davidemt

I work as a freelance grant writer, so hopefully I'll be able to offer a little bit of help for those looking for grants as well as those applying for them.
In the world of grants, there is a "grants season," usually in spring and early summer, when many (although not all) grants become available. Now is the best time to start looking for funding opportunities for the upcoming year.
One of the biggest challenges in grant seeking (i.e., finding grants to apply for) is creativity. The grant opportunities that are easiest to think of and look for are the ones that you'll have the most competition for--everybody else thought of them and applied for them, too. Although it's important to look at the usual sources--Grants.gov for federal grants as well as the various state government departments' web sites (and Google!)--it can also be helpful to think about unusual sources, too. Corporate foundations might be interested in contributing to your project, for instance. Also keep in mind that, even though money is the most versatile type of funding, in-kind contributions (actual products or services instead of the money to buy them) are also tremendously helpful.
Your project can be significantly bolstered by community support. Imagine being a prospective grantor, with several hundred thousand dollars to give to a worthy cause. How likely would you be to fund a project that the community is wholeheartedly behind and supportive of versus one where the extent of community support is unknown? It can be very helpful to your grant application when you reach out to the community--local government officials, leaders of civic groups, citizens your department has helped--and they tell grantors, in their own words, how vital your project is. As an added bonus, reaching out could yield information about other grant opportunities or, if you're really lucky, the holy grail of grant writing: connections!
It's also worth mentioning that it's dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket. Very often, people ask one prospective grantor for 100% of the funds needed for their project. Grant seeking is an uphill battle--for a million different reasons, even the best grant applications don't always get funded--and, sadly, it's more likely than not that your application won't be funded. Applying for only one grant from only one grantor makes it extraordinarily likely that you won't get your project funded. Instead, consider applying for a variety of different grants, each of which is intended to fund a portion of your project. Beyond enhancing the likelihood that you'll get some funding (a partially-funded project is better than an unfunded project... you can work with a little money, but not with no money at all), you'll also be demonstrating to prospective grantors that they're not "going it alone"--that they're sharing the risk with other grantors--and that you're not asking them for a lot of money. Usually, the number of funding sources you seek out should be in proportion to the magnitude of your project (and its budget).
Make sure that your (and your agency's) thinking is crystal clear about the project you're interested in seeking funding for. All aspects of the project need to be well thought-out: What, exactly do you want to do? Why do you want to do it? What are other agencies doing to address this problem? Why is your approach the best? Where is every cent of money going to go? How much support is there for your project? What else have you done to address the problem? Where else have you gone for support? In the same way that you wouldn't want to give your own money to somebody who wants to buy "a bunch of stuff that's awesome," prospective funders have no interest in giving money to a poorly-conceived project. In a funder's eyes, it's destined for failure and a waste of money that could go to another, more worthy, project. As an aside, although it could be argued that this shouldn't be the case, the quality of writing in your grant proposal does make a difference. Good writing comes from clear thinking, and it can really give your project a competitive edge.
There are a lot of resources online about grant seeking and writing, as well as some pretty good books on the subject, that can offer much more comprehensive advice than I can here. (It's late, but I'll post them tomorrow if anybody is interested.) But, these are the little tips I've come up with from having gone through the grant process successfully (and unsuccessfully, too) and hopefully they'll be able to help someone....

I recently finished my EMT-B class, and, once I got out into the field and started dealing with real-life situations, I was very surprised about how unprepared I felt. My instructor for the classroom/lecture portion of the class was very knowledgeable and prepared us well to pass the state written exam. (As with anything else, I'm sure the quality varies quite a bit between instructors.) On the other hand, the quality of some of the lab instruction—as well as the amount of time alloted for lab instruction—left a lot to be desired. And it seems like those practical skills learned and practiced in lab—built upon a foundation of knowledge about anatomy and physiology from the classroom portion of the class—are the mark of good BLS.
From my very limited experience in the field, it seems like adding a greater emphasis on practical skills training might help produce EMT's that provide the higher-quality BLS that the original poster asked about. This poses the problem, though, of creating EMT-B classes that are prohibitively long; I wonder if adding additional hours to the class to accommodate expanded practical skills training might dissuade a lot of people from taking the class altogether. If the length of the EMT-B class was kept the same but time was shifted toward practical skills and away from classroom instruction, I wonder if that might create EMT's who are good with BLS skills but are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology behind what they're doing. I guess it's a problem of finding the right balance between lab and classroom instruction.
Although adding more emphasis on practical skills training might help with improving the quality of EMTs' BLS skills, I was surprised about how little effort a few people in my EMT-B class put forth. You could tell they weren't reading the textbook or practicing the skills on their own. I'm not sure if those people passed the state written and practical exams or not. Although those exams might do a little to help keep people with poor BLS skills from becoming EMT's, I'm sure quite a few people eek by and get their EMT-B certification (they weren't that difficult). I agree with what PFDRes47cue said about "instructors pushing kids through the classes." It might help the quality of BLS that is provided by EMT's if the bar was set a bit higher.
(This is my first post... please be nice!)

I recently finished my EMT-B class, and, once I got out into the field and started dealing with real-life situations, I was very surprised about how unprepared I felt. My instructor for the classroom/lecture portion of the class was very knowledgeable and prepared us well to pass the state written exam. (As with anything else, I'm sure the quality varies quite a bit between instructors.) On the other hand, the quality of some of the lab instruction—as well as the amount of time alloted for lab instruction—left a lot to be desired. And it seems like those practical skills learned and practiced in lab—built upon a foundation of knowledge about anatomy and physiology from the classroom portion of the class—are the mark of good BLS.
From my very limited experience in the field, it seems like adding a greater emphasis on practical skills training might help produce EMT's that provide the higher-quality BLS that the original poster asked about. This poses the problem, though, of creating EMT-B classes that are prohibitively long; I wonder if adding additional hours to the class to accommodate expanded practical skills training might dissuade a lot of people from taking the class altogether. If the length of the EMT-B class was kept the same but time was shifted toward practical skills and away from classroom instruction, I wonder if that might create EMT's who are good with BLS skills but are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology behind what they're doing. I guess it's a problem of finding the right balance between lab and classroom instruction.
Although adding more emphasis on practical skills training might help with improving the quality of EMTs' BLS skills, I was surprised about how little effort a few people in my EMT-B class put forth. You could tell they weren't reading the textbook or practicing the skills on their own. I'm not sure if those people passed the state written and practical exams or not. Although those exams might do a little to help keep people with poor BLS skills from becoming EMT's, I'm sure quite a few people eek by and get their EMT-B certification (they weren't that difficult). I agree with what PFDRes47cue said about "instructors pushing kids through the classes." It might help the quality of BLS that is provided by EMT's if the bar was set a bit higher.
(This is my first post... please be nice!)

I recently finished my EMT-B class, and, once I got out into the field and started dealing with real-life situations, I was very surprised about how unprepared I felt. My instructor for the classroom/lecture portion of the class was very knowledgeable and prepared us well to pass the state written exam. (As with anything else, I'm sure the quality varies quite a bit between instructors.) On the other hand, the quality of some of the lab instruction—as well as the amount of time alloted for lab instruction—left a lot to be desired. And it seems like those practical skills learned and practiced in lab—built upon a foundation of knowledge about anatomy and physiology from the classroom portion of the class—are the mark of good BLS.
From my very limited experience in the field, it seems like adding a greater emphasis on practical skills training might help produce EMT's that provide the higher-quality BLS that the original poster asked about. This poses the problem, though, of creating EMT-B classes that are prohibitively long; I wonder if adding additional hours to the class to accommodate expanded practical skills training might dissuade a lot of people from taking the class altogether. If the length of the EMT-B class was kept the same but time was shifted toward practical skills and away from classroom instruction, I wonder if that might create EMT's who are good with BLS skills but are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology behind what they're doing. I guess it's a problem of finding the right balance between lab and classroom instruction.
Although adding more emphasis on practical skills training might help with improving the quality of EMTs' BLS skills, I was surprised about how little effort a few people in my EMT-B class put forth. You could tell they weren't reading the textbook or practicing the skills on their own. I'm not sure if those people passed the state written and practical exams or not. Although those exams might do a little to help keep people with poor BLS skills from becoming EMT's, I'm sure quite a few people eek by and get their EMT-B certification (they weren't that difficult). I agree with what PFDRes47cue said about "instructors pushing kids through the classes." It might help the quality of BLS that is provided by EMT's if the bar was set a bit higher.
(This is my first post... please be nice!)

I recently finished my EMT-B class, and, once I got out into the field and started dealing with real-life situations, I was very surprised about how unprepared I felt. My instructor for the classroom/lecture portion of the class was very knowledgeable and prepared us well to pass the state written exam. (As with anything else, I'm sure the quality varies quite a bit between instructors.) On the other hand, the quality of some of the lab instruction—as well as the amount of time alloted for lab instruction—left a lot to be desired. And it seems like those practical skills learned and practiced in lab—built upon a foundation of knowledge about anatomy and physiology from the classroom portion of the class—are the mark of good BLS.
From my very limited experience in the field, it seems like adding a greater emphasis on practical skills training might help produce EMT's that provide the higher-quality BLS that the original poster asked about. This poses the problem, though, of creating EMT-B classes that are prohibitively long; I wonder if adding additional hours to the class to accommodate expanded practical skills training might dissuade a lot of people from taking the class altogether. If the length of the EMT-B class was kept the same but time was shifted toward practical skills and away from classroom instruction, I wonder if that might create EMT's who are good with BLS skills but are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology behind what they're doing. I guess it's a problem of finding the right balance between lab and classroom instruction.
Although adding more emphasis on practical skills training might help with improving the quality of EMTs' BLS skills, I was surprised about how little effort a few people in my EMT-B class put forth. You could tell they weren't reading the textbook or practicing the skills on their own. I'm not sure if those people passed the state written and practical exams or not. Although those exams might do a little to help keep people with poor BLS skills from becoming EMT's, I'm sure quite a few people eek by and get their EMT-B certification (they weren't that difficult). I agree with what PFDRes47cue said about "instructors pushing kids through the classes." It might help the quality of BLS that is provided by EMT's if the bar was set a bit higher.
(This is my first post... please be nice!)

I recently finished my EMT-B class, and, once I got out into the field and started dealing with real-life situations, I was very surprised about how unprepared I felt. My instructor for the classroom/lecture portion of the class was very knowledgeable and prepared us well to pass the state written exam. (As with anything else, I'm sure the quality varies quite a bit between instructors.) On the other hand, the quality of some of the lab instruction—as well as the amount of time alloted for lab instruction—left a lot to be desired. And it seems like those practical skills learned and practiced in lab—built upon a foundation of knowledge about anatomy and physiology from the classroom portion of the class—are the mark of good BLS.
From my very limited experience in the field, it seems like adding a greater emphasis on practical skills training might help produce EMT's that provide the higher-quality BLS that the original poster asked about. This poses the problem, though, of creating EMT-B classes that are prohibitively long; I wonder if adding additional hours to the class to accommodate expanded practical skills training might dissuade a lot of people from taking the class altogether. If the length of the EMT-B class was kept the same but time was shifted toward practical skills and away from classroom instruction, I wonder if that might create EMT's who are good with BLS skills but are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology behind what they're doing. I guess it's a problem of finding the right balance between lab and classroom instruction.
Although adding more emphasis on practical skills training might help with improving the quality of EMTs' BLS skills, I was surprised about how little effort a few people in my EMT-B class put forth. You could tell they weren't reading the textbook or practicing the skills on their own. I'm not sure if those people passed the state written and practical exams or not. Although those exams might do a little to help keep people with poor BLS skills from becoming EMT's, I'm sure quite a few people eek by and get their EMT-B certification (they weren't that difficult). I agree with what PFDRes47cue said about "instructors pushing kids through the classes." It might help the quality of BLS that is provided by EMT's if the bar was set a bit higher.
(This is my first post... please be nice!)

I recently finished my EMT-B class, and, once I got out into the field and started dealing with real-life situations, I was very surprised about how unprepared I felt. My instructor for the classroom/lecture portion of the class was very knowledgeable and prepared us well to pass the state written exam. (As with anything else, I'm sure the quality varies quite a bit between instructors.) On the other hand, the quality of some of the lab instruction—as well as the amount of time alloted for lab instruction—left a lot to be desired. And it seems like those practical skills learned and practiced in lab—built upon a foundation of knowledge about anatomy and physiology from the classroom portion of the class—are the mark of good BLS.
From my very limited experience in the field, it seems like adding a greater emphasis on practical skills training might help produce EMT's that provide the higher-quality BLS that the original poster asked about. This poses the problem, though, of creating EMT-B classes that are prohibitively long; I wonder if adding additional hours to the class to accommodate expanded practical skills training might dissuade a lot of people from taking the class altogether. If the length of the EMT-B class was kept the same but time was shifted toward practical skills and away from classroom instruction, I wonder if that might create EMT's who are good with BLS skills but are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology behind what they're doing. I guess it's a problem of finding the right balance between lab and classroom instruction.
Although adding more emphasis on practical skills training might help with improving the quality of EMTs' BLS skills, I was surprised about how little effort a few people in my EMT-B class put forth. You could tell they weren't reading the textbook or practicing the skills on their own. I'm not sure if those people passed the state written and practical exams or not. Although those exams might do a little to help keep people with poor BLS skills from becoming EMT's, I'm sure quite a few people eek by and get their EMT-B certification (they weren't that difficult). I agree with what PFDRes47cue said about "instructors pushing kids through the classes." It might help the quality of BLS that is provided by EMT's if the bar was set a bit higher.
(This is my first post... please be nice!)

I recently finished my EMT-B class, and, once I got out into the field and started dealing with real-life situations, I was very surprised about how unprepared I felt. My instructor for the classroom/lecture portion of the class was very knowledgeable and prepared us well to pass the state written exam. (As with anything else, I'm sure the quality varies quite a bit between instructors.) On the other hand, the quality of some of the lab instruction—as well as the amount of time alloted for lab instruction—left a lot to be desired. And it seems like those practical skills learned and practiced in lab—built upon a foundation of knowledge about anatomy and physiology from the classroom portion of the class—are the mark of good BLS.
From my very limited experience in the field, it seems like adding a greater emphasis on practical skills training might help produce EMT's that provide the higher-quality BLS that the original poster asked about. This poses the problem, though, of creating EMT-B classes that are prohibitively long; I wonder if adding additional hours to the class to accommodate expanded practical skills training might dissuade a lot of people from taking the class altogether. If the length of the EMT-B class was kept the same but time was shifted toward practical skills and away from classroom instruction, I wonder if that might create EMT's who are good with BLS skills but are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology behind what they're doing. I guess it's a problem of finding the right balance between lab and classroom instruction.
Although adding more emphasis on practical skills training might help with improving the quality of EMTs' BLS skills, I was surprised about how little effort a few people in my EMT-B class put forth. You could tell they weren't reading the textbook or practicing the skills on their own. I'm not sure if those people passed the state written and practical exams or not. Although those exams might do a little to help keep people with poor BLS skills from becoming EMT's, I'm sure quite a few people eek by and get their EMT-B certification (they weren't that difficult). I agree with what PFDRes47cue said about "instructors pushing kids through the classes." It might help the quality of BLS that is provided by EMT's if the bar was set a bit higher.
(This is my first post... please be nice!)

I recently finished my EMT-B class, and, once I got out into the field and started dealing with real-life situations, I was very surprised about how unprepared I felt. My instructor for the classroom/lecture portion of the class was very knowledgeable and prepared us well to pass the state written exam. (As with anything else, I'm sure the quality varies quite a bit between instructors.) On the other hand, the quality of some of the lab instruction—as well as the amount of time alloted for lab instruction—left a lot to be desired. And it seems like those practical skills learned and practiced in lab—built upon a foundation of knowledge about anatomy and physiology from the classroom portion of the class—are the mark of good BLS.
From my very limited experience in the field, it seems like adding a greater emphasis on practical skills training might help produce EMT's that provide the higher-quality BLS that the original poster asked about. This poses the problem, though, of creating EMT-B classes that are prohibitively long; I wonder if adding additional hours to the class to accommodate expanded practical skills training might dissuade a lot of people from taking the class altogether. If the length of the EMT-B class was kept the same but time was shifted toward practical skills and away from classroom instruction, I wonder if that might create EMT's who are good with BLS skills but are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology behind what they're doing. I guess it's a problem of finding the right balance between lab and classroom instruction.
Although adding more emphasis on practical skills training might help with improving the quality of EMTs' BLS skills, I was surprised about how little effort a few people in my EMT-B class put forth. You could tell they weren't reading the textbook or practicing the skills on their own. I'm not sure if those people passed the state written and practical exams or not. Although those exams might do a little to help keep people with poor BLS skills from becoming EMT's, I'm sure quite a few people eek by and get their EMT-B certification (they weren't that difficult). I agree with what PFDRes47cue said about "instructors pushing kids through the classes." It might help the quality of BLS that is provided by EMT's if the bar was set a bit higher.
(This is my first post... please be nice!)