Counseling & Human Development Services

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Fall 2002

GCPA Home

Editor's Note

Articles

From The Field

Assessment Standards and Football Programs

Book Reviews

Finding Funding in Lean Times: Accessing Grant Monies for Student Affairs

Martha E. Wisbey, Margaret C. Totty, & Karen S. Kalivoda, Disability Services, The University of Georgia

The recent downward trend in the United States economy has begun to effect public colleges and universities (Hebel & Selingo, 2001). Institutions that depended on governmental support face budget cuts, hiring freezes and program cuts (McPherson & Schapiro, 1999; Hebel & Selingo, 2001). This movement towards retrenchment in higher education requires student affairs professionals to tap into outside funding sources to support and enhance current programs and services. The ability to obtain funding for specific programmatic or service-oriented programs is imperative. Since many student affairs practitioners lack formal training on grant writing strategies, this article introduces them to the basic principles of grant writing.

Writing competitive grant proposals involves planning and hard work. In the day-to-day work of student affairs departments, many practitioners may be challenged to find the time and resources necessary to write competitive proposals (Davis & Davis, 1993). Some campuses have personnel available to provide support in the writing process. Successful grant writing requires not only a sophisticated planning process, but also a unique understanding of granting agencies and an institutional commitment.

The goal of grant proposals is to persuade granting agencies to invest their resources in a specific idea or project. The conceptualization of a project should be clearly related to the agency, followed by persuasive and strong arguments. A show of support from the home institution is important. Timing and careful planning are critical factors to consider when making a project proposal. For example, will the grantor consider a project dealing with alcohol and drug consumption when sexual assaults on campus are the focus of the media? Does an institution have appropriate statistics to support the rationale for proposing this project? Has the grant committee gained support from appropriate constituents on and off campus? Thinking about an idea and developing it into a unique and engaging invitation for the grantor takes a very clearly articulated presentation of facts and ideas. Evaluation methods must be linked to the outcomes of the overall proposal also.

Selecting and Prioritizing Projects

The first step in grant writing involves convening a group of colleagues, students and other interested parties who understand and support the grant idea. The project should be pertinent to all involved. Following a brainstorming session where all ideas mentioned by the group are written out (Easter & Shultz, 1998), the group will focus on more specific ideas. Ideas are modified, reshaped or redefined to produce possible solutions (Chavkin, 1997).

After producing a list of different projects, it is important for the group to pare this list down and examine only those feasible to accomplish given campus resources such as personnel, space and funding. While it is possible to request items such as these when writing a proposal, it is important to write out all the issues surrounding both the feasibility of an idea and its relevance to the granting agency. The bottom line is that nothing will be gained by planning, writing and submitting grant proposals that do not correspond to the granting agencies= values and interests.

Identifying Funding Sources

After specifying topics, potential grant agencies interested in supporting the project idea must be identified. The federal government is a major provider of grant dollars. Although there has been a decline in funding for social services as well as for health and welfare programs over the past several years, there are a number of federal agencies that support funding for higher education.

Federal Grants

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, (Superintendent of Documents, Washington , D.C. 20402 ) is a complete reference resource published each spring with supplements published each fall. The Federal Register (http://www.access.gpo.gov), which is the federal government's daily news report, offers current information on the continually changing federal grant scene (Brewer, 1993). The U.S. Department of Education (http://www.ed.gov) also provides grant descriptions.

Private Grants

Private grants come from both foundations and corporations. Currently, there are approximately 32,000 private foundations in the United States . Foundations award grants to organizations that provide convincing cases demonstrating how their projects will help the foundation reach its goals (McGuire, 1981). Some foundations make funds available to specific organizations for specific purposes. For instance, there may be granting agencies that give funding to universities for building funds, equipment or operating support. Specific populations, such as minorities or people who have disabilities, are often targeted also.

Reviewing the tax returns of private foundations is a good way to determine what grantors have funded. Foundation Center libraries have this information on file, or it can be requested from the Internal Revenue Service. Information on the location of Foundation Center libraries as well as the grants offered by private and community foundations can be found on the Foundation Center website (http://www.fdncenter.org).

Corporations typically fund projects from which they will gain some profit through public recognition, better products, lower costs or customer satisfaction. Convincing a corporation that you have a project that will somehow benefit them will assist your institution in obtaining the necessary support. When approaching a private corporation or foundation, it is important for student affairs practitioners to coordinate with the institutional=s development office. For the planning group to assure that internal constituents are supportive and informed. Discussing ideas with these expert fundraisers will keep you from duplicating efforts or facing opposition because of differing priorities at another level within the university. Ideally, you will gain from these colleagues the support, insight and avenues for taking the next step to contact the identified grantor.

Fine-Tuning Proposal Planning

When you begin to identify specific funding sources, it can be sometimes overwhelming to organize and manage the information. To help you determine the best possible granting organization to select, here is a four-step process to follow in fine-tuning your proposal planning and gain a competitive edge:

1. Write for application forms and guidelines. Be sure to write to the program officer who is identified from the initial prospect research. If possible, ask for a list of past grantees (people who have received the grants) and for information regarding the types of past reviewers (professionals selected to review applications in order to offer evaluation through the use of the criteria set by the granting agency).

2. Call a past grantee and ask to speak to the project director or the person who wrote the proposal. Indicate where you got their names and ask questions that will assist you in learning about the funding source. Who did you call or go see the sponsor prior to writing the proposal? Who did you find to be the most helpful on the funding source staff? Did you use any special advocates on your behalf? Did the funding source review a proposal or proposal draft prior to submission? Is their any hidden information regarding the program's guidelines? What materials did you find the most helpful in developing your proposal? Did you have a site visit? How close was your initial budget to your awarded amount? What would you do differently next time?

3. Call a past reviewer, if possible. Find out what things were important to the reviewer and the evaluation procedures applied. Ask what common mistakes were made in the proposals reviewed.

4. Contact the program officer of the granting agency and ask for additional input. Does the project fall within the guidelines? Are the funding priorities expected to change this year? What are some of the common mistakes made in the proposal? Can someone review the proposal? Are previously funded proposals available to review? Are there open meetings for applicants to ask questions in a public forum?

Proposal Writing

Public grants are typically different in content and guidelines from private grants. Public grants can range in length from 15 to 100 pages and contain sections such as a cover letter, title page, abstract, introduction, need/problem, objectives, methods, evaluation, dissemination, budget and appendices (Hill & Whalen, 1993). Private grants often request a proposal in the form of about two-to-five page letter that outlines the problems and solutions.

Following are tips for writing the sections typical of most grant proposals (Dodsen-Pennington, 1995). When writing a grant for the first time, writers may find The US Environmental Protection Agency's interactive online tutorial on grant proposal writing to be of value. The tutorial can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/seahome/grants.html. Sections include assistance in completing grant proposals, tips for improving your proposal and an area where you can actually practice writing proposals (Larkin, 1999).

Introduction Section. The introduction section includes the initial statement describing the grant writer's professional and organizational qualifications and establishes the significance of your proposal idea. For private foundations, it should be extensive and set the tone for the rest of the proposal. It is important that the introductory paragraphs link the project to the sponsor's priorities. This portion of your proposal will either urge readers to read on about what you are proposing or put your proposal aside and look at others. This statement can literally determine whether or not you receive funding.

When you write this section, be sure to establish your credibility, the credibility of other experts on your campus and the environment of your institution. The goal is to clearly establish who you are, describe your organization's goals, substantiate your expertise on the topic and lead the reader to the actual problem statement. This section should convince the grantors that this idea is feasible.

Statement of Problem. The statement of problem or need represents the rationale for your proposal. It describes the conditions you wish to change. Statistical evidence from appropriate sources and literature reviews of the subject area must be provided. Indicate how the project will relate to a larger set of problems and justify why your particular focus has been chosen. Tie the problem to your organizational goals and convince the grantor that this should be of special interest to them. A common mistake made when writing this section is over generalizations. Keep descriptions straightforward and realistic. A question to help guide your statement is: Why did you select to conduct this type of action in order to solve the problem presented?

Objectives Section. The objectives section should tie directly to your outcomes. Based upon the previously articulated organizational goals, the objectives should describe the actual end product for this project. Specifically, objectives should state who is going to do (a) what, (b) when, (c) how much, and (d) how it will be measured. For example, an objective might state that the Director of Disability Services (who) will reduce the number of ADA complaints (what) during the fall semester (when) by 20 percent (how much) as noted in the Student Satisfaction Survey Report (measurement). These objectives will link directly to the evaluation section. The key to writing objectives is to limit your written objectives to one or two sentences each in order of importance.

Methods Section. When writing your methods section, describe the activities of the project. The description should indicate how your objectives would be accomplished. Include how data will be collected, any risks involved in methodology and the feasibility of success. Be very specific about the activities, who will actually be conducting each aspect of the activity and when it will be accomplished. Determine the sequence of events including when and what will be done. This section needs to be well organized and very detailed in content.

Evaluation Section. The evaluation is a critical component when writing grant proposals. This section presents the actual effect your project will have and how you will prove your projects efficiency. The evaluation may uncover areas that need to be included in future study as well as provide ways to improve services, better allocate resources and strengthen the project's performance. It is helpful to include examples of evaluation tools (surveys, questionnaires, instruments or forms) in the appendices.

Dissemination Section. Dissemination of all phases of the project will inform other institutions on how they can develop similar. Describe specifically where, when and the information about the project will be presented. Specific forms of dissemination include project newsletters, conferences or seminars, site visits, convention papers, journal articles, books or manuals, displays at meetings, speeches, press releases, computer web pages designed to post information about the project and executive summaries. Provide specific detail to justify the budget request, and clearly describe how the dissemination activities are important to the project.

Budgets Section. Budgets are truly the bottom line for most grant reviewers. How realistic is the budget request and does it fit with the intended goals and objectives for the project? The budget expresses the project in a quantifiable format and establishes the credibility of the project. Unless the guidelines define precise budget categories and limitations, it is appropriate for the request to include everything from personnel to postage, from travel to equipment and from renovations to subcontracts.

Direct costs are typically categories listed in the budget as explicit project expenditures such as personnel and non-personnel sections. Indirect costs are hard to quantify but may include such items as staff time to prepare paperwork or time spent planning, discussing and organizing the project. Indirect costs may not have a specific number attached but can be calculated as a percentage of your direct costs and added to the request.

Government grant proposals typically have a calculated percentage that is set as the federal indirect rate. Private foundations use the term administrative costs rather than indirect costs. Some foundations will pay administrative costs and others unequivocally state that they do not allow administrative costs. In contrast to government or foundation terminology, corporations use the word "overhead" to mean indirect or administrative costs. It is important to determine if overhead costs should be included in the proposal or if all costs should be included under direct costs. Matching is a term used for cost sharing or "in-kind" contributions that your institution will give to the project. The guidelines will define what the expectations are for cost sharing (Borland & Margolin, 1990).

Many institutions have a grants and acquisitions office that can help in the budget development process. When putting together a budget, it is helpful to utilize this resource. This office can do calculations of appropriate costs associated with specific categories and obtain necessary approvals for institutional dollar support. A budget narrative will follow the actual budget and this should explain or justify any unusual expenditure items. This narrative should be provided even if the guidelines do not require it.

Abstract. The abstract should provide an overview of everything included in the proposal document. This section should be approximately 250 to 500 words in length. Appendices include supplemental material referred to in the document. Examples of appendices are: reprinted articles, resumes, past success stories, evaluation instruments, institutional publications, publicity and letters of support.

Common Mistakes

The following are common mistakes in grant writing (Gloeckner, 1993):

1. One person writes a grant with a few others marginally involved. It takes more than one to produce a competitive grant proposal. When writing a grant alone, feedback and advice should be solicited from colleagues and experts within your institution. Important support officials such as those who work in external affairs or in the grants office can offer counsel in your endeavors.

2. Mismatched values between the grantor and the grantee. The values and needs of granting agencies need to be aligned with the values and needs of the grant awardees. Granting agencies do not care about a particular program but do care about meeting their needs. When convinced that a project is consistent with what their organization stands for, they will provide funding.

3. Sometimes when writing proposals, we lose sight of readers' needs and begin to expound on ideas. It is important to write a proposal in plain English, conveying all points necessary while not overloading the reader. This is not a document that should be murky or overzealous. It should be organized and flow in such a way that the reader does not have to guess about what is being written or expressed. A good rule of thumb is to say what you mean and mean what you say. This will help the reader make a fair and honest evaluation of the project's quality and prospect for success.

Accessing the "Grant Vine"

This article provides an overview of some of the basic issues related to grants and grant writing. Before beginning this process, learn how to make your ideas and issues known to others within your campus community, both on and off campus. By discussing one's interests and obtaining support for an idea, a faculty member may be found who is willing to collaborate in order to publish or support a specific teaching interest. In addition, with garnered support, interested graduate students who are seeking to gain grant experience may come on board. Networking might lead to a local donor to an organization that would solicit a grant proposal. For example, one institution found the local liquor license board in its town was interested in sponsoring research on alcohol and drug use on campus. This grant solicitation came from a member of the board and it was given to the dean of students because of the relationship that had been developed over a period of years. Although the funding was minimal, it did give the campus an opportunity to try their hand" at writing a proposal. Starting small can be a great way to gain experience and confidence in this process.

Another excellent way to keep informed of grant opportunities on a regular basis is to make your sponsored programs staff aware of your interest, and ask them to send you any potential grant opportunities information. If a description is of interest and you have a potential idea that meets the initial description, then ask for the guidelines. These guidelines are typically called a "Request for Proposal" or "RFP". The RFP will offer insight into the specifics of the grant requirements and will outline the proposal format.

What do grant reviewers look for? Typically innovative, well-documented, well-focused, detailed, realistic and relevant projects will get funded. Other important criteria include: (a) principal investigator's competence and record of accomplishments, (b) adequacy of institutional resources (facilities), (c) institutional commitment and administrative support, (d) collaboration, (e) ability for project to be duplicated elsewhere, and (f) evaluation procedures.

Conclusion

Writing competitive and successful grants is not easy. Student affairs staff that seeks to obtain funding must take the time to plan and conceptualize what resources are in place, what resources are needed, and how resources will be organized with new funding to accomplish the tasks ahead of them. More money brings more work, and most organizations will need to anticipate how they will support the actual grant implementation. Ideally, funding received from grantors should add more to the lives of students on campus and assist staff in reaching their goals.

A final note that should be heard by all new grant writers is an old adage, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." Be prepared to resubmit a proposal if it isn't accepted the first time, either to the same granting agency, or to a new one (Geever & McNeill, 1997). The grants process is dynamic and requires making adjustments and fine-tuning on the part of writers. If the idea is worth your time and energy, then it is worth resubmitting after revisions are made. Once funded, you will understand why the process can be one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences.

References

Borland, A. & Margolin, J. E. (1990). The Foundation Center 's user-friendly guide: Grant seekers' guide to research resources. New York , NY : The Foundation Center.

Brewer, E. W. (1993). Finding funding: Grant writing for the financially challenged educator. Thousand Oaks , CA : Corwin Press.

Chavkin, N. F. (1997). Funding school-linked services through grants: A beginner' s guide to grant writing. Social Work in Education, 9(3), 164-175.

Davis, J. L. & Davis, S. K. (1993, Fall). Involvement of student affairs in grant-writing activities. In M. C. Terrell & J. A. Gold (Eds). New Roles for Educational Fundraising and Institutional Advancement, New Directions for Student Services, 63, 63-74.

Dodsen-Pennington, L. S. (1995). Grants across campus: Grant-writing basics. Kansas : Cowley County Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 369).

Easter, L. M & Shultz, E. L. (1998, Winter). Ten heads are better than one: An innovative model for collaborative, college-wide grant writing. Research Management Review, 10(1), 24-32.

Geever, J. C. & McNeill, P. (1997). The Foundation Center 's guide to proposal writing. New York , NY : The Foundation Center.

Gloeckner, G. V. (1993). Key to successful proposal writing. The Technology Teacher, 52 (6), 4950.

Hebel, S., & Selingo, J. (2001, April). For public colleges, a decade of generous state budgets is over. Chronicle of Higher Education.

Hill, J. N. & Whalen, T. (1993). How to create and present successful government proposals: Techniques for today's tough economy. Princeton, N.J.: IEEE Press.

Larkin, M. (1999, March). Websites in brie, Lancet, 353 (9156), 935.