that the first criterion is always "intellectual quality."

Among the three criteria for selection--intellectual quality, project design, amd results or likely impact-- the first criterion is in many ways the most important. Without passing this hurdle, other considerations are superfluous. The "Instructions for Submitting Applications" portion of the guidelines helps to clarify how to demonstrate intellectual quality in the context of the particular application. Often you are asked to "describe the humanities subject matter and the specific themes, guiding questions, topics, and texts that will form your project's intellectual core." Do not neglect this section. Be as specific as possible. Use your human resources.

3) Work with subject area experts in designing your program and writing your application.

Almost all Division of Education projects include collaborations between K-16 teachers who wish to expand their knowledge with the help of credentialed subject matter experts. It is a good idea to consult these experts as you shape the project and write the application.

4) Demonstrate the commitment of the participating institutions and individuals.

Commitment may be demonstrated by having key institutional players write letters of support for the project and intention to implement successful results, actually take part in the project, and/or offer released time for teachers, or in-kind or cash contributions to the project. Individuals on the project should also demonstrate a knowledge of and commitment to the project processes and goals.

5) Don't neglect plans for evaluation and dissemination.

Imagine what success would look like for your project. Describe it. Then think about ways of measuring the extent of success as you go along and at the end of the project. Also envision the appropriate means of dissemination--what and to whom--for your particular outcomes.

6) Write clearly, give specific examples, follow the guideline instructions, and don't repeat yourself.

Specific examples are often the key to a good application. They allow the reviewer to understand exactly what you plan to do.

7) Avail yourself of a program officer's willingness to comment on an initial draft by submitting it in a timely manner.

Timely is usually considered four weeks before a deadline.