 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Preliminary Steps
| Conditions That Support Funding
| Grant Writing Components
| Tips for Proposal Writing
| Funding Links
| Guidelines Grants Consulting Relationships
| Logic Model Review/Preview
| Tips and Resources for Evaluation
| Coalition Sustainability
10 THINGS TO DO BEFORE YOU WRITE A GRANT PROPOSAL
CONDITIONS THAT SUPPORT FUNDING
GRANT WRITING COMPONENTSA. Gathering Background Information:Three Areas:
B. Components of The Proposal:
Problem - a brief statement of the problem or need your agency has recognized and is prepared to address (one or two paragraphs);Solution- a short description of the project, including what will take place and how many people will benefit from the program, how and where it will operate, for how long, and who will staff it (one or two paragraphs);Funding Requirements- an explanation of the amount of grant money required for the project and what your plans are for funding it in the future (one paragraph); and organization and its expertise- a brief statement of the name, history and purpose. 2. THE STATEMENT OF NEED
Goal: Our after school program will help children read better. Objective: Our after school program will assist Fifty children in improving their reading scores by one grade level as demonstrated on standardized reading tests administered after participating in the program for six months. FOUR TYPES OF OBJECTIVES:
STAFFING AND ADMINISTRATION EVALUATION:
4. BUDGET
Budget Narrative: used to explain any unusual line items in the budget and is not always needed.
TIPS FOR PROPOSAL WRITING
FUNDING LINKSCatalog for Federal Domestic Assistancehttp://www.cfda.gov The Center on Nonprofits & Philanthropy http://www.urban.org/centers/cnp.html The Chronicle of Philanthropy http://www.philanthropy.com The Council on Foundations http://www.cof.org The Foundation Center http://www.fdncenter.org The Grantsmanship Center http://www.tgci.com The Nonprofit Resource Center http://www.not-for-profit.org
GUIDELINES FOR GRANTS CONSULTING RELATIONSHIPSCharityChannel's GRANTS discussion forum http://www.charitychannel.com/forums/grants.htm features a diverse group of experienced grant-seekers, new development assistants, foundation staff members, and federal grant program officers sharing tips, techniques, and war stories with each other and thousands of colleagues. One such e-mail discussion concerned the dynamics of the grants consulting relationship. It began with a post from Michael L. Wyland, co-editor, about the "Seven Warning Signs of Grant Writing Consulting," discussing when a consultant should raise questions with a client or possibly decline a contract. The warning signs are:
LOGIC MODEL REVIEW / PREVIEWWhat is a Logic Model?The logic model is a straightforward, graphic approach to strategic planning that ensures no vital step will be overlooked, from goal setting to measuring the outcomes. The principal purpose of the logic model is to present geographically, logically, and sequentially the connections among conditions that contribute to the need for a program in a community, the activities aimed at addressing these conditions, and the outcomes expected to result from the activities. It defines a planning process that allows a coalition to plan for results rather than to plan activities and "hope" for results. A program logic model is a picture of how your program works-the theory and assumptions underlying the program. It links outcomes (both short- and long-term) with program activities/processes and the theoretical assumptions/principles of the program. By identifying the desired outcomes FIRST and then determining the activities that will be needed to bring about those results, the coalition enhances its success quotient. What are the benefits of a Logic Model? Building a logic model provides the following benefits:
Three Basic Types of Logic Models
There are several different ways to build a logic model. They come in different shapes and sizes. The logic model you build should depend heavily on the needs of your coalition and its constituents. Oftentimes, program staff will find that they will need to combine components from different types of logic model. In the coalition/prevention field there are two common logic model formats:The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and United Way's. 1. CSAP/ Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies In order to build a useful logic model, you will need to answer the following questions about the program in a chart format: A. What are the risk and protective factors to be addressed? (the goals) The first thing you will need to know is what risk and/or protective factors you plan to address. If you have done a needs assessment, prioritized your needs, and identified resources, you should have a good idea about the goals that are important for your program to address. B. What services and activities will your program provide? (the strategies) What are the activities involved in your program? That is, what will you actually be doing? It is very important to specify what activities you plan to do: A program that isn't implemented in the way it is planned is not likely to lead to the expected program outcomes. Also, specify when the activities will be implemented and how much. C. Who will participate in, or be influenced by, the program? (the target group) To whom is the program being delivered? That is, who is the recipient of your program, or whom do you expect to be influenced by your activities? You should also know whether the strategy you've chosen is universal, selective, or indicated. D. How will these activities lead to expected outcomes? (theory of change/"if-then" statements) Identify the assumptions underlying your program. That is, think about why and how program activities are expected to lead to the desired outcomes. A very common problem in prevention programs is when the chosen program activities and strategies do not lead logically to the goals or outcomes that the program would like to achieve. That's why we recommend thinking through the assumptions of why and how you expect your program to lead to the desired changes. What are the steps that turn inputs into outputs into outcomes? You might think about this as a series of "if-then" relationships. For example, If the program invests time and money to develop an inventory of drug-free summer activities, then youth will be more informed about what is available in the community. If youth know what is available, then they will be more likely to participate in these programs. If youth participate in alternative activities, then they will be more likely to develop friendships with non-using peers, and then be less likely to use ATOD themselves. Note that even in this very simple series of if-then statements there are a number of assumptions about the problem to be addressed, how the program will work and what it can achieve. For example, it assumes that:
E. What immediate changes are expected for individuals, organizations or communities? (the short-term outcomes) Short-term outcomes are the immediate program effects that you expect to achieve. For example, a life skills training program is expected to show an increase in students' problem solving skills when the program is completed. F. What changes would the program ultimately like to create? (the long-term impacts) Long-term impacts, on the other hand, are the long-term or ultimate effects from the program. Let's follow our life skills training program example one step further. We attempt to increase students' problem-solving skills, the immediate outcomes, because we believe that these increases skills will ultimately help to prevent or reduce student drug use, the long term impact. However, research shows us that many factors (e.g. knowledge, skills, attitudes, behavior, policy) must change and much time must pass before we can detect any changes in the ultimate impact on drug use. More details and examples on building CSAP formatted logic models can be found at: http://www.open.org/~westcapt/evaluate.htm Example logic models for each CSAP Strategy can be found at: http://www.open.org/~westcapt/evsup6.htm 2. United Way/University of Wisconsin-Extension (UWEX) It contains six components with Inputs-Outputs-Outcomes being central to the model: A. SITUATION: the context and need that gives rise to a program or initiative; logic models are built in response to an existing situation B. INPUTS: the resources, contributions and investments that are made in response to the situation. Inputs lead to C. OUTPUTS: the activities, products, methods, services that reach people and users. Outputs lead to D. OUTCOMES (initial, intermediate, longer-term): the results and benefits for individuals, groups, agencies, communities and/or systems E. ENVIRONMENT: the surrounding environment in which the program exists and which influences the implementation and success of the initiative, including politics, climate, socio-economic factors, market forces, etc. F. ASSUMPTIONS: the beliefs we have about the program, the participants and the way we expect the program to operate; the principles that guide our work. Faulty assumptions may be the reason we don't achieve the expected outcomes More details and examples on building United Way/UWEX formatted logic models can be found at: http://bluto.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/Evaluation/logicmodels.htm More Logic Model Resources: Connecticut Clearinghouse http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/lmodel.htmIndiana Prevention Resource Center http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/prevention/sig/logicmodels.htm http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/prevention/sig/workshop-outline.html Education Development Center/The Higher Education Center for AOD Prevention http://phoenix.edc.org/hec/eval/ http://phoenix.edc.org/hec/eval/logicmodel.pdf Chen, W.W.; Cato, B.M.; Rainford, N. Using a logic model to plan and evaluate a community intervention program: a case study. International Quarterly of Community Health Education. 18(4): 449-458, 1998-1999. United Way of America. 1996. Measuring program outcomes: a practical approach. Item #0989 To order, call Sales Service/America: 800-772-0008
TIPS AND RESOURCES FOR EVALUATIONA very important element of effective community coalitions is evaluation. The description below is not meant to provide a "training" on evaluation or to provide a comprehensive listing of evaluation methodologies, but rather an overview of commonly used designs and methods. Instead, we hope that you will review this information and start to proactively plan for evaluation in your community and develop an evaluation plan that suits your needs and capabilities.A comprehensive evaluation should enhance understanding and improve coalition functioning and effectiveness of reaching its desired outcomes. It should provide information of three types. 1. Process Evaluation Process evaluation is used to determine whether the program is being implemented as planned. It assesses what activities/strategies were implemented to include the who, what, when, where, how much and the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation. It is sometimes referred to as monitoring or implementation evaluation. Typical Process indicators:
Specifically, outcomes are changes that occur as a result of your program. In ATOD prevention programs, the desired outcomes often include changes in:
Sample outcomes pertaining to a community-wide intervention might include changes in:
3. Impact Evaluation Impact evaluation is done for the purpose of assessing the longer-term impacts of the program as a whole. It determines the extent to which your program has accomplished its over-riding goals. It asks the question "How did the program as a whole ultimately impact ATOD use and abuse?"
When deciding which evaluation design/method you will use, you have to balance cost, level of expertise to which you have access, ethical considerations, and the requirements of the funding agency against how much confidence the evaluation design/method will give you. Commonly Used Evaluation Designs 1. Post-Program The Post-Only evaluation design for definition) makes it more difficult to assess change. Using this design, staff members deliver a program to the target group‚ then assess outcomes. The Post-Only design is the least useful method, because you are not able to compare post-program results with a measurement taken before the program began (called a baseline measurement). You can use this design when it is more important to ensure that participants reach a specifically designated outcome, than it is to know the degree of change. 2. Pre- and Post-Program The Pre-and Post-program evaluation design enables you to assess change by comparing the baseline measurement to the measurement taken after the program has been completed. In order to be comparable, a measurement that is done twice (before and after) must be the same exact measurement, done in the same way. Be sure to allow enough time for your program to cause change. Although this design may be an improvement over the Post-Program- Only design, it still will not give you complete confidence that your program was responsible for the outcomes. There may be many other reasons for changes in your target group that have nothing to do with your program. 3. Pre-and-Post with a Comparison Group One way to increase confidence that your program was responsible for the outcomes is to assess another group, similar to your target group, that did NOT receive the program (a Comparison Group). In this design, you assess both groups before the program begins, deliver the program to only one group, then assess both groups after the program ends. The challenge is to find a group similar to your target group demographically (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education), and in a similar situation that makes them appropriate for the program (e.g., both groups are adolescent girls at risk for dropping out of high school). The more alike the two groups are, the more confidence you can have that your program was responsible for the program outcomes. A typical example of a comparison group is a school where one class that participates in a program is compared to another class that does not participate. 4. Pre-and Post-with a Control Group This design will provide you with the greatest opportunity to demonstrate that your program was responsible for changes in outcomes. In this design, you "randomly assign" people from the same overall target population to either a control group or a target group. In a random assignment each person has an equal chance of winding up in either group (i.e., flip a coin to assign each participant to a group). A control group is the same as a comparison group (a group of people who are like the program group but who do NOT participate in the program), but the decision of who will be in either group results from random assignment. It is possible to randomly assign entire groups (e.g., classrooms) to the program as well. This design is used predominantly by scientists to establish program effectiveness. Choosing Methods for Measurement (such as surveys and focus groups) Once you choose your evaluation design, you will need to decide how to collect the data. These include both quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative Methods answer the who, what, when, where, and how much. They target larger numbers of people and are more structured and standardized (meaning that the same procedure is used with each person) than qualitative methods. Qualitative Methods answer why and how and usually involve talking to or observing people. In qualitative methods the challenge is to organize the thoughts and beliefs of participants into themes. Qualitative evaluations usually involve fewer people than quantitative methods. Archival Trend Data Archival data can be found from a number of national, regional, state and local sources (e.g., health departments, law enforcement agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). This data usually is inexpensive and may be fairly easy to obtain. Several examples include rates ofDUI arrests, unemployment rates, and juvenile drug arrest rates. Many sources can be accessed using the Internet. However, you may have little choice in the data format since someone else probably collected it for another purpose. It oftens takes even the best, most rigourous program several years to change archival trend data indicators (if it is even feasible) since archival trend data usually covers larger groups (e.g.‚ schools, communities, states). Observations Observations involve watching others (usually without their knowledge) and systematically recording the frequency of their behaviors according to pre-set definitions (e.g., number of times 7th graders in one school expressed anti-smoking sentiments during lunch and recess). This method requires a great deal of training for observers to be sure each one records behavior in the same way and to prevent his/her own feelings from influencing the results. Record Review You can effectively use existing records from different groups or agencies (e.g., medical records or charts) as a data source. Record reviews usually involve counting the frequency of different behaviors. One program counted the number of times adolescents who had been arrested for underage drinking said they had obtained the alcohol by using false identification. Remember that additional consent may be required to review records. Focus Groups Focus groups typically are used for collecting background information on a subject, creating new ideas and hypotheses, assessing how a program is working, or helping to interpret the results from other data sources. "The contemporary focus group interview generally involves 6 to 12 individuals who discuss a particular topic under the direction of a moderator who promotes interaction and assures that the discussion remains on the topic of interest." (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990). Focus groups can provide a quick and inexpensive way to collect information from a group (as opposed to a one-on-one interview), allow for clarification of responses, obtain more in-depth information, and create easy-to-understand results. However‚ since focus groups use only a small number of people‚ they may not accurately represent the larger population. Also, they can be affected by the bias of the moderator and/or the bias of one or two dominant group members. Unstructured Interviews Similar to a focus group, but with just one person, an unstructured interview is designed to obtain very rich and detailed information by using a set of open-ended questions. The interviewer guides the participant through the questions, but allows the conversation to flow naturally, encouraging the participant to answer in his or her own words. The interviewer often will ask follow-up questions to clarify responses or get more information. It takes a great deal of skill to conduct an unstructured interview and analyze the data. It is important to define criteria that determine who will be interviewed if you decide to use this method for gathering data. Open-Ended Questions on a Self-Administered Survey Usually at the end of a self-administered survey, participants will be asked to provide written responses to various open-ended questions. The resultant data can be analyzed similarly to focus group data. The analysis requires some skill. Data Collection Issues In gathering your data there are certain data collection issues you must address.
Reference: Getting to Outcomes: Methods and Tools for Planning, Self-Evaluation
and Accountability, SAMHSA-CSAP-NCAP-June 2000
COALITION SUSTAINABILITYOne of the most important lessons we have learned in the past 10 years of CADCA's existence is the importance of collaboration. Community anti-drug coalitions across the country who are in their communities wrestling with the serious issues involving substance abuse are realizing that every institution, ranging from education, law enforcement, faith, business, and media, all hold specific responsibility in making their community safe and drug-free. All must work together in a system-wide approach over a long period of time in order to effect change.A system-wide approach to making specific changes in the community essentially requires that community groups, both formal and informal, take on specific responsibilities and form partnerships to effectively implement a plan. This, of course, is MUCH easier said than done. Coalitions face an assortment of challenges in the process:
Why Some Coalitions Fail
10 Keys to Coalition Sustainability 1. Common Vision The Vision is not just a statement written down on paper and forgotten. The Vision is alive, held by all members, and is positive, personal, and inspirational. New members to the coalition are updated regularly on the vision statement and it is open for adjustment as the community issues change. Many coalitions have cleverly placed their Vision statements on all stationary and envelopes so that it is literally stamped on all outgoing correspondance. 2. Relationships Open and honest communication is practiced among members and ground rules are respected. Members possess skills like active listening, giving constructive feedback, and resolving conflicts. Coalition leaders check in regularly on members and outside speakers are brought in to provide skill-building workshops for members. 3. Health and Wellness Coalitions are facing some highly personal and emotional issues in their community work. Members, often caught up in the momentum of this work, can forget about taking care of themselves. An important key to sustainability is that leaders need to ensure that members are recognized and nurtured, and a healthy working environment is created. Members are encouraged to maintain a healthy balance between work and personal life. 4. Resources Staff, supplies, and facility support the goals and needs of the coalition. Responsibilities are delegated to members in appropriate amounts so that no one is overloaded with work. Map existing resources and continually investigate potential new resources in the community. 5. Operating Systems The coalition has established internal operating procedures for bookkeeping, meetings and decision-making, accurate minutes taken, and timely dissemination of materials to members. This procedure is consistent and roles can be rotated so that various members can take responsibility for the coalition efforts 6. Leadership and Commitment The keys here are sharing and empowering as opposed to authoritarian leadership and micromanagement. Leadership roles are rotated to get fresh perspectives and provide opportunities for other members to develop leadership skills. In addition, members with leadership roles feel more productive and are generally more committed to the coalition. Also crucial here is providing skills training, mentoring, opportunities to practice skills and receive support and feedback. Involving community youth in coalition leadership initiatives has been extremely successful with many coalitions across the country. 7. Community Support All stakeholders in the community believe in the efforts of the coalition, members from diverse sectors of the community are invited to be involved, and the coalition has a working public relations plan. This might include a speaker's bureau that allows members to introduce the coalition to target audiences in the community. Also effective are the development of a media calendar for press releases and public service announcements, and attendance at community-wide meetings or summits to inform and discuss. 8. Fund Development The coalition has developed a plan for securing funds in the coming year and has access to a grant writer or obtains grant-writing skills through training. Also important is maintaining regular ongoing contact with those entities currently funding the coalition's efforts. Provide them with updates, monthly reports on progress and the value of the coalition to the community. In general, people tend to give to people, not causes, so establishing a positive working relationship is crucial to sustainable fund development. 9. Accountability The coalition is gathering data to monitor and measure the effectiveness of coalition initiatives or programs and to determine how and if strategies need modification. Successful coalitions have retreats twice a year and share this information as reinforcement to members that their efforts are indeed making an impact in the community. This instills hope and can potentially introduce new resources, since funders are drawn to initiatives that can prove they are working. 10. Adaptability Explore modification of strategies and procedures as needed; stay current with changing community needs. Coalitions who have achieved success have learned to "think outside of the box" and see the community as a living, breathing entity that changes regularly. The realization of a healthy, sustainable coalition requires a system-wide strategic approach. This involves forming partnerships that can collaborate effectively over the long term. Successful coalitions recognize that sustainability is not JUST about funding, but about ensuring community-wide support and resources by establishing relationships, securing training and coaching to help members master collaboration, and arranging for technical assistance to strengthen weak areas in their infrastructure.
Resources for coalitions:Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of Americawww.cadca.org The Foundation Center http://fdncenter.org Community Tool Box http://ctb.lsi.ukans.edu Centers for the Application of Prevention Technologies www.captus.org |
|
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America 625 Slaters Lane · Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone 1-800-54-CADCA · Fax 703-706-0565 |
Donate | Contact Us | Careers |
