By Sandy Trowbridge, Grants Development Associate
When seeking grant funding, have you ever come across an opportunity that requires your proposed project to be both innovative and grounded in evidence, and wondered how best to strike a balance between these two requirements? If so, you are not alone. The reality is that most funders want to maximize impact by supporting projects that explore new ways of tackling ongoing challenges, but with the assurance that what is being proposed is feasible and will be a worthwhile use of their funds.
The following sections outline several tips for best striking this balance between innovation and evidence in your grant applications. The goal is to be able to clearly articulate what is new in your approach (the innovation), while simultaneously showing how it is informed by credible research (the evidence), so that funders are not only inspired by your new project concept but truly believe in its ability to generate measurable and meaningful impact.
TIP #1: Thoroughly Review the Program Guidance to Understand How the Funder Defines Innovation and Evidence
The first step of any application effort should be a close review of the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and any supplemental guidance (training materials, application guides, FAQs, etc.). Read everything. These materials often include clues, or even explicit instructions, about how the funder defines innovation and evidence. For example, the Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Program out of the U.S. Department of Education addresses “How can a project be innovative if it also must be evidenced-based?” in their FAQs, stating that “A project’s "innovation" can be focused at the level of a project component. For example, you might have a project component that is based on evidence, but your application proposes a "spin" that includes an additional component that is new and innovative.” Looking at innovation in this way - at the component level - helps take what can oftentimes feel like an overwhelming mandate and make it more accessible. To illustrate, a grant proposal to develop a virtual tutoring platform may be grounded in research showing that digital tutoring improves outcomes for struggling learners (the evidence) while including a unique gamification model (the innovation component).
A close review of the program guidance may also give insight into what the funder considers to be strong sources of evidence. If you find that the funder cites specific sources throughout their materials, consider utilizing these same sources in your application to make your proposal even more relevant and compelling to the reviewer. For example, the EIR Program suggests that applicants source qualifying evidence from platforms such as What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and the National Library of Education.
Understanding how the funder views both innovation and evidence from the outset will help streamline your proposal development process.
TIP #2: Define What Makes Your Concept Innovative
Once you have a solid understanding of how the funder defines innovation, it is time to nail down your innovative project concept. To aid in this exercise, the EIR Program referenced above directs program applicants to consider the following questions:
- “What practice/program already exists to address the issue I am focused on?
- Could it work a bit differently?
- Is there some way to make an innovative change that would be pivotal in adding to the existing practice/program to make it unique or more effective?
- How could an innovation help the program/practice work for another group of students (e.g., older, differently abled, in a different geographical setting)?”
These considerations highlight how innovation does not have to mean completely reinventing the wheel. Often, it means taking what is already known to work and applying it in a new way or context. An example of this could be in adapting a math intervention that has shown strong results with sixth graders in urban schools for fourth graders in rural schools. Here, the innovation lies not in the intervention itself, but in its application to a different age group or setting.
Clearly demonstrating how your proposed project adapts or enhances proven practices to meet unmet needs or reach new populations can help set your application apart in this competitive funding landscape.
TIP #3: Ground Your Innovation in Evidence
Tools for sourcing evidence of “what works” will vary across subject areas, but to continue with the education example, the aptly named What Works Clearinghouse is a strong option. Intervention reports, practice guides, and studies that have been reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse are all excellent sources of evidence. Review these resources not only for confirmation of what has worked, but also to help identify where gaps persist that highlight opportunities for further advancement.
Going back to our EIR Program example, EIR training materials direct applicants to consider if there is enough evidence to support their innovative idea by asking the following questions:
- “Is there at the very least a logic model or theory of change to support my innovation?
- If not, what evidence can I find to support the development of one?
- Would an evaluation of the innovation help advance educational research and practice?
- Does my innovation offer a solution to a significant need that exists widely in the education field?
- How can my innovation be tested for replicability or scalability?”
Considering questions such as these ensures that your proposed “innovative change” or “spin” is built (at least in part) off programs/strategies that have already been rigorously tested. No ideas are just coming out of thin air. Instead, each program’s innovations are anchored to existing models, reassuring the funder that the project is built on a solid framework while still purposefully moving the field forward. Even if a particular funder does not require specific evidence thresholds, consider still making a concerted effort to ground your innovations in evidence as a best practice. In addition, ensure that every innovative idea is supported by a comprehensive implementation plan—with clearly defined activities, roles, timelines, and budgets—to further strengthen your proposal’s credibility.
TIP #4: Leverage Strategic Partnerships
Strategic partnerships are essential throughout all phases of grant development and are especially valuable when balancing innovation and evidence. At the ideation stage, they can provide valuable insights into unmet needs and potential areas for innovation. Who better to highlight opportunities for improvement than those working on the front lines? If you ever struggle to identify a truly innovative idea, open a dialogue with partner organizations, community members, and other stakeholders to uncover unique perspectives that may lead to groundbreaking ideas.
When building out these innovative project ideas, these partnerships can then offer external validation that the project idea is solid and will be feasible to implement, deepen your capacity to implement it, and further expand your evidence base. For example, a university partner might contribute research expertise, while a local nonprofit can help ensure the project remains grounded in community realities.
These relationships signal to the funder that your innovative initiative is collaborative, credible, and supported by stakeholders who see its value and are willing to invest in its success. To further strengthen your application, consider including Letters of Support or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that demonstrate partner commitment. Many funders, including the EIR Program, recognize the value of such partnerships, often allowing for or even encouraging consortium applications to maximize impact as well.
TIP #5: Connect the Dots Between Innovation and Evidence Through a Clear and Compelling Narrative
Once you have identified an innovative idea, grounded it in credible evidence, and strengthened it through strategic partnerships, your next step is to weave these components together into a clear and compelling narrative. For your application to stand out to reviewers, you will want to clearly show the connection between what is new, what is proven, and why the combination is likely to succeed. Explicitly walk reviewers through this logic by directly addressing the following questions:
- What is your innovation?
- Why is it timely and relevant to your field?
- What specific evidence supports its core components?
- How does your project adapt, extend, or enhance proven models?
- Why is your team (including your partners) well-positioned to implement it successfully?
Consider incorporating tools like a logic model or theory of change into your narrative to visually demonstrate the relationships between your project’s inputs, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes. These visuals can clarify complex ideas and make your innovative proposal more accessible to reviewers. Also, be sure to echo the funder’s language and priorities throughout. Reiterate how your innovation and presented evidence align with their definitions of innovation and evidence / meet their stated program priorities, using their own terminology wherever appropriate. This not only strengthens your case but signals that you have done your homework, are speaking their language, and are responsive to their needs. And finally, before submitting your materials to the funder, ask a colleague unfamiliar with your project to read your application. If they can clearly explain what makes it innovative and why it is likely to work, you have succeeded in connecting the dots and making a compelling case for the funder’s consideration.
Conclusion
The reality is that innovation is most compelling to funders if you can show it has a real chance of working. This means connecting the dots between your new ideas and existing evidence whenever possible. Ultimately, you want to help the reviewer answer three main questions: 1) Is this a new idea worth trying? 2) Is there reason to believe it will work, and 3) Can this team pull it off? A strong application answers “yes” to all three.
What if my idea is truly novel?