I'd like to get back to measures for a bit. 

If you remember, we have talked a little bit about the reason you are doing your work (your vision and impact) and how you'll know what you are doing is working (your outcomes). I mentioned that counting clients is not a meaningful outcome, but I also said it is important. Let's talk about that. 

In a recent training, I used the example of McDonalds' "1 billion served". This is a very good example of a meaningful output, but not a very meaningful outcome. Just because they served a billion burgers, it doesn't mean the burgers met their brand promise of their customers being able to say "I'm lovin' it." 

Which isn't to say it doesn't say something. The number of patties and nuggets they serve is related to how much impact they have with their restaurants, even if it isn't a measure of the quality of their impact. If they were a nonprofit seeking funding, being able to say they served a billion burgers would speak directly to their capacity and the scale of their program.

Outputs--or the the number of people you serve, programs you deliver, and things you do--are important and you absolutely should be reporting on it. If nothing else, it gives funders an idea of what you actually did with their investment. It also helps you justify your budget and future investments. 

When you are working on your measurement section, your outputs should follow from your outcomes. If we remember our example of school lunches and the outcome that each lunch would be nutritious, kids could access nutritious meals, and kids would eat nutritious meals, your outputs could look like this: 
- 300 children who do not go hungry at lunch
- 13,500 opportunities for nutrition education school year
- five tons of fresh produce distributed through meals 
- 40 meals planned by students every school year
- 25 children every school year engaged in nutrition planning
- 50 student-driven lessons on nutrition

Think of your outputs like your activities. Be sure to use them to describe your work. Notice we didn't just say how many served or lessons delivered, we still kept our outputs focused on our overall goal of nutritious school lunches and kids not going hungry. We are also not measuring change, but rather scale. This is also where you input client demographics, which can indicate how well you are reaching your target audience. 

Your outputs will be how you determine what you need to carry out your program, or your inputs. Your inputs are essentially your budget - the staff, resources, connections, knowledge, and other things you need to deliver your outputs, which is how you achieve your outcomes, which is how you will measure your impact, which is how you reach your ultimate goal or vision.  

When you are writing your outcomes, think of it like this: 
"Our ultimate goal is [your vision]. This means [impacts]. We will know we are successful when [outcomes]. To achieve these outcomes we will [outputs]. To do this, we need [inputs]. "

If this sounds simple and logical, it's because it is. If you haven't realized already, this is how you write a logic model. And that is why I almost always insist on creating a logic model with my clients. I get you thinking about your program's direction and drivers, and it gives your applications a framework around which you can build your case for support. 

So, take some time today and think about what you are counting and why. Your grant writer will thank you. 

Citing stuff correctly is a big part of grant writing. BIG. Your needs statement needs data, and that data needs to be cited. But a lot of times you can't sacrifice valuable character limits to do a full APA (or whatever style) citation.

Here is my number one rule - you must cite your sources. You have to tell your reader a) you're not just making this up and b) you aren't passing off someone else's information as your own.  

My number two rule - never sacrifice readability for being technically correct with your citations. I know a lot of researchers out there just clutched their pearls. But most people reading grants are not researchers and can get so bogged down in parentheticals and titles and page numbers that they will literally stop reading. And that, my friends, is how you get relegated to the denial pile. 

So how DO you balance character limits and readability with not being that jerk who makes the reader guess where you got that information? If you can, use foot or end notes. Little numbers (or parenthetical ones) tell your reader "hey, I have back up here, and here is the information if you want to do your own research." 

My absolute favorite way to cite in grants is with foot notes, end notes, and works cited. If you have the opportunity to submit "other attachments" to your grant, make one of those attachments a Works Cited or End Notes page. Set up your end notes while writing, then just make a PDF of that last page. BAM. 

Of course, a lot of places don't want extra documents. And, if you are applying online there is rarely a way to just add it on to your content. This is when you have to get out that red pen and cut some characters.

When space or format limits my citation methods, I have shown my research in a few different ways: 

1. Right after you first say it, a parenthetical with as much information the reader can get there on their own. Bare minimum the title and source of your information. If you can, add the year so you can show you're up to date. For example: Research indicates that, far from the gentle and passive ways they are often portrayed, dolphins are often sadistic jerks. (Vox, "7 adorable animals that are also murderous monsters", 2016). Later on you can just say "Penguins and polar bears aren't so cute either (Vox, 2016)." 
2. Make foot notes for your sections. This works really well if you just do not have space to add a parenthetical, and you can add a simple "Works cited: Vox, Deep Sea News, Slate." I don't use this one that often because, well, it's the least legitimate way to cite your source. Yes, you're telling the reader where it is, but you're not really helping them see how you drew your conclusions. 
3. I haven't used this, but you could do a hyperlink. I would avoid that because it makes the reader do an extra thing - never good - and you can't be assured your link will work in the final review (also links don't translate when printed). I do use this when I'm writing other stuff (i.e., not grants) that I know will be published. For example, I've done it above not just to demonstrate what I mean, but because I really want you to know this isn't just me ranting about dolphins. I have legitimate, well-backed beef with them. 

Even if you don't use the full citations in your application, make sure you also know how to access them later. Print them off, make a bookmark folder, create a shared document, whatever you need to do. Make sure you can easily find the original source (you're using original sources, right?) and how you used it. First, if someone asks, this makes it easy to show your work. Second, and I think more importantly, we all know how we reuse content for applications. Sometimes (usually) things get edited and restated and copied. And we all know what they say about copies of copies. (Allow me to tell you about the time when my team realized the data we had been using over and over and over was flat out wrong because it got restated incorrectly years ago.) 

You will probably find that, just like no two applications are identical, what works best for your citing needs varies from funder to funder. I tend to err on too much information over too little, no matter which application I am writing for. Whatever you decide, just remember to leave SOME trail of breadcrumbs for your reviewer to follow.  

(By the way, full disclosure--I have always struggled with the nitty gritty of exactly how to format my full citations. Even in college and grad school I could never remember where to put periods and which bits to italicize or quote. This is why they invented the internet. And this site in particular - Cite This For Me - which allows you to put in your source and it spits out the correct citation based on whatever style you want. I don't get paid for this in anything other than the satisfaction of knowing someone else out there will geek out over it like I did.)