ACET, Inc. Blog

We recently found a couple of grant announcements that you may be interested in reviewing:

Kessler Foundation’s Signature Employment Grant Program is looking to provide funds to organizations that have innovative solutions to address employment issues for individuals with disabilities. Projects should be collaborative, serve a large geographic area, and have multiple funding partners and stakeholders. Click here to review the entire announcement: http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/rfp_item.jhtml?id=317400004

The Bush Foundation’s Bush Fellowship Program is providing funds to organizations that plan to work on addressing community issues. Anyone in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the 23 Native nations in that same geographical area can apply to receive funds; the Bush Foundation does not expect recipients to take a leave of absence from their current position. Click here to review the entire announcement: http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/rfp_item.jhtml?id=317400002

General Mills, in partnership with the American Dietetic Association Foundation and the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition, is in its ninth cycle of offering 50 Champions for Healthy Kids grants of $10,000 each. Grants will only be awarded to nonprofit organizations with innovative programs that help youth develop good nutrition and fitness habits.

To give you some idea of the types of programs funded, the website highlights one example program that was awarded a grant last year: The PS 140 program, based in New York, offered after-school, monthly workshops to low-income students. Each month highlighted a new activity. Activities included karate, basketball, and gardening. In Oklahoma, another grant was offered to Growing Path to Wellness, a program that taught kids about nutrition by having them construct a greenhouse and grow their own fruits and vegetables.

If interested in applying to the Champions for Healthy Kids grant, apply by December 15^th, 2010 at 5pm CST. Funding for grant recipients will be available June of 2011. For more information, take a look at the complete request for proposals: http://www.generalmills.com/Responsibility/Community_Engagement/Grants/Champions_for_healthy_kids.aspx

At ACET we like to keep up-to-date on grant opportunities and we recently came across one of particular interest for education professionals. As you may know, Target commits 5% of its income to the communities in which Target stores are located and funds programs such as “Meals for Minds,” a program that helps feed K-12 students in need, and school library makeovers to help schools improve their library facilities and collections.

Recently, Philanthropy News Digest included an announcement stating that Target will be offering Field Trip Grants this year. Target is offering 5,000 Field Trip Grants of $700 each to schools for the 2010-2011 school year for the purpose of executing a field trip that will provide a “demonstrable learning experience” (http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/rfp_item.jhtml?id=306900023) for students. In particular, the goal of the Field Trip Grants is to connect the classroom curriculum with students’ experiences out of school.

To be eligible for the grant, one must be an education professional who is at least 18 years of age and employed by an accredited non-profit public, private, or charter school. Applications are due by September 30^th, 2010. Selection is managed entirely by Scholarship America.

For further details, an online application, and an idea generator see the following link: http://sites.target.com/site/en/company/page.jsp?contentId=WCMP04-031880

Joseph

This July I participated in a “multi-tier” review of grant applications for the U.S. Department of Education. It was a great experience! I learned a lot about how grants are reviewed at the Federal level and would like to share those processes and some advice with you.

Review Processes

Under a multi-tier review, the required proposal elements are divided into sections and reviewers assess and score specific sections of the proposal. Reviewers are assigned to different tiers based on their level of expertise. At the end of each tier of reviewing, the highest scoring applications move on to the next tier for additional review. Checks-and-balances are built into the entire process to ensure that the entire review process is fair and equitable.

For example, I was a Tier II reviewer and the applications had already been scored on four proposal elements. The Tier II reviewers read and scored the applications for two additional sections: the research foundation of the application and proposed evaluation activities (we did have to read the entire proposal, but scored only those two sections). After reading the assigned applications, I participated in a conference call with another reviewer assigned to the same applications and a panel monitor (an employee of the U.S. Department of Education). During the conference calls, the reviewers discussed the merits and challenges of each application and how well each met the scoring criteria. The reviewers also worked towards aligning the assessments so that we were consistent in our application of the review criteria for all of the applications.

Grant Application Advice

Three key themes emerged from my review:

1 – Make sure the application covers all of the required elements outlined in the RFP.
One of the proposals I read did not include background research or theory in the narrative. As a result, the reviewers scored that section quite low. Although this advice may feel self-evident, it’s a pretty good bet that elements listed as ‘required’ in the RFP will be included as scorable criteria in the review phase. It is very important and very beneficial to have someone read the application and verify that it covers all required elements before submitting it.

2 – Ensure space and point allocations are proportional to application pages.
One of the applications I read included more than five pages describing background research (worth up to 10 points) and but fewer than five pages describing the proposed evaluation (worth up to 15 points). While the research section was very detailed (and was scored highly), the description of the proposed evaluation was very short and the lack of detail resulted in a lower score for the proposed evaluation section. When writing a grant application, it’s important that sections that are worth more points be allocated more space in the proposal than sections worth fewer points. This is especially true when there is a page limit to the proposal!

3 – Review, re-read, and edit the application to ensure an appropriate breadth and depth of the narrative.
Several of the applications I scored included descriptions of proposed evaluation activities that were so broad and sweeping it was difficult to determine what the evaluation would be. With highly competitive grant competitions such as the one I reviewed for, it’s very important to give the reviewers enough breadth and depth in the narrative so they get a sense of proposed program activities, why the program is needed, when the program has been successful in the past, and how the proposed program will be evaluated.

I hope this information is useful to you and your agency when you prepare an application for a grant. Please comment below or email me if you have any questions or would like additional information!

Kirsten

The SpectrumTrust Multicultural Endowment, a part of The Saint Paul Foundation, is asking for applications to provide grants to groups throughout Minnesota who are looking to develop projects to alleviate racism, especially in the areas of education, housing, or employment. The mission for establishing this endowment is “to improve the quality of life of Minnesota’s communities of color through building relevant and long-lasting philanthropic resources that promote social justice and cross-cultural understanding.”

The Multicultural Endowment is interested in projects that accomplish one or more of the following:

• Build community-based responses to the effects of racism
• Change attitudes and behaviors
• Change policies to reflect inclusion and fairness
• Offer social and economic opportunities

Grants of up to $20,000 will be offered and submissions are due by Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

See the website for more details: http://www.mnideaopen.org/multiculturalendowment

Cassie

In this week’s funding alert from The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and National Sexual Violence Resource Center (http://new.vawnet.org/category/index_pages.php?category_id=5#417), several educational scholarship opportunities were announced; adult women who are facing challenges such as divorce, death of a spouse, disabilities, domestic violence, and/or job loss; or workers in the field of domestic violence. The scholarships range from $1,000 to $3,000 and can be used to pay education- and employment-related expenses such as tuition and fees, certifications, books and supplies, child care, transportation, uniforms, and supplies.

Information about these opportunities can be found here:

Allstate Education and Job Training Assistance Fund, http://www.nnedv.org/projects/allstatefoundtion/ejtf.html

Jeannette Rankin Women’s Scholarship Fund, http://www.rankinfoundation.org/
(Applications for a 2011 Rankin Scholarship will be available on November 1, 2010.)

Women’s Independence Scholarship Program, http://www.wispinc.org/Programs/WISP/tabid/62/Default.aspx

Counselor, Advocate, and Support Staff Scholarship, http://www.wispinc.org/Programs/CASS/tabid/63/Default.aspx

Heather

In March, Heather and Kirsten wrote about their experience in the “Grant Writing Boot Camp” and touched briefly on SMART goals. This post will provide a little more insight into developing goals that meet the criterion of being “SMART.”

SMART stands for:  Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound. Let’s review each term one at a time.

Let’s make up an imaginary program and work through creating a SMART goal our fake program: Forever Homes, our hypothetical agency, helps dogs in need of homes find permanent (“forever”) homes.

Specific. To say a goal is specific indicates that the goal itself is not too broadly identified. For Forever Homes, a goal could be stated as “rescue dogs.” While this is a goal of the program, it is not specific. What does it mean to “rescue” a dog? Do we mean rescue all dogs from human ownership and free them to the wild (hopefully not!)?

A more specific goal might be something like “Find forever homes for homeless dogs in Minneapolis.” This goal has been improved in a number of ways: We have identified a specific target (homeless dogs); limited our region for homeless dogs (Minneapolis); and defined “rescue” (find forever homes).

Measurable. A measurable goal is simply one that can be measured. By making a goal specific, we are well on our way to having a measurable goal. It is much easier to measure the specific goal, “find forever homes for homeless dogs in Minneapolis” rather than “rescue dogs.” We can measure specifically how many dogs that have been rescued Minneapolis have been placed in forever homes.

Attainable. An attainable goal is one that is able to be reached. Our current goal, “find forever homes for homeless dogs in Minneapolis,” is specific and measurable, but do we really expect to find forever homes for all homeless dogs in Minneapolis? So, to make our goal more attainable, let’s update it to “find forever homes for 90% of the homeless dogs in Minneapolis identified by Forever Homes.” That’s a goal that might be attainable, as opposed to 100% of dogs.

Realistic. This is very similar to an attainable goal; however, just because our goal is attainable does not mean it is realistic. Finding a forever home for 90% of dogs, although possible, might be far beyond what the organization could expect to realistically achieve. Perhaps a more realistic goal is “find forever homes for 75% of the homeless dogs in Minneapolis identified by Forever Homes.”

Time-bound. The most recent version of our goal may have already sprung the question “wait, what if a homeless dog is found a day before the data is reported for evaluation? Should we really count that dog as ‘not having a forever home’ because the dog has only had one day to find a home?” This is one example of why one must make SMART goals time-bound. Let’s revise our goal again: “find forever homes within 6 months for 75% of the homeless dogs in Minneapolis identified by Forever Homes.” One needs to ask here if the time-bound condition is realistic.

We began with “rescue dogs” and ended with “find forever homes within 6 months for 75% of the homeless dogs in Minneapolis identified by Forever Homes.” There is a drastic difference between the two and it should be obvious through the discussion that the second goal achieves SMART status.

Have any insight into SMART goal development you’d like to share? Any follow-up questions? Please comment below.

In September Kirsten and I attended a “Grant Writing Boot Camp^TM” facilitated by Dr. Bev Browning and co-sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention, and Parenting (MOAPPP). As evaluators, we don’t write a lot of grants, however sometimes we do help our clients write the evaluation sections of their proposals and both Kirsten and I have interest in building our grant writing skills. In our capacity at ACET, however, we are always on the look-out for funding opportunities that might be of interest to the organizations we work with, so it was really helpful that Dr. Browning covered popular and less utilized resources used to identify potential funders and gave insightful tips on grant writing in the workshop. Participants practiced writing grant applications including powerful statement of need, goal statements, and SMART objectives.

Dr. Browning spent a fair amount of time focusing on the importance of writing “great” goal statements (i.e., the end one strives to obtain) and the difference between the three types of objectives (i.e., major milestone or checkpoint on your rout to reaching a goal): outcome, process, and impact.

Dr. Browning’s suggestions for writing “great” goal statements include:

• Goal statements should be only one sentence in length;
• Goal statements should be clear and concise (i.e., who is the target population and where should they be at the end of the grant period);
• Goal statements should be action-oriented and full of verbs; and
• Goal statements should not include any measurements or timelines.

Here is an example of a good goal statement: The Earthquake Relief Organization will design a new program to educate government officials on building code standards to prevent future injuries and casualties from building collapse.

In her book Grant Writing for Dummies, Dr. Browning encourages grant writers to provide objectives for each goal (and each year) for which they are requesting funds, and outlines the differences between the three types of objectives.

Outcome objectives show what the project will accomplish with the planned activities and should include terms such as increase and decrease. Dr. Browning suggests thinking SMART when writing outcome objectives: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.

Here is an example of a SMART outcome objective: Participants who have been in the program for one year or more will have maintained safe and stable housing for at least 3 months.

Process objectives are the activities needed to reach your goals and meet or exceed your measurable outcomes, or SMART objectives. Process objectives should include the actual, chronological activities that need to occur from the time you received grant funding until the monies have been spent. Dr. Browning suggests the best way to present your process objectives is in a table format (e.g., timeline chart). Process objectives should not include measurable terms (e.g., increase or decrease), they should, however, be written quantifiably.

Here is an example of a process objective: Six new staff will be trained to administer family counseling to program participants in the first year.

Impact objectives demonstrate the achievement of the goal of the project or program and show the reader there has been an impact or change on the target population. They are generally used when grant writers are asked to write about benefits to participants. There are no common words in impact objectives, but they should include signs of significant change.

Here is an example of an impact objective: Prevents family disruptions by providing intensive residential family services to women and children experiencing substance abuse.

I hope this information has been helpful. Do any of you have grant writing tips you would like to share with us?

Heather