bring on the mediocrity*

For those of you who don't know, I am a grant writer for a nonprofit organization, meaning that I write letters and complete application packages for submission to a variety of public and private sources that have money to give to good causes such as mine.

The funders all have different applications, which all have different standards and rules regarding content, length, deadlines, etc. These grants are competitive, so it is important to carefully follow the instructions. The best writer and instruction-follower wins.

Or so I thought. Today, I participated in a teleconference about becoming a reviewer of federal grant applications. We were listening to an explanation of the reviewing process and how certain categories of the application are worth certain amounts of points. Each application is, in theory, judged by how clearly and completely each category is addressed. But then the presenter told us that grant review teams have been instructed that exceptions can be made when reviewing applications from grant writers who may not be fluent in English.

First, the applications do not ask the grant writer about their fluency in English. So, the reviewer cannot know if the person lacks fluency because they recently arrived in the US or if they failed their first, second, and third grade Language Arts classes in rural Kansas.

Second, let's say they lack fluency because they did, in fact, just arrive in the US. Legally, even. How far can a reviewer bend the standards to allow for the inclusion of this poorly articulated application? (Please note that I am not calling the grant writer an idiot. I am saying that they cannot write clearly in English.) And do the standards vary by how long the writer has lived here, how many ESL classes they have taken, and which country they came from?

Third, I understand that federal applications are tedious and the language can be confusing. The instructions alone can be twenty pages in length. But every year, enough grant writers master the process and receive the award money for their organizations. So it can be done. My first federal application almost killed me. My second one went much more smoothly because I had the experience. I didn't think the rules should be bent to accommodate me back then. I knew I just hadn't grasped the intricacies of the application. And all applicants have access to a live-federal-representative-person who can answer any question about the application.

Fourth, clear communication is essential for an organization receiving, say, $100,000 of the public's money. Federal grants require regular written reports. Is everyone okay with the government being a little hazy on how the money was spent?

Can we bend the rules for applicants whose computer skills are lacking and therefore do not accurately complete a form-field application? What about applicants who submit after the deadline for some reason?

There are standards for a reason. Lots of reasons, really. All applicants for a particular grant should be held to the same technical writing and communication standards. Learning to accomplish those standards is (should be) part of the grant-writing process, no matter what your birth certificate says.


*one of my sister's famous lines.