CTU School Dropout Problem Among Students in Riverbend City Proposal
Colorado Technical University OnlineDeveloping a Proposal
In your initial post, share your personal experience in proposal development. If you have participated in proposal development and writing, reflect on three aspects of it that were unique, unusual, or special about this activity for you, as a human services professional. Comment briefly on the actual proposal—the problem it addressed, the depth, the structure, the partners involved, the timeline, and the result.
If you have not participated in proposal development, reflect on the experience of Maya in the case illustration in Chapter 10 of your Program Development in the 21st Century textbook, and address the same aspects.
CHapter 10 pg 292-316
STEP VIII: DEVELOP THE PROPOSAL Developing the Proposal Have you ever heard this? “This opportunity looks perfect for us—we can do this!” or “If they were able to get funding for that, we certainly can.” How about this one? “How could we not have been selected?” or “I cannot believe they did not find our program worthy of funding.” Unfortunately, these are all common exhortations in the world of funding for the human services. Too often, the process of securing funding for mental health and human service programs is underestimated, and as a result, individuals often believe that doing so does not present too difficult a challenge. As a result of underestimating the rigor involved in the proposal process, applicants may become quite upset when they are not awarded funding—as Dan learned. As Dan also learned, you must follow the guidelines of a proposal if you are interested in having it reviewed. Indeed, one of the major reasons behind rejection of proposals is simply failure to follow the instructions (New, 2001). Engaging in due diligence with regard to exploring and identifying the most appropriate funding opportunities to pursue ensures that, minimally, you will be investing your time wisely when you do decide to apply for funding. But these are only the initial steps, whereas actually developing the proposal for funding is the final step toward potentially securing funding. When you are interested in pursuing funding for program development and/or research activities, there are several issues that require serious consideration: the time required to develop a proposal, the depth of material needed for the proposal, justification of professional and/or organizational capability to effectively implement a program, the role of collaboration in proposal development, and letters of support. Time Considerations in Proposal Development Developing a grant proposal for a mental health or human service program or project is a time-consuming process that requires a tremendous amount of work. Whereas the precise extent of a grant proposal is often dictated by the specific funding source, I would estimate that many medium-to large-scale proposals (i.e., awards of $100,000 per year or more) may require anywhere from 1 to 6 months (Devine, 2009) and from 40 to 100 hours to complete. For most of us, that means that we must plan for at least 1 month of our work year to be dedicated to proposal development. And this is typically spread over a greater amount of time, since often only a portion of our workload can be dedicated to grant writing because of our other regular duties. Indeed, when I have the luxury of spending 8 hours a week on a grant proposal, I am happiest, because I know that I should be able to steadily complete it in about 4 weeks. Having said this, please note that these are simply broad time parameters since there is so much variation in the types of proposals required for specific funding opportunities. In addition, the specific type of funding opportunity often dictates the time frame involved in completion of a proposal. In fact, there are basically three types of funding opportunity specific to time frames for accepting applications: Open application periods, which are most common to funding opportunities from philanthropic organizations Continuous funding opportunities with annual submission deadlines, which are common in clinical research grants and also tied to specific continuously funded areas of interest of philanthropic organizations Funding opportunities with specific submission deadlines, which may be released one time only or on an annual basis for more than 1 year Many funding opportunities offered by the county, state, and federal governments to mental health and human service programs fall into this third category, with very specific submission deadlines. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for there to be a time frame of 6 weeks or less from the time a funding opportunity is announced to the time applications are due. This often means that the application must be completed quickly and also reinforces viewing proposal development as part of one’s regular workload. Particularly in the case of very short time frames for completion of applications, proposal development must temporarily become the work priority—an easier pill to swallow if these activities are already considered part of your regular activities. Of course, developing grant proposals often requires the input of more than one person and, therefore, it is not only the time of the individual leading the proposal development that is of issue but the time of everyone who is involved in the process. And because of the complex nature of some proposals, more than one person is needed to plan and carry out the writing (Homan, 2004). The issue of time is probably one of the most surprising aspects to first-time proposal developers. This may be particularly true for those of us who have been conditioned to think, “It has a 30-page limit, so it couldn’t possibly require too much time or be too difficult—I have written longer papers in school for just one minor assignment.” Indeed, page limits can seem like a positive aspect insofar as they should reflect the degree of time required; however, the old adage about quality not quantity fits well here. Similar to any effective research paper, in developing a sophisticated piece of writing, the amount of words and pages is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the depth of the material. Therefore, appreciation for the complexity involved in most grant proposals and the need for sufficient time to do an adequate job is crucial. Depth of the Proposal Another aspect that often surprises first-time proposal developers is the fact that page limits may refer to the narrative portion of the proposal and not to other required documents. Often, other documents may need to be developed to be submitted with the proposal. These additional documents may include budgets, biographical sketches of key program staff, job descriptions, organizational charts, project timelines, and logic models. These documents often are attachments to the narrative, and each may require a good deal of time to develop. In addition, existing documents about the applicant organization and proposed project staff may need to be gathered to be included as part of the appendix. These may include such items as resumes, past financial statements, verification of business status, certifications, professional and/or program licensure, verification of accreditation status, and other existing documents. Finally, documents from potential collaborators, supporters, and/or other authorizing agents may need to be requested and provided with the proposal. These may include letters of support, memoranda of understanding or agreement indicating collaborative partners, and approval by authorizing agencies or general support for the program/project. These documents can require a great deal of time and energy since they are predicated on not only existing but supportive relationships with other organizations. Therefore, if these relationships are not already in place, it may prove a barrier to meeting this requirement based on the time frame in which the proposal must be developed. To better illustrate the amount of material that may be required in a proposal, what follows is an example of a funding opportunity for mental health and substance abuse services, authorized by the Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA; 2009): Application format requirements Application face page Table of contents PHS 5161–1 HHS checklist Budget Budget justification Staffing plan/personnel requirements Assurances Certifications Project abstract Program narrative Program-specific forms (e.g., logic model, organizational chart) Attachments As you can see, the application requires far more than a narrative of the program, and in fact, the narrative is simply listed as one of the required documents for this proposal. In addition to the various documents that are needed for a comprehensive proposal, funders may specify program-specific requirements that must be met, some of which are very focused. For instance, see the following excerpt from the funding opportunity discussed above: Applicants for this funding opportunity are expected to (1) describe the target population and its need for mental health/substance abuse services; (2) present a service delivery plan that demonstrates responsiveness to the identified needs of the target population; and (3) present a sound business plan that links the goals and objectives from the service delivery plan to the budget. … The populations served by these programs are medically underserved populations in urban and rural areas; migratory and seasonal agricultural workers and their families; homeless people, including children and families; and residents of publicly-subsidized housing. (SAMHSA, 2009) As you can see, this snapshot of some of the requirements provides a great deal of essential information critical to proposal development. As such, the funding source has communicated pertinent information about the opportunity to the applicant, including the defined target population, need for applicants to provide evidence of the target population’s needs for services, requirement that applicants produce a sound program model to effectively address the needs of the target population, and requirement that applicants develop a comprehensive budget that directly relates to program implementation. Although this information may have been communicated very concisely, you can see just how detailed it is. Essentially, you should usually be able to review this type of snapshot—common to funding opportunities—and gain a firm understanding of the specific funding opportunity. After viewing both of the requirement sections of this funding opportunity, you should note that all the requirements have already been covered in this text, including identifying and justifying a target population, providing evidence of need, designing a program model and implementation plan, determining staffing structure and requirements, setting a budget that is tied directly to program implementation and outcomes, and providing budget justification. This further reinforces the effectiveness and relevance of the comprehensive program development model presented in this text and again reflects the need for this type of systematic approach to this work. In their discussion of the merits of a proposal, Lewis, Packard, and Lewis (2007) identify several questions that may be useful in evaluating a proposal: How well does the applicant demonstrate that there is a real need for the proposed project? How clear and attainable are the project’s objectives? Does the proposal spell out a plan of action that suits project goals and objectives? Is the program model supported by research and best practices? Is the applying agency likely to be able to carry out the proposed project and meet the specified goals within the suggested time frame? Is the budget clearly thought out and appropriate for the scope of the project? Are plans for evaluation and dissemination well documented, feasible, and appropriate? If you understand the amount of material needed in most grant proposals, it is much easier to appreciate the amount of time and work required to complete this process. At this point, though, I do want to remind you that this discussion of developing grant proposals solely pertains to program/project-based and clinical research-based grants—consistent with the focus of the book. Because other types of funding exist for equipment and other non-program/project/research grants and because the process for applying for such funds is much different (i.e., much less rigorous), it is important to clarify the difference here so that you fully understand the type of grant proposals to which this chapter (and book) is referring. The development of program/project grant proposals is indeed a tremendous undertaking, particularly with regard to time considerations and the volume of work involved. In addition to these two key considerations, applicants must consider if they have both the organizational and professional/individual capability needed to justify that they are capable of successfully implementing a proposed program. Justifying Professional and Organizational Capability A key requirement of most funding opportunities is that justification is provided as to the capability of both the organization and a lead individual/other staff to carry out the intended project. In terms of organizational capability, this is typically provided by official documents that verify an organization’s corporate status; board of directors; fiscal health and banking status; administrative staffing structure; licensure and/or other relevant credentials; accreditation status; facility; hardware, software, Internet, and other communication and electronic capabilities; and other relevant aspects of the business. For each of these factors, you maybe required to provide evidence of the organization’s functional status as an eligible entity and one that has the organizational capabilities to implement the proposed project based on previous business experience. Whereas official documents provide justification of organizational capability, other types of evidence are needed to prove that the applicant has an individual capable of carrying out the proposed project. This individual is usually referred to as the project director or principal investigator and is an essential requirement of most funding opportunities. While organizational capability is a prerequisite to apply for funding, identifying an individual who is fully capable of leading the project is equally necessary. Again, depending on the type of funding opportunity you are pursuing, the requirements of the project leader will vary. Funding sources are understandably concerned that their funds are awarded to applicants that present the least risk—or put more positively, to applicants that seem the most likely to effectively utilize the funds. This seems perfectly reasonable since, to a funding source, every award is a financial investment; therefore, officials of the funding agency are most concerned with yielding the greatest return from each investment. One of the criteria by which the funding agency attempts to evaluate this is based on the experience and credentials of the project leader and other key members of the program/project staff. In fact, for specific types of clinically based and research proposals, reviewers may look specifically at the expertise and publication record of the applicant and any other key individuals who are a part of the project team (Kessel, 2006), whereas for other program- and project-based proposals, reviewers will be most interested in the relevant work experience of the applicants. While a sound program design is a necessity for a successful proposal, demonstrating expertise is a crucial part of selling your proposal; therefore, having both the right project leader and also experienced team members may greatly improve your proposal (Zlowodzki, Jonsson, Kregor, & Bhandari, 2007). This means that applicants must provide evidence that the project team does indeed have sufficient knowledge and skills to effectively coordinate and implement the proposed project. Evidence of this can be provided in several ways, which may include any and all of the following, depending on the funding opportunity: The project leader’s resume documenting academic and professional credentials and relevant experience A biographical sketch documenting additional and more detailed relevant knowledge, skills, and experience A record of scholarly publishing in the relevant area Documentation of experience with past funding opportunities Each of these may provide justification that the project team has specific knowledge and skills and, possibly, expertise in the identified area—precisely what funders wish to know. However, in addition to establishing the capabilities of the professionals involved in the proposed program, funders are also interested in knowing that the organization is appropriately structured to effectively implement the program. A number of factors typically are reviewed to establish organizational capability, such as the length of time in business, organizational licensure and/or certifications, accreditation, and funding history. Recall the list of attachments provided, as many of these were already cited, and thus, documents such as these are often required to provide evidence that the organization is capable of carrying out the proposed plan. One other specific and highly common requirement that speaks to organizational capability is the letters of support from peer organizations, other contractors, or other key officials. Letters of Support Often, three or more letters of support are required with submission of a proposal. The purpose of the letters of support is to provide additional evidence that the organization and/or the program staff are qualified for the proposal. Therefore, letters of support should be requested from those that are in a position to provide such information. Other contractors with whom the organization is currently doing or has done business are often the most relevant source to provide letters since they have firsthand knowledge of the organization/staff performance. In addition, peer agencies with whom your organization has worked collaboratively form a second group whose letters of support may be particularly meaningful since they, too, are in a position to directly attest to your organization’s past performance. When collaboration with other organizations has not occurred, peer organizations may still prove valuable in providing a letter of support; however, a stronger level of support can be provided by those that have direct knowledge of your past performance. The letter of support is typically used to provide another level of evidence of the program team and/or organization’s ability to successfully implement the proposal, hence such should be the primary objective of the letter. Other information that provides further context to the letter of support is also helpful, such as length of time the support writer has worked with/known you or your organization, existing and/or past focus of the business relationship, and specific reasons why the writer believes you/your organization is uniquely qualified for the project. Whereas letters of support from colleagues at peer organizations are especially helpful, acquiring them and letters from contractors may at times prove challenging. This is often the case when peer organizations and/or contractors are pursuing the same funding opportunity as you; thus, they are competing against you and likely not interested in supporting you in the competition. In addition, when two or more organizations that a funder contracts are pursuing the same opportunity, the contractor may be comfortable supporting only one or may simply decide not to support either. As a result, obtaining letters of support can indeed come with its own set of challenges. But being in a position to even request such a letter is primarily based on having established effective business relationships with contractors, peer organizations, and other key resources. This again highlights the purpose of identifying and engaging community resources (previously discussed in Chapter 7) and building and preserving these relationships (Chapter 13). Collaboration As discussed previously, collaboration in new program development efforts is more common in the 21st century than ever before (Donahue, Lanzara, & Felton, 2006). In fact, foundations and government agencies look favorably on collaborative efforts (Klein, 2000; Quick & New, 2000), and today, some funding opportunities are specifically limited to collaborative efforts. Engaging in collaborative efforts may strengthen a proposal—especially when, through collaboration, essential resources can be shared, thus increasing organizational capability and justification. However, when developing a proposal for a collaborative effort, it is imperative that the relationship between the two or more organizations be clearly defined during the proposal development step, if not before. This includes but is not limited to establishing the following: The applicant/lead organization Work expectations for each organization Time frames for delivery of specific activities and specific deliverables Communication expectations Payment expectations To discuss each briefly, most funding sources require that one organization and individual be assigned the role of applicant for the funding opportunity, taking responsibility as both the primary contact person and the individual and organization ultimately responsible for effectively utilizing the funding provided. As a result, the applicant organization is the direct payee of the funder (i.e., fiduciary), and thus, any collaborating partners become subcontractors of the applicant organization. Therefore, because collaborating organizations are embarking on a joint business venture, it behooves the organizations to clearly identify the role that each will play, specifying the work activities to be performed by each as well as the time frames in which certain activities will be accomplished and any deliverables, such as reports, data, and other documentation, will be completed. The role and work expectations are directly tied to payment. In addition, expectations about communication should be outlined to establish types (e.g., telephone, e-mail, meetings) and frequency of communication. A formal contract should be drafted to articulate all these expectations and to also address issues related to dissolving the relationship. However, the contract is typically maintained between the collaborating organizations, while a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement is the document that is prepared and signed for submission with the proposal. The Memo of Understanding/Agreement is usually required by the funding agency to provide evidence of the collaboration and captures the basic primary aspects of the contract. The Memo of Understanding/Agreement does not include all the details contained in the contract that are particularly necessary to establish the business relationship between the collaborating organizations but, rather, includes the basic facts of the relationship. In addition to clearly defining the roles and expectations of collaborating organizations, collaborative organizations often wish to either jointly develop the proposal and/or provide significant input to the proposal. Like all collaborative development projects, working together on a grant proposal requires negotiation of roles, consensus building, and solid interpersonal skills in order to develop the best product that reflects shared ownership. Fortunately, these are skills that most counselors and other mental health professionals naturally possess. Each of these issues—time considerations, depth of material needed, justifying professional/organizational capability, letters of support, and collaboration—must be given considerable thought when developing a proposal. Each of the issues may have specific ramifications for the proposal development process and, ultimately, for the proposal outcome; therefore, it is essential that each is given attention before and during the proposal development process. Major Aspects of Proposal Development In addition to the factors outlined above, there are also a great many aspects of proposal development that should be examined. In particular, there are four that I would like to specifically discuss here, because they are more universal in nature than others. These are the use of grant writers or program developers, planning for the work of proposal development, the skills needed in proposal writing, and the use of internal reviewers. To begin this discussion, let’s first tackle the issue of using external grant writers versus internal program developers to develop the grant proposal. Internal Versus External Grant Writers/Proposal Developers Because I am using the term grant writer here, I do want to again clarify that I am speaking solely about grant writing for program/project development and not for fundraising or other charitable giving activities—an important distinction to make. Particularly with the number of grant-writing workshops and consultation services available today, organizations may struggle with deciding whether they should hire a grant writer to develop their proposal or write their proposals independently—with valid reasons for doing both. As such, reasons for hiring a grant writer may include, but are not necessarily limited to, not having an employee on staff that might be capable of developing a proposal, not being able to allow an existing staff person to take time away from other duties in order to develop a proposal, wishing to utilize someone with prior experience in successfully securing funding in hopes of increasing the organization’s chance of securing grant funding, and utilizing a grant writer for assistance in developing initial proposals so that existing employees can begin to learn to develop their own proposals. As you can see, organizations may decide to hire a grant writer for various reasons. In addition, some organizations may choose to contract with a grant writer for specific projects or on a part- or full-time basis. Organizations that employ a grant writer part- or full-time may also decide to contract a grant writer for a specific project, especially if it involves new territory for the organization or the organization’s leaders feel that a grant writer’s services may be especially needed for a certain proposal. However, whereas hiring a grant writer often makes sense for an organization, today’s program developers/mental health professionals should know how to develop their own proposals. Just as mental health professionals must be competent at developing their own budgets, managing the finances of their program, developing job descriptions, and hiring staff, proposal development skills compose another essential aspect of the 21st-century mental health professional. This does not mean that external grant writers cannot be used to provide additional support and guidance, particularly as one is learning to become effective in proposal development, but it does mean that external grant writers should not be used instead of program developers but in addition to, as needed. This is especially true since, unlike finance and human resource personnel that are specially credentialed and needed to serve a core function within an organization, there are no specific credentials for grant writers. Rather, grant-writing skills are learned and, therefore, can be acquired by anyone and particularly by mental health professionals. In addition, someone’s success in securing past funding for a specific type of program does not necessarily translate into success in securing grants in other areas or in the future. Consider the major aspects of a proposal that were examined earlier—depth of material, justification of personal and organizational capability, letters of support, and collaboration. None of these major aspects of a proposal has to do with writing skills but, rather, with having specific structure and knowledge in place that can be utilized to make an effective argument. Therefore, while an external grant writer may be able to provide the narrative of a proposal, s/he can only do so based on work that has already been done or is being accomplished by the organization and, as such, is not creating but rather stating what the organization has done/plans to do. In addition, hiring a grant writer may mean that an organization will miss an opportunity for organizational engagement. This is because when someone outside the organization is hired to perform work that will ultimately be done within the organization, the initial opportunity to engage staff in the project may be lost. This is no different than any time that someone external is brought in to perform specific work or to do something that is part of the organization. Therefore, unless organizational leaders are purposeful in their efforts to involve key staff in the grant-writing process, it is unlikely that the staff will feel engaged in or connected to the project. Unfortunately, this lack of engagement at the proposal development stage can result in a lack of engagement in the project if and when it’s funded. Finally, whereas for some organizations, hiring an external grant writer is simply a question of economics—Can we afford to hire this person or not?—for others, it is a question of hedging the bet and trying to minimize risk—ensuring that you hire the best person for the job and achieve the right outcome. Both of these can come with significant financial risk to the organization since most organizations have to pay for grant-writing services regardless of the success or lack thereof of the proposal being funded. While this is perfectly understandable, it does raise the issue of using a pay structure that can both reduce financial risk to the organization and reward positive outcomes. For instance, organizations that do wish to hire a grant writer should consider a two-tier pay structure: a minimum amount down for proposal development and submission and a second payout if the proposal is funded. By doing this, organizations would be in a position to negotiate their financial risk—an issue made more critical today within the climate of shrinking dollars. For each of these reasons and more, it makes most sense to view grant writing/proposal writing as simply a component of comprehensive program development and not as an activity to be done solely by individuals external to the organization. By doing so, mental health professionals are able to expand their repertoire and learn to effectively articulate the reasons that their programs should be funded—an essential part of program development. Interestingly, just as securing funding is essential to the survival of mental health and human service providers, it is often equally important to researchers. As a result and in order to ensure that young researchers are equipped with the ability to develop their own proposals, colleges (Blair, Cline, & Bowen, 2007) and professional associations (Kessel, 2006) have provided specific instruction in this area. In fact, Jacksonville State University developed three new courses for its undergraduate biology students to increase knowledge and skills related to developing effective research designs and proposals. And Kessel, writing for the American College of Chest Physicians, not only provides a highly useful article about grant writing across disciplines but also includes some simple tips for grant writers, such as check out the websites of grant-making agencies for tips, have your proposal reviewed before submission, and attempt to participate on the review panel of a funding agency to learn more about the evaluation process. By taking these extra steps, professions outside mental health are reinforcing the necessity of grant-writing skills for their colleagues—a necessity that mental health professions share. Therefore, we must have the same expectations for ourselves and ensure that we, too, have mechanisms in place by which to teach grant-writing skills. Planning for the Work Because developing a proposal is often such a tremendous undertaking, effective planning is crucial to successful proposal development. This is particularly necessary given the aggressive deadlines associated with many funding opportunities. First and foremost, long before you prepare to develop an application for funding, you must garner support from administrators and other organizational leaders. This will ensure (1) that you do not waste any time pursuing something that you may not be able to complete after an initial investment of time and energy, (2) that you have the necessary resources to effectively complete the proposal, and (3) that you are able to devote sufficient time to completing the proposal. Once you have received support for the project, there are several logistical aspects of planning that must be considered. Because developing a proposal often requires the input of other individuals—in addition to the program developer—it is necessary to treat the proposal development process as you would any type of time-limited project. This typically means ensuring that everyone with a need to know understands the expectations for the proposal development project and that concrete plans are in place to see the process to completion. Often, this minimally involves the following steps: Identify all the individuals that will need to be involved in the proposal development, including internal reviewers and professionals from collaborating organizations. Hold an initial meeting to discuss the proposal, develop a plan for completion, and clarify the roles that each individual will have in the proposal development process. Schedule time to complete the proposal based on the proposal deadline. Schedule an update (if needed) and final meeting with all the involved individuals to review progress and finalize the proposal. Skills of Proposal Writing Specific skills are needed for successful proposal writing. These include both priority skills that are based on comprehensive program development and secondary skills that are needed to complete the proposal. Priority skills refer to the activities that have been previously completed in the program development model, including the following: Ability to develop a rationale for the program/project through identifying a need and target population Ability to establish a research basis for program design to effectively address the needs Ability to identify and incorporate multicultural aspects in program design Ability to design an effective clinical program Ability to design a staffing and organizational structure to effectively implement the program Ability to plan an effective budget that directly ties program interventions to outcomes Ability to design an evaluation program that effectively assesses the program Each of these skills directly corresponds with a previous step already covered in the text, with the exception of Step X (Evaluate the Program), which is covered in Chapter 12. See Table 10.1 for an illustration of this connection. Table 10.1 Priority Skills and Corresponding Program Development Steps As you can see, the priority skills are simply the basic skills that program developers must possess. Therefore, mental health professionals who possess these skills will find that they already have the most critical skills needed to develop a successful grant proposal. You will note that none of these skills refers to writing but, rather, to possessing a sophisticated level of knowledge and skills. Secondary skills refer to additional skills needed for successful proposal development. Unlike the priority skills listed above, secondary skills refer to writing and other logistical aspects of proposal development that include such issues as articulation, flow of ideas, organizing the proposal, and compliance with proposal requirements (see Box 10.1). BOX 10.1 SECONDARY SKILLS FOR WRITING A SUCCESSFUL PROPOSAL Review all application instructions thoroughly to gain a firm understanding of content and submission requirements. Determine if any presubmission steps are required prior to application submission, and complete these steps. Write in an articulate and concise manner. Ensure that there is an effective flow of ideas that is directional, beginning with justification for the project, then the project description, and then the project outcomes. Communicate a firm understanding of what the funding source is looking for—speak the language of the funding source, as applicable. Develop all required tools and other documents. Collect and compile other required documents. After completing the application, conduct a thorough review to ensure that you have completed all required documents. Read the entire proposal packet personally in order to critically evaluate it, paying special attention to the following: thoroughness in responding to all content requirements, soundness of proposal, flow of information throughout the proposal, and justification for budget and plan given the identified scope of problem/identified needs. In addition, successful grant writing requires significant preparation and deep knowledge about not only the proposed program but what other research or programs have previously been funded and how to speak directly to the grant maker’s interests (Devine, 2009). Finally, the use of a team approach to grant writing may prove successful to the proposal development process (Miller, 2008). In addition to scholarly articles, books, and tips from professional associations, there are several web-based resources that may be helpful to the proposal development process (see Box 10.2). BOX 10.2 WEB RESOURCES FOR PROPOSAL WRITING Action Without Borders: www.idealist.org The Foundation Center: http://foundationcenter.org The Grantsmanship Center: www.tgci.com U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.gov/ogd/recipient/tips.htm However, whereas these websites may provide useful broad-based suggestions about grant writing, they should not be used in place of all suggestions and guidance provided by the funding agency. In fact, many funding agencies provide both general and specific tips, suggestions, and strategies to improve your proposal, and therefore, obtaining all the available information and guidance from the funding agency itself is essential to the success of a proposal. Internal Reviewers In addition to the overwhelming amount of work involved in developing a proposal, there are also significant stakes involved as a result of the initial investment of time and work and the degree of risk/potential business outcomes at play. As a result, every attempt should be made to ensure that you have developed the best proposal possible. Having completed due diligence throughout the process is essential, just as is reviewing the proposal personally and checking and double-checking that all the requirements have been met. But another set of eyes—or two—should also thoroughly review the entire proposal to ensure that it is strong. Reviewers should particularly be those individuals who possess the necessary objectivity to effectively evaluate the proposal. In fact, critiques by colleagues can be particularly helpful in evaluating the content of the proposal and the effectiveness of the argument (Hegyvary, 2005). These critiques are completed by internal reviewers—individuals who did not participate in the proposal development and who are not a part of the funding agency’s review team and, therefore, are able to be highly objective. Internal reviewers may be from within your organization or outside it, depending on who is accessible to you. It is obviously ideal to utilize someone external to your organization as a reviewer if you can; however, this is not always possible, especially today, given the competitive environment in which mental health and human service organizations operate—indeed, some program developers are afraid of sharing too much information with competitors. Regardless of who is identified as an internal reviewer, what is most important is that the individual(s) is familiar with grant proposals and has reviewed the particular funding opportunity so that s/he has a firm understanding of the purpose of the funding opportunity and the requirements of the proposal. The review should focus on three key areas: The content of the proposal, including the strength of the entire argument (e.g., identified need, program design, budget) The writing Compliance with the funding opportunity requirements Because the proposal will be reviewed by a team of reviewers upon submission, this type of internal review may serve as a preliminary, comprehensive review resulting in valuable feedback about the proposal and its merits that can be used to further strengthen the proposal. Often, internal reviews may identify thoughts or arguments that have not been articulated clearly enough, grammatical issues, or lack of substantial evidence to support claims—each of which, once corrected, is understandably helpful in improving the proposal. In addition, using internal reviewers can help prepare you for the official review process. Other Considerations in Proposal Development There are two other considerations in proposal development that deserve special attention here: Experience as a reviewer Specific attention to budget requests While it is critically important that you fully understand the funding source—its history, philosophy, and major goals—prior to pursuing a funding opportunity to ensure that you fully understand the rationale and broader context of the funding opportunity, it is wise to also have deep knowledge of the review process. To this end, it is recommended that you apply to become a reviewer for grant proposals for the sources with whom you most likely will be applying. However, if you cannot review for a funding source that is particularly relevant to you, seek out other review opportunities, since it is the experience of reviewing itself that is most valuable. By participating as a reviewer, you are able to gain firsthand knowledge of the review process, learning precisely how proposals are evaluated, if there are particular issues that tend to resonate with the funders, and what a successful proposal looks like. As you can imagine, this experience can be invaluable to you as you develop your own proposal. The findings from a study examining the personal perspectives of scientists who served as reviewers for the National Science Foundation further highlight some reasons why reviewing may be pivotal as a professional endeavor (Porter, 2005). After examining the primary motivational factors influencing reviewers to engage in the review process, the findings included four main reasons (Porter, 2005): A desire to learn the ropes about the review process in order to improve their own proposal development skills A strong obligation to serve the professional community A desire to remain current and relevant in their own work through learning about the work of others Additional opportunity for professional networking Each of these issues can also easily be applied to explain why mental health professionals should participate in the review process. The second issue has to do with paying specific attention to the budget. Aside from ensuring that the budget is commensurate with the plan and the identified needs and that all expenditures are justified, specific attention must be paid to ensuring that the budget accurately reflects the needs of the proposal. To this end, budgets typically should not contain items such as computers, office space, and other items that are regular expenses of the organization but, rather, specialized items that are specifically needed to implement the program/project. As Devine (2009) summarizes, Budgets are often very specific and include salaries for personnel, equipment, supplies, travel to the field site, travel to meetings to present results, and educational support, as allowed. Each aspect of the budget must be sufficiently justified to ensure accountability to the grant makers; time frames must be included. Justifying the proportion and duration of each individual’s time is critical. (p. 584) In addition, projected expenditures for program evaluation and other such specialized activities must be competitive and limited to fair pricing. In simple terms, all expenses must be fully justified, and budgets cannot contain any fluff—either in budgeted items or projected costs. Some funding sources provide specific guidelines to ensure these restrictions, such as prohibiting certain expenditures (e.g., hardware, rent) and limiting expenditures for specific activities, such as program evaluation. In fact, it is common today in federal grant opportunities to limit program evaluation activities to no more than 20% of the total cost requested in the proposal. Summary As you well know by now, available funding for mental health and human service programs is highly limited and, as a result, extremely competitive. Therefore, successfully acquiring funding is no easy task but, rather, one that is quite challenging and predicated on effective research skills, creativity, and the ability to establish sound justification for both the proposal and the professional skills, knowledge, and organizational infrastructure needed to implement the proposal. In addition, grant proposals require support from the applicant organization and input from other individuals and, therefore, are rarely completed independently. It is precisely because of each of these issues and the necessary unique skills that program developers are best suited to lead the grant proposal process. Although developing the actual proposal does require a significant amount of skill and attention to detail, the proposal itself has already been built for those who have completed Steps II through VII of the comprehensive program development model. Doing so means that all the essential building blocks of a grant proposal have been assembled, and the job of the program developer then focuses on consolidating all the work into the most effective proposal and presenting a clear argument for funding. It is in this manner that the task of developing the grant application allows the program developer to integrate all the program development steps—allowing for the sum of work to come together into a coherent, effective, and highly justifiable plan. CASE ILLUSTRATION Maya had been working in the schools with kids who had various types of learning disorders and their families. The program was a collaborative effort between the human service agency for which Maya worked and the local school district. During the past year, Maya had become more and more disturbed by what appeared to be an increase in youth violence, including new gang activity. As a result of her increasing concern, Maya had spent the past several months systematically gathering information and designing a prevention and treatment program to prevent and combat the issue. She began by investigating whether what she thought was a problem/need (i.e., youth violence) really was. To this end, she conducted a comprehensive needs assessment, asset map, and market analysis and found that a need did exist—not only had there been a 36% increase in youth violence over the past 2 years, but there was no formal programming currently in place to address the issue from either a preventive or treatment aspect. Maya then began an exhaustive review of the research and other literature to begin learning the most effective strategies for addressing the issue. From this, she was able to design a community-based prevention program as well as a treatment program that would involve caregivers and teachers and that would be delivered in the schools and community, with specific reinforcement provided in the home by the caregivers. Having previously discussed this potential need for new programming with her supervisors and administrators, Maya was able to then work directly with her agency’s human resources and finance departments in order to collaboratively design an effective staffing infrastructure and an operating budget for both programs. Whereas Maya led the development of both the staffing infrastructure and the projected budget, she was able to gain valuable input from the finance and human resources administrators, particularly in regard to developing job descriptions and pay scales. Realizing she could get more accomplished if she shared the work, Maya spoke with Sofia, one of her colleagues, to see if she was interested in working on the project. Sofia was interested, noting her shared passion for this type of program. Both Sofia and Maya began exploring funding opportunities, and each set aside 20 minutes each week to explore two free websites dedicated to philanthropic and federal funding opportunity notifications. In addition, the administrators at their organization were looking out for any related funding opportunities from the state or local government. After identifying a specific charitable organization that had funded youth programs in the past and that currently was focused on children and youth programs, Sofia and Maya developed a letter of inquiry briefly outlining the program proposals. Because this particular funding source accepted only letters of inquiry, they followed the instructions provided and submitted such a letter in hopes of being invited to submit a full proposal. A week later, Maya and Sofia received an announcement for a funding opportunity for youth violence prevention programming. The state’s Department of Human Services issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for violence prevention programs in their target community. The terms of the RFP included $130,000 annually for a period of 3 years to fund evidence-based programming. In addition, proposed interventions were required to utilize a multisystemic approach and were expected to be provided for at least 6 months. Although Maya had viewed the RFP just 3 days after it was issued, the application deadline was less than 3 weeks away. They quickly got to work divvying up the assignments and scheduled an initial meeting with a fellow clinician, case manager, administrator, and representatives from the information technology, finance, and human resources departments to review the RFP. Together, the group developed a plan for completing the proposal that included the finance representative gathering all the required corporate documentation and information, the information technology representative developing a draft response to the application sections regarding computer and communication technology, and the fellow clinician gathering the required letters of support from the schools and community organizations. Because Maya had previously developed relationships with the local schools and two community organizations providing youth programming, the letters simply solidified the relationships that she had already worked to establish as part of program implementation. Maya and Sofia would lead the development of the application—largely using the proposal that Maya had already developed—gaining input from others, as needed. In addition, the administrator agreed to serve as an internal reviewer, and Sofia and Maya were also able to get one of their former colleagues, who was practicing out of state, to agree to be a second reviewer. Once they sat down to complete the application, they were relieved and happy to see that a multisystemic approach was required, since Maya had learned from reviewing the literature that multisystemic approaches had been proven effective in preventing youth violence. This reinforced the thoroughness of her work on the literature review and subsequent program design. The only aspect of the application that they struggled with was justifying professional capability to effectively carry out the program through an individual with expertise since there was not someone in the organization with specific expertise in youth violence prevention. To deal with this, Sofia and Maya decided to argue from the point of view of organizational capability via rich experience with youth and family treatment coupled with strong ties to the schools and specific community organizations, one of which did specialize in violence prevention. Because Maya had already developed a comprehensive proposal, completing the application simply involved tailoring the proposal to the requirements, compiling required tools and other documents and collecting other documentation. Maya and Sofia and the rest of their team were able to meet their self-imposed deadline of completing the application 6 days before it was due so that both Sofia and Maya could fully review the proposal and then have it reviewed by both the administrator and out-of-state colleague. Following the reviews, Maya and Sofia made final changes, and the proposal was submitted the day before the deadline. Postscript Six weeks later, Sofia and Maya received notice from the charitable organization to which they had submitted the letter of inquiry that they would not be invited to submit a full proposal. Citing economic challenges, the philanthropic organization informed them that they would not be pursuing any new ventures until the following year but that they could resubmit another letter of inquiry at that time. They were disappointed about this, particularly because they thought they had identified a solid match to fund one or both of their programs. Maya and Sofia were not upset for too long, though. Two months later, they received notification that they had been awarded the state contract for youth violence prevention programming. Maya and Sofia were promoted to program director and supervisor, respectively, and they began preparing for program implementation. They—and organizational leaders—felt that gaining this experience in violence prevention would well position their organization to pursue youth violence treatment programming in the future; so they decided to dedicate their energies to the newly awarded contract and shelve the treatment program with an eye toward possibly pursuing funding for it in the near future.
