Pre-Conference Workshop Keys to Successful Grantsmanship During Difficult Economic Times Jeanne Gleason, New Mexico State University Teresa McCoy, University of Maryland Extension March 23, 2010
Download ReportTranscript Pre-Conference Workshop Keys to Successful Grantsmanship During Difficult Economic Times Jeanne Gleason, New Mexico State University Teresa McCoy, University of Maryland Extension March 23, 2010
Pre-Conference Workshop Keys to Successful Grantsmanship During Difficult Economic Times Jeanne Gleason, New Mexico State University Teresa McCoy, University of Maryland Extension March 23, 2010 Disclosures We have received a large number of grants in the past. We will apply for more food safety grants in the future. We are always looking for grant partnerships. We believe everyone benefits when the overall quality of submitted grants improves. We will freely share all our tips and skills learned over the past 30 years for getting more grants and will answer every question to the best of our ability. Goal To help you become more competitive, efficient, and successful in your search for new program resources. Today’s Workshop Outline Who are you and what do you want from today? Where can you start looking for funding? What are the first steps towards success? What are the ‘Nuts and Bolts’ of proposal writing? Are there any ‘Silver Bullets’ or winning tricks? How can you sabotage your chances of success? What should you do when you are rejected? What should you do when you are funded? http://mediaproductions.nmsu.edu/grants Who are we? Our backgrounds Our experience with grants Our current activities What we hope to offer you What we most want to learn Jeanne Gleason Teresa McCoy Who are you? 9 from universities, 8 from non-universities From across the USA Range from graduate students to professors to extension specialists to administrators We believe you all have one thing in common: You have a desire to understand how to be more successful during difficult economic times. Tell us about yourself Your experience with grants Novice? Somewhat I successful? should be teaching this workshop! Your current interest or ideas What you most want to learn today So what comes first? Your idea? Your potential funders’ ideas? A fundable idea Innovative Likely Fills to advance an area of science. critical knowledge gaps. Science- or data-driven. Working toward a long-term goal High impact that is measurable Where do you find fundable ideas? Scientific journals, conferences, peers The news, current events, current problems Questions Your raised by past research funders’ current programs Current Think RFAs (Requests for Applications) big and broad—but be prudent! Your Turn - Your Ideas Break What into teams are your ‘fundable ideas http://cris.nifa.usda.gov/search.html Search results The Details Types of Funding Contract - Funder derives benefit (goods or services) Cooperative Agreement – Agreement between two or more government agencies to benefit the public. Gifts – funds received for which no specific goods or services will directly benefit the sponsor Grants – government support of state or local projects serving the good of the public where nothing benefits the federal government and no long-term involvement is expected from the federal government. Where can you look for funding? http://grants.gov Go to the agency’s website Who funded projects you admire? Who funded your peers? Ask your office of grants and contracts http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/funding.cfm The Golden Rule of Grantsmanship The People With The Gold Make The Rules First Steps to Success Constantly Always Think Start be thinking about new ideas be looking for partnerships like an evaluator working long before the RFA is released Is your idea worth your time/energy? What problem are you trying to address? Will your project help solve an applied food safety issue? What is your most compelling evidence that your project should be funded over others? How will you know when you have achieved your goals? Examine your logic and resources Do Is your project ‘theory driven’? Do Is you know your field’s literature? you have adequate expertise? If not, partner. there preliminary data to support your project? Are you using the most effective methodology? Have you involved an evaluation expert from the very beginning? Situation Statement (A.K.A. MAKE ME CONCERNED) OR WHAT IS THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE YOU CAN OFFER TO CONVINCE A GROUP OF PEERS THAT YOUR PROJECT SHOULD BE FUNDED OVER OTHERS—EVEN Key Issues: Foodborne illness, a preventable and underreported disease, is a public health YOUR BEST FRIEND?) and economic challenge in the United States. While it regularly strikes people in the general population, some¾-including pregnant women, young children, older adults, and those with weakened immune systems¾-are at even greater risk. Sharing food safety information with all populations and encouraging positive behavior modification during food preparation and consumption is necessary to reduce exposure to pathogens known to cause foodborne illness. The reduction of foodborne illness requires accurate diagnosis and timely reporting. It also requires public health intervention along the entire farm-to-table continuum. Food safety education and behavioral modification is the critical intervention at the table end of this continuum. Public health professionals and health care providers who develop health policy and who educate and medically treat general and at-risk populations are essential to recognizing, treating, and reducing foodborne illness. Food safety educators who develop and conduct food safety risk communication and outreach programs fill critical roles in communicating sciencebased food safety principles and practices that encourage positive behavior change among general and at-risk populations. Food industry professionals who write policy, provide food products, and create and distribute food safety information provide necessary safeguards in protecting both general and at-risk populations from foodborne illness. And scientific writers and journalists, along with other media, trade and health associations, and consumer groups, provide a strong link in the food safety chain by sharing information with all populations. It is only through the efforts of all of these groups that we can create positive behavior modification during food preparation and consumption, which is so necessary to reducing exposure to pathogens known to cause foodborne illness. Situation Statement (a.k.a. Grant Introduction) Where does it come from? What should be included? When is enough enough? What is the “outcome” of a situation statement? Don’t make mistakes in data! Situation Statement: Where does it come from? Real or “felt” (perceived) needs in a community Environmental scanning Data: Primary and secondary Stakeholders Funders Community of Practice Others? Situation Statement (What should be included) Clear statement of concern: Foodborne illness, a preventable and underreported disease, is a public health and economic challenge in the United States. While it regularly strikes people in the general population, some¾-including pregnant women, young children, older adults, and those with weakened immune systems¾-are at even greater risk. Each year in Maryland, XX people suffer from food-borne illnesses, representing XX percentage of the population. Of that number, XX will die due to complications. Leading to some type of needed action: It is only through the efforts of all of these groups that we can create positive behavior modification during food preparation and consumption, which is so necessary to reducing exposure to pathogens known to cause foodborne illness. Nuts and Bolts of proposal writing Remember The the Golden Rule RFA if your ‘Bible’ – read it often in detail Assemble Create Write Build your team, including evaluator a Logic Model, even if not required one page project summary a budget everyone agrees to follow Select a title and start your forms Create a proposal template from the RFA RFAs www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/rfas/afri_rfa.html RFA – the first look Are you eligible? Do the agency’s goals match your goals? $$ total funding and project limits? Is IDC (indirect costs) capped? What will be left over for your work? Are matching funds required? What is the deadline and project duration? Does it require a Letter of Intent? Building your team The best teams are already working together Select your evaluator and gain true involvement Should you call the agency’s project manager? Create a Logic Model, even if not required Inform your university/organization’s grants office. Start early asking the hard questions: Who is lead Budget division Ownership of findings/materials/patents Start forms and cooperative agreements Why start with evaluation? Establishes clarity about purpose. Have to know your destination to determine best route! Helps determine if project outcomes are measurable. Keeps the project grounded. Can help construct the roadmap. Can facilitate agreement on the team. What does a logic model look like? Graphic display of boxes and arrows; vertical or horizontal Relationships, linkages Any shape possible Circular, dynamic Cultural adaptations; storyboards Level of detail • simple • complex Multiple models Danger, Danger, Danger: Be sure to use the style the RFP says to use! Logic Model Chain of outcomes SHORT (knowledge) Seniors increase knowledge of food contamination risks MEDIUM (skills) Practice safe cooling of food; food preparation guidelines LONG-TERM (conditions) Lowered incidence of food borne illness Participants increase Establish financial goals, Reduced debt and knowledge and skills in use spending plan increased savings financial management Community increases understanding of childcare needs Residents and employers Child care needs are met discuss options and implement a plan Program Goal A broad statement indicating a desired result to be achieved by an educational program toward the resolution of an issue or problem To enhance the functioning of Maryland’s farm families in stressful situations by educating families in stress management strategies Program Objective States a result to be achieved by an educational program with a target audience Provides direction for program design, implementation, and evaluation Example Objective By April 2012, 100 managers, supervisory, and food handling personnel from public school cafeterias, nursing homes, and restaurants will increase their knowledge and skill in safe food handling practices by demonstrating increased knowledge of food microbiology. A program objective should include: Who should receive the program (the target audience) Level of change anticipated (including outcome indicators) Timeframe (typically one year) Outcome Indicators What will be measured to provide evidence that the objective has been achieved Two Types of Evaluations Process Evaluation (Formative) » Focuses on how the program is conducted. Results Evaluation (Outcome » evaluation) Focuses on the program’s effect Process Evaluation when you want to: Determine: » Strengths and weaknesses of instructional strategies. » How program implementation is perceived by program participants. Compare: » How the program was actually conducted and how the program was planned. Results Evaluation when you want to: Determine: » If educational objectives of the program were achieved » The impact/benefits of the program Decide: » Whether to continue, modify, expand, or end the program Logic Model Logic Model – PDF Attachment. Required for Education, Extension, and Integrated Projects Only. 2-Page Limit. Title the attachment as ‘Logic Model’ and save file as ‘LogicModel’ Logic Model Requirements: Beginning in FY 2010, Education and Extension Grants must include the elements of a logic model detailing the activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. This information may be provided as a narrative or formatted into a logic model chart. More information and resources related to the logic model planning process are provided at www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/integrated/integrated_logic_mo del.html. Integrated Grants will continue to require the inclusion of a Logic Model. There are many variations on the specific composition of a logic model. For its purposes, NIFA has developed a generic logic model that includes the following components: Situation � A description of the challenge or opportunity. The problem or issue to be addressed, within a complex of socio-political, environmental, and economic conditions. Inputs � What is invested, such as resources, contributions, and investments that are provided for the program. Activities - Activities are what the program does with its inputs to services it provides to fulfill its mission. Outputs - Products, services and events that are intended to lead to the program's outcomes. Outcomes - Planned results or changes for individuals, groups, communities, organizations or systems. Types of outcomes include: Change in knowledge � Occurs when there is a change in knowledge or the participants actually learn. Change in behavior � Occurs when there is a change in behavior or the participants act upon what they have learned. Change in condition � Occurs when a societal condition is improved. External factors � Variables that may have an effect on the portfolio, program, or project but which cannot be changed by the managers of the portfolio, program, or project. Assumptions � The premises based on theory, research, evaluation knowledge, etc. that support the relationships of the elements of the logic model and upon which the success of the portfolio, program, or project rests. Common Proposal Criticisms Missing forms; not in pdf; matching funds not documented; no or insufficient supporting information, for example on partnerships, etc. Poorly written and presented, too vague and unfocused, no logic model. PD lacks necessary experience/expertise to provide technical assistance to identified target group Poor justification of need for the project - insufficient review of other projects Too ambitious - cannot be completed in time frame, cannot recruit the number of participants, Lacks letters from consultants, partners, etc Lacks matching verification Target audience: not well-identified, not justified; PD has no prior experience serving this audience, etc. Weak management plan Weak evaluation plan Limited impact – additional contribution of the project to existing programs is not discussed, measurable outcomes are not identified Expected Outcomes and Means By Which Outcomes Will Be Analyzed, Assessed or Interpreted The educational program, including all outputs, will be developed to increase knowledge on environmental management issues, practices, and concepts for new and beginning young farmers and ranchers, as well as secondary agricultural educators and students. The program content will produce information usable by many audiences including stakeholders, professional agencies, disadvantaged audiences, community citizens, and producers. Research team members, stakeholders, extension agents, agricultural educators, and subject-matter experts will be utilized for content development of the educational program. To evaluate the impacts of the program, training, and outreach, a pre and post questionnaire method will be used to measure changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations as a result of the program. More specifically, the following indicators will be measured using survey methodology in both young farmers and ranchers and secondary agricultural educators: knowledge, skill, awareness, and aspiration changes of program audiences in environmental management; adoption and use of online technologies by producers and teachers; value of educational materials and programs to producers and teachers; use of developed educational materials by producers and teachers; development and input from an advisory board about current environmental issues to guide programming decisions; development of mentoring program for producers; development of an established network between stakeholders, experts, and producers on environmental issues measurable environmental changes and impacts on farms and ranches development of producer incentives for beginning farmers and ranchers The objectives-based evaluation design would include a pre-test at the beginning of year one (one for producers and one for teachers) to establish baseline data for comparison purposes. After years one, two, and three, a post-test will be conducted with each participant group to measure annual changes in these areas. Annual surveys measure the short and long-term effects of the project and programming efforts. Specific stakeholders and selected key individuals’ changes in knowledge, attitude, skills, practice, and behaviors may also be evaluated through a variety of additional methods including: personal interviews, reflective sessions, and discussions. Focus groups will also be conducted as a form of formative assessment during years two and three of the program. A final focus group will be conducted at the conclusion of the project to assess outcomes. These longitudinal evaluations will be designed to measure the participants’ overall knowledge gain and behavioral changes, as well as the benefits, implications and impact of the project among producers, stakeholders, and educators. Your Turn - Your Ideas Break into teams Discuss/create a Logic Model Budgets are your friends Budgets are a reality check Build an Excel template for everyone Combine all budgets into one Excel workbook A detailed Excel budget can be your budget justification Get the budget checked and approved early Budget red flags – equipment, supplies, tuition, travel, food Budget for evaluation, 10% minimum? Involve your grants office early in the process Indirect costs may surprise you Proposal Template Insert RFA guidelines – Keep until the end Winning Tricks – Silver Bullets Consider the review team Make the proposal easy to read Use large fonts, white space, highly readable Add headings, illustrations, bulleted lists Not everyone will read your proposal. Make your proposal easy to summarize and present.. A high quality evaluation plan is vital Have clear goal, objectives, research question Winning Project Summaries Summaries are used to select review team Most review team members read only the summary!! Must be clear, concise and self contained Must include hypotheses/objective; methods, expected outcomes, evaluation plans. Follow word count rules and use good font size Proof multiple time to ensure clear writing and all required parts included Sabotaging yourself? Common mistakes Waited Poor too late for grants.gov submission quality evaluation Implementation No in last year; no time to evaluate or poor literature review Proposals Teams are not integrated are not ‘real’ teams Unclear objectives, expected outcomes unclear Required proposal elements left out, such as the management plans, pitfalls, timelines What if you are rejected? Don’t insult the program leaders. They can not overturn the review panel. Read critique with an open mind. If the reviewers overlooked key facts, make it more clear next year. Prepare for next year Plan your one page “resubmit” summary; it’s a great sales opportunity for your proposal Reexamine your evaluation & management plans Gather better preliminary data Strengthen your team Get a technical writer to edit your proposal How to survive ‘winning’ Paperwork becomes even more important Get more training on cost accounting rules Ask about the most common audit red flags Get your team together, including evaluator Start File on your timeline, you will never finish early! all reports early, they track your progress Always look for your next grant idea. Is this project generating preliminary data for the next proposal? Get published. Your ideas & questions http://mediaproductions.nmsu.edu/grants Jeanne Gleason [email protected] Teresa McCoy [email protected] See our other presentations & displays during this conference. http://mediaproductions.nmsu.edu/grants http://mediaproductions.nmsu.edu/foodsafety