|
| |
|
 |
|
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.
McGuire,
B. E. (1981). Plain English: The language of foundations.
New Directions for Institutional Advancement, 11,
41-47.
McPherson,
M.S., & Schapiro, M.O. (1999). Reinforcing
stratification in American higher education: Some disturbing trends.
(NCPI Technical Report No. 3-02). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Wodarski,
J. S. (1991). A novel
approach to improving grant-writing skills.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 18(2),
107110.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|