California State University, Sacramento Division of Social Work --- Fall 2016 Grant Writing and Resource Development (SWK261)

Transcription

1 California State University, Sacramento Division of Social Work --- Fall 2016 Grant Writing and Resource Development (SWK261) 8:00 am to 5:00 p.m., MRP1016 Class dates: 09/11, 10/02, 10/23, 11/20, 12/04 Instructor: Dr. Francis Yuen, DSW, ACSW. Professor Office and Phone: Mariposa Hall 4007, (916) , Office Hours: Monday 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, or by Appointment or by Appointment Course Description The purpose of this course is to prepare students for grant proposal development, as well as grant project management and evaluation. Students will explore various skills including how to identify appropriate grant sources; conceptualize, write and submit a grant proposal for funding; prepare a grant budget; administer a grant-funded program; and evaluate grant proposals. Course Objectives 1. Acquire basic understanding of the program planning and proposal writing processes for developing a demonstration project for human services. 2. Learn the techniques to develop a grant proposal using a logic model (assessing needs, formulating project aims, identifying target populations, developing project goals and objectives, devising project activities, creating project staffing and management plans, preparing a project budget, designing a project evaluation plan), and complying with ethical and professional considerations in program development and implementation. 3. Develop skills in program evaluation. 4. Apply human service intervention models including risk/resiliency factors, cultural competency, social justice, and incorporate findings from other successful programs in program planning. 5. Gain an appreciation of the utility of human diversity in human service delivery. 6. Cultivate resource and program development skills that promote the well being of vulnerable populations. 7. Develop an understanding of ethical issues in grant and resource development, particularly the implications for economic and social justice. Texts Required: Yuen, F. K. O., Terao, K., & Schmidt, A. (2009). Effective grant writing and program evaluation for human service professionals. NJ: Wiley. (YTS) (OR) Yuen, F. K. O. & Terao, K. (2003) Practical grant writing and program evaluation. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. (YT) Supplemental: (Outstanding reference books to have and to keep but buying is optional, old or new versions) Coley, S., & Scheinberg, C. (2008). Proposal writing (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (CS) Karsh, E. & Fox, A. (2006). The only grant writing book you ll ever need: An insider guide. (2 nd ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers. Kettner, P., Moroney, R., & Martin, L. (2008). Designing and managing programs: An effectivenessbased approach (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (KMM) United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcome: A practical approach. Alexandra, VA: Author. (UWA) Web site and Library: A SacCT web site has been developed to include materials and information sources that are useful for this course. The SacCT page is updated continuously. Grant writing and resource development related references and videos are available in CSUS library and in local libraries.

2 Course Expectations This course demands your active participation. In order to develop a safe and positive learning environment, you are expected to adhere to the following requirements. 1. Attendance. Be prompt. Attend class, the whole class period. As a matter of fairness and equity, anyone missing more than one (1) scheduled class session or the equivalence losses a minimum of a letter grade on the final course grade. There is no substitute or make-up for attendance and participation. Missing two (2) scheduled class sessions or the equivalence will result in dropping from the course and will require the student to make arrangements to complete the course in a fashion acceptable to the Directors of the Graduate Program and the Division of Social Work. 2. Participation and Active Learning. Your interest, time, and commitment to the course and to everyone s personal/professional development are highly valued. Know your colleagues in class; they will be your learning partners and your peer support. Be prepared for class discussions and activities. Participation in class is expected and will be graded. Do all your work, particularly when you are part of a working group. Get your needs met by interacting with classmates and by raising your concerns and criticisms with the instructor. Conduct yourself in a professional, productive, and respectful manner. 3. Plagiarism. Any form of cheating or academic plagiarism will result in a failing grade for the course. This is a serious matter. Read relevant literatures extensively, cite sources and references appropriately, give the authors and yourself the credits and respect that both of you deserve. 4. Assignments. It is expected that all assignments will be due on the date indicated on the syllabus, unless a decision is explicitly made to change the date or due to very special and unexpected circumstances. Late assignments will only be accepted with prior permission from the course instructor and will receive a reduced grade that equals at most 90% of the original grade. Nongraded assignments that are late will still negatively affect the student's final course grade. 5. Readings. Assigned readings should be completed as they correspond with the class schedule. 6. Writing Style. Unless specified, apply the basic APA (American Psychological Association) style (6 th ed.) for all written assignments both in the main text and in citing references. All written assignments should be typed and single or double-spaced. They must be mechanically and stylistically acceptable. Serious deficiencies in areas such as spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, and coherent organization will result in lower grades All students are expected to check their regularly for class communications. 8. Cellular phone, text messaging, or web surfing. Unless you are expecting important phone calls (i.e., family or on-call responsibilities), please turn off your cellular phone during class meeting. Text messaging or web surfing for non-class related topics during class is unacceptable. Ethical Practice As developing social work professionals, it is expected that students will become familiar with and adhere to the NASW Code of Ethics. This code for professional behaviors and conducts should guide your actions in class and in the field agency setting. Ethical violations (e.g., disrespect for colleagues) may result in failure of this course. Students with Special Needs Students with disabilities that may require special accommodations are encouraged to contact the Services to Students with Disabilities. (Lassen Hall 1008, phone: ). Performance Measures You will be evaluated on your performance on the completion of the drafts of different draft sections of a written grant proposal, the final grant proposal, an effort summary (if you work in group) and a reflective report, your participation in peer review, and your course participation. SWK261 Fall 2016 Yuen P. 2

3 1. Quality and punctuality of the three draft sections of the proposal (150 points) (Due 09/19, 10/14, & 11/05) 2. A grant proposal that details a new service delivery approach/program or a new intervention method to address particular service needs for a target population. (500 points) (Due 11/26) 3. Participation in the peer review of proposals. (Review summary and other materials) (150 points) (Due 12/04) 4. A 2 to 4 page individual reflective report and an effort summary of your individual contributions (if you are a member of a group proposal). (100 points) (Due 12/06). 5. Course participation and attendance. (Performances in class, small groups, and other learning environments). (100 points) In addition to the assignment s specific instructions, the following criteria are applied: Contents and Effective use of knowledge: the integration of concepts, theories, and information from readings, lectures, class discussions, as well as personal points of view that are presented in professional, rational, and logical manners. Organization and Logic: thesis in introduction, smooth relationship between ideas and between paragraphs, overall structure, and integrative conclusion. Writing Skills and Clarity: understandability, good style and form. Syntax, grammar and spelling. References in appropriate APA 6.0 format. Please always retain a duplicate copy of all your written assignments prior to submitting them for grading in the event of accidental loss or destruction. Students are strongly encouraged to consult with the instructor on a regular basis during office hours on assignments and issues related to this course. 1. Draft Sections of the Proposals (Total 150 points, 09/19, 10/14, & 11/05) Students will develop a draft for different sections of the grant proposal and submit it in three segments to the instructor for review on 09/19, 10/14 and 11/05. Subsequently, students will complete and submit the final version of the grant proposal on or before 11/26. No late proposal will be accepted. Due dates, contents, and points for draft sections: 09/19: Letter of intent (30 points) 10/14: Specific Aims (Needs/Problems, Literature Review, working hypothesis, & General Program Plan) and Target Populations (60 points) 11/05: Approaches and Methods, Agency Capacity and Project Management, Budget and Budget Justification (60 points) A one to two pages letter of intent will be due on 09/19. This letter should indicate what program/project the student/team is interested in proposing, how to accomplish it, and possibly how much it costs. Students (particularly those who do not have a firm idea of what proposal topics they will be working on) are advised to consult with the instructor about their topics. It is not a binding letter that changes of grant proposal topic or approach after the letter is submitted are allowable. The instructor will provide on-going written or oral comments and recommendations on the strengths and weaknesses of the drafts. Please check take notes of instructor's comments and class discussions. Students are also encouraged to actively consult the instructor through phone, , and office visit. It is this instructor's expectation that each submitted draft should reflect sufficient efforts committed by the students. Points assigned to the draft proposal reflect the acknowledgement of receiving the draft and the degree of sufficiency of the content. It is more of a recognition of efforts than a grade. High points for each SWK261 Fall 2016 Yuen P. 3

4 of these drafts do not necessarily imply they could simply be bundled together and become an A grade grant proposal. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. The instructor is neither the co-author nor the editor of students' proposals. The instructor reviews the draft sections to provide comments and guidance. It is the student's responsibilities to integrate and build upon comments from the instructor and from the class to further develop a quality proposal. Simply making changes according to the sectional reviews is not sufficient to claim that the proposal has met all the requirements and deserves an A grade. 2. Final Proposal (Total 500 points, due 11/26) Students should consult with the instructor as earlier as possible to decide on the topics and approaches of their proposals. The instructor will provide further instructions and guidelines on proposal writing in class. The proposal is written on behalf of a human service organization to solicit funding support for a service program plan that addresses identified needs or problems in the community or in the organization. Most likely, it is a service grant proposal of significance to social work practice. Therefore, proposals that aim solely to construct facilities, purchase program equipment, pay salary for existing staffs, or start a new organization are not appropriate projects. Also, if you intend to modify this proposal for your thesis, please be aware that a fine proposal for this course may not necessarily means that it is a good or suitable material for your thesis/project. Consult your thesis advisor to clarify his/her expectations. Students may use the human service organizations that they are familiar with for their proposals. The instructor also has contacts with organizations that are willing to work with our students on their grant proposals writing exercise. With agreement from the students, some of these human service organizations may turn these proposals into actual grant proposals and submit them to appropriate funding sources for support. It is not acceptable to use fictitious or to-be-developed organizations as the applicant agencies. Students are strongly encouraged to form groups of two or three members to work together on the development of a proposal. Only in special situation that a student may work individually and prepare his/her own proposal for the course. Student in group projects will receive an individual grade. This grade is assigned in proportion to the student s contributions to the group projects. Each student in group project needs to individually submit a confidential Effort Summary. This summary is not required for students who work alone. The grant proposal for this course should consist of the following sections with specific page limits: 1. Abstract - 45 lines or 750 words max.(single spaced) 2. Table of Contents - 2 pages max. 3. Specific Aims (Needs/Problems, Working Hypothesis, Literature Review, General Program Plan, etc.) - 3 pages max. 4. Target Populations - 2 pages max. 5. Approaches and Methods (Project Goals and Objectives, Activities and Time Line, etc.) - 6 pages max. 6. Program Evaluation Plan - 3 pages max. 7. Agency Capacity and Project Management - 3 pages max. 8. Budget and Budget Justification - 3 pages max. 9. Community Support - no page limit. 10. References and Appendixes (e.g., Gantt Chart, etc.) - no page limit.(no format limit) Final proposals should be submitted to the instructor by , preferably in ONE document. No hardcopy is needed. If pdf or picture file is included and could not be converted in to a Word document, please downsize it to a smaller file for ing. Mega size files make ing problematic. These electronic copies will be distributed to peer-reviewers for review (see below). SWK261 Fall 2016 Yuen P. 4

5 3. Anonymous Peer Reviews: individual review, individual review summary, review panel, & panel review report. Also, proposal overview packet (150 points, 12/04) Individual Peer Review and its Individual Review Summary. Students will be divided into two peer review panels and meet separately. Each student individually will serve as a primary and secondary reviewer to review grant proposals from students in the other review panel. About 1 to 2 proposals will be assigned to each student to review and it is dependent upon the total number of proposals submitted. This is an anonymous review that only the instructor who makes the review assignments will know the identity of the reviewers for each proposal. All reviewers should use the Proposal Review Form to complete their individual review summary (no more than two pages long per proposal) for proposals assigned. Each reviewer should bring at least three (3) copies of the review summary to the peer-review meeting. One copy is for the instructor to keep (This is your assignment, so please put your name on this copy). The second copy is for the student/reviewer to use in the panel discussion. The third copy is to be collected by the instructor and then distributed to the author(s) of the proposal (to maintain anonymity, Please do not put your name or any identifier on this copy). Proposal Overview Packet. Each proposal group should prepare this summary packet that, at least, includes the proposal s abstract, program objectives and activities, and budget. This will be used by the members of the review panel to quickly understand and discuss your proposal. To facilitate the discussion process, each proposal group is asked to make enough copies (about 5 copies) of the Overview Packet to the peer review. They will be collected by the instructor and then distributed to the review panel to use in its review discussion. Review Panel and its Panel Review Report. The two review panels will meet separately on 12/04 to discuss and rank their assigned proposals. At this point, students will know who in his/her panel reviews which proposals. However, in order to maintain the desirable anonymity and the effectiveness of the learning process, please treat this and other relevant information as confidential information. In each panel, one of the students will serve as the moderator for the panel s discussions with inputs first from the peer reviewers and then open discussions. One or more panel members will serve as the recorder using the Proposal Review Form to put together a briefly summary of the discussion into the Panel Review Report. It should addresses both the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. The panel will then summarize the discussions and compile the final rankings. 4. Reflective Report and Effort Summary (100 points, 12/06) On 12/06, each student shall submit (through ) a 3 to 5 page reflective report and effort summary. Please do not complete the reflective report before the 12/04 review. The reflective report is an integrated self-reflections on one s learning from this course; this is not your course evaluation which will be done later anonymously online. All students are required to submit this report. It could include many topics. Among them may be your key areas of learning from this course; areas that you think you need further training; difficulties, frustrations, and joys in writing your grant proposal; the problems and benefits of team-writing; the effectiveness of the course s readings, websites, guest speakers, and other learning modules; and others. The effort summary is an individual report of one s involvement and contributions to the development of the joint proposal. Only students who are writing the proposal in group will be required to submit this report. This is not a "brag" or "whine" report. This is a matter of fact report of your work. You may want to put your effort summary at the end of your reflective report and make it one document. Please make sure you title it on the document. 5. Participation (100 points) SWK261 Fall 2016 Yuen P. 5

6 See Course Expectations. There are many ways to learn. This course expects all students to take the role as an adult active learner. Reading and memorizing course materials allow one to have knowledge about a subject matter. Discussions of course material, challenge of ideas with an open-mind, and support to each other s learning help to achieve the desirable professional growth. Students active participation is the pre-requisite for this achievement. Active participation may include your involvements in discussion, completion of tasks, and facilitation of learning in class. Performance Evaluation and Grading Following is the list of the assignments, their maximum point values, and their due dates: Date Maximum points Grant proposal draft sections 09/19, 10/14, & 11/ Grant proposal 11/ Proposal Reviews and Summary 11/26-12/ Reflective Report (and Effort Summary) 12/ Participation on-going Letter grades will be assigned as follow: A- to A = 900 points and above (Excellent), B- to B+ = points (Above Average), C- to C+ = points (Average/Below Average), D = points (Below Average and Try Again), F = 599 points or below (Huh!). Remember: An average performance is a C, not a B. Putting in a lot of time to complete the assignments means you are a hard working student; however, it does not mean you deserve an A grade. An A grade means you have done a superb job, more than a very good job, for this course. Minimum expectation is a B and above. A grade of "Incomplete" is not given automatically. The grade may be assigned only in cases of illness, accident, or other occurrences clearly beyond the student's control. It is the student's responsibility to fulfill the University's and/or Division's policies and procedures for obtaining an Incomplete for a course grade. Students who fail this policy will automatically be assigned a grade of FAIL for the course. GENERAL CLASS SCHEDULE (Schedule may vary according to the progress of the course, particularly with the revised meeting dates and the new teaching approach) Date Topics Reading Orientation to SWK261 and the Use of the CSUS library and the web. 09/11 What is grant writing and resource development? YTS 1, 2, & 3 Funding sources: Government and Foundation or YT 1 & 2. Basic grant writing process. SacCT Letter of intent What is program planning? Logic model for program development and evaluation. What are the issues, concerns, or problems? (Assessing needs) What for? What do you want to achieve? (Formulating project aims) To whom it may concern? (Identifying target populations) Guest Speaker (1:00-2:30 P.M.): Alan Logan, MSW, Program Analyst, CSEC Program, California Department of Social Services 09/19 Letter of intent Due SWK261 Fall 2016 Yuen P. 6

7 10/02 Approach and Methods -- So, what do you want to do? (Developing project goals and objectives, and devising project activities) Budget and Budget Justification --Who will do what and how much will it cost? (Preparing a project budget) Guest Speaker: Nilda Valmores, MA. Executive Director, My Sister's House, YTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or YT 3, 7, & 8. SacCT 10/23 11/20 12/04 10/14 Specific Aims and Target Population Draft Due Project management -- staff recruitment, retention and dismissal, leadership, team building, multicultural workplace, program space, intra and inter agency relations, partnership and coalitions, fiscal considerations, influencing legislation, performance evaluations, risk and liabilities, consultation, Board of Directors, fund raising & financial planning. Life after grant proposal (re-submitting grant proposal, managing grant proposal, passing the torch) Do the right things (complying with ethical and professional standards: confidentiality, informed consent, client driven programs, and others. How about car wash, bake sales, and annoying cold calling at dinner hours? Guest Speaker: Adele James, MA Adele James Consulting adelejamesconsulting.com 11/05 Approaches and Methods, Agency Capacity and Project Management, Budget and Budget Justification Draft Due How do you know if it works? What can you do to improve? (Designing project evaluation plan) Program evaluation A B C. Empowerment Evaluation. 11/26 Final Proposal Due (11:59 p.m.) (Not the 5:00 p.m. listed on RFA) ( electronic copy, in one file (if possible), to instructor, no hard copy is needed.) Course Review Peer Reviews Notice of Grant Awards 12/04 Peer review summary YTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. SacCT YTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. YT 4,5, 6 UWA SacCT 12/06 Reflective Report 12/06 Effort Summary (if you work in group) SWK261 Fall 2016 Yuen P. 7

8 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Benefield, E. & Edwards, R. "Fundraising" In R. Edwards, & J. Yankey, M. Altpeter, (Eds.) (1998). Skills for effective human services management of non-profit organizations. Washington, DC: NASW Press. (pp ). Clifton, R., & Dahms, A. (1987). Grassroots administration: A handbook for staff and directors of small community-based social-service agencies. Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Coley, S., & Scheinberg, C. (2008). Proposal writing (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. (CS) Edwards, R., & Yankey, J., Altpeter, M. (Eds.) (1998). Skills for effective human services management of non-profit organizations. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Golembiewski, R. & Stevenson, J. (1998). Cases and applications in non-profit management. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock. Gitlin, L. & Lyons K. (2008). Successful grant writing: Strategies for health and human service professionals. NY: Springer.(2 nd edition in CSUS library: HV 41.2.G ) Grobman. G. (1997). The non-profit handbook. Harrisburg, PA: White Hat Communications. Henry, C. "Effective proposal writing". In R. Edwards, & J. Yankey, M. Altpeter, (Eds.) (1998). Skills for effective human services management of non-profit organizations. Washington, DC: NASW Press. (pp ). Karsh, E. & Fox, Arlen. (2006). The only grant writing book you ll ever need: An insider guide. (2 nd ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers. Kettner, P., Moroney, R., & Martin, L. (2008). Designing and managing programs: An effectivenessbased approach (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (KMM) Mika, K. (1996). Program outcome evaluation: A step by step handbook. Milwaukee, WI: Families International. Lauffer, A. (1986). To market, to market: A nuts and bolts approach to strategic planning in human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 10, Mayer, R. (1985). Policy and program planning: A development perspective. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Miner, L. & Miner, J. (2003). Proposal planning and writing. (3 rd ). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (HG U6 M ) Miner, L. & Miner, J. (2005). Models of proposal planning and writing. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (HG U6 M ) Netting, F., Kettner, P., & McMurtry, S. (1998) Social work macro practice (2 nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group. Northern California Grantmakers. Peters, T., & Waterman, R., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Warner Books. Smith, S. McLean, D., & Coles, R. (2001). Grantmanship & fundraising: Fundamentals. Reston, VA: American Association for Leisure and Recreation. (HG 177.S ) The Foundation Center. United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcome: A practical approach. Alexandra, VA: Author. Weinbach, R. (1998). The social worker as manager: Theory and service agencies. (3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Wolk, J. (1994). Grant writing: Linking the social work program with the community. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 10(1/2), Yuen, F. K. O. & Terao, K (2003). Practical grant writing and program evaluation. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Yuen, F. K. O., Terao, K., & Schmidt, A. (2009). Effective grant writing and program evaluation for human service professionals. NJ: Wiley. SWK261 Fall 2016 Yuen P. 8