In the first discussion, the author expresses his intention to write a grant proposal that would attract sponsors towards his course. His interest to reduce disparities in healthcare among the minority populations and children is clearly identified. However, the second objective lacks clarity. According to Dahlberg and Gallo (2010), proposals that attract funding must be well-written and from this work, it is clear that the author needs to research and come up with defined SMART objectives. This proposal is not an exemption.
The second discussion highlights the intention of the writer in the pursuit of proposals related to the Diabetes Mobile Clinic. However, the writer is not clear about what he wants to achieve. What is the objective or purpose of the proposal? It is not clearly defined. Individuals or organizations that seek funding of proposals should take cognizance of the specific issues that arouse the interest of sponsors, which include clarity of objectives (Locke et al., 2013). This component ought to feature in this discussion.
The background information provided in the third discussion makes it possible to understand and follow the intention of the grant seeker. A background information is characteristics of winning proposals (White, 2013). Sponsors want to know the background of the problem even before the problem is stated. In this discussion, the writer underscores the centrality of Comprehensive HIV prevention programs in the reduction of HIV.
The fourth discussion emphasizes the fundamental purpose of a research proposal. A proposal must reflect best practices and fill existing gaps (Rothenberg, 2010). The statement of purpose of a research proposal in this discussion is important because it gives prospective sponsors an opportunity to interrogate the proposal and ask questions. This discussion is capable of receiving positive feedback.
The fifth discussion has a good starting point. Indeed, proposals are meant to fill critical research-based or societal gaps. Many organizations are willing to provide support to well-organized proposals (Rattihalli & Field, 2012). But how can a prospective sponsor determine which proposal to sponsor? The answer lies in organization. This discussion has attempted to communicate its purpose. The writer has demonstrated his intention to reduce incidences of obesity among children. The discussion has informed readers about the strategies that the writer will employ to achieve his goal. The striking feature in this discussion is the budget for this proposal.
References
Dahlberg, B., Wittink, M., & Gallo, J. J. (2010). Funding and publishing integrated studies:
Writing effective mixed methods manuscripts and grant proposals. in Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C.(Eds), 775-802.
Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2013). Proposals That Work: A Guide for
Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals. Sage Publications.
Rattihalli, R. R., & Field, D. J. (2012). How to write a good research grant proposal.
Paediatrics and Child Health, 22(2), 57-60.
Rothenberg, M. (2010). Making judgments about grant proposals: A brief history of the merit
review criteria at the national science foundation. Technology & Innovation,
12(3), 189-195.
White, V. (Ed.). (2013). Grant proposals that succeeded. Springer Science & Business
Media.
