FUNDING RESOURCES: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS GRANT?

ANSWER KEY

There are at least three things wrong with this grant excerpt. The most obvious problems:

1. Question isn't answered. The grant writer manages to avoid presenting any meaningful description of community assets and strengths. Instead, she takes this opportunity to reinforce community need instead of assets, as though she is worried that too much good news might dissuade the funder from supporting the program. This is faulty logic at its worst. At one point, she goes so far as to note that "there are many organizations and coalitions dedicated to supporting area youth," but she never goes on to describe who these groups are, how they work together, or what is being done collectively to address the need. (And because I happen to know the community in question, let me assure you that there are many, many community assets!) In reality, the funder is looking for evidence that the applicant values and understands the community's resources, is building on strengths, and is active in bringing people together. Half a dozen concrete examples of positive community initiatives and characteristics would be a persuasive way to answer this question while also demonstrating the applicant's central role in fostering a vibrant community response.
   
   
2. Pretentious language. Even the most literate reader will be put off by pretentious, pompous language. Words like "plethora" and "paucity" (each used in the first two sentences of this section) have no place in this type of writing. Aside from the fact that plenty of readers are unfamiliar with these words, their use in a grant only serves to distance and alienate your audience. Even worse, this writer is using pretentious language to dress up her response and obscure missing information. In the end, however, it actually serves as a bright red flag, drawing attention to the weaknesses in her argument.
   
   
3. Brain-numbing grant speak. Take this sentence for example: "Deficit-driven studies far outnumber community assessments based on assets." No one should have to reflect on that thought for more than five seconds. But I'm betting it took every one of you longer than that to figure out what the writer was trying to say. In fact, I ignored it altogether when I first read this selection. And I bet the actual readers ignored it, too. Or, how about this: "Community protective factors in the community attempt to balance existing risk factors." Read those words over slowly, 20 times. Congratulations. You have just entered the grant writer's transcendent meditational state. All meaning has evaporated into repetitive syllables.