Because… it’s YOUR money! Would you approve YOUR proposal? (Week 7a)

Many years ago (or at least too many that I want to remember) there was a candidate for public office whose election slogan was “Because… it’s YOUR money!” I thought this was such a powerful and persuasive theme. The assumption, of course, was through examination, voters would agree that person could be trusted with their tax money

I've participated in scores of review panels, examining and rating grant applications. I would often take a personal impact approach while reading an application.  I do this by assuming the applicant was asking for support specifically from me. Thus, the funding was mine to give away.

Because... it was MY money, I would be very attentive to critical features such as the documented magnitude and evidence of need; proof of the proposed solution's effectiveness; and how significant was the impact through measurable outcome indicators.

There are billions of dollars from government and philanthropic groups provided to not-for-profits every year. If you are writing or submitting grant requests for parts of this ocean of riches, how often do you ask yourself… would I approve my own grant request if it came from my pocket and not someone else's? I'm willing to bet that many times, the true answer would be no.

For reviewers, the overriding question is how well did the applicant align their answers to the selection criteria. But when reading an application, I also like to ask myself if the case for giving could significantly improve the quality of life of the individuals served and therefore persuade me to invest in that project.

If it were me choosing who gets the money, I would be looking for a persuasive, documented, and evidence-driven case for support. One whose magnitude of need is deserving of my attention and whose project outcomes clearly represent significant life improvements for the primary beneficiaries of the program. If your applicant organization prepares a grant application, are these factors also important to you?

The next time you read a grant application, consider if it is worth paying for with your money.

So, with your next grant, try not to consider it someone else's money; instead, think about it coming out of your wheelbarrow of cash. For example, if asked to fund your current class project out of your pocket... would you? 

• Is there a clear, measurable need documented by evidence of a primary customer being significantly at-risk?
• Does the goal clearly represent your mission? Are objectives and outcomes significant? If implemented, will it measurably improve the lives of the target population? 
• Is there supporting evidence or research leading you to believe the program plan can succeed
• Is your organization the "best athlete" in this area, capable of appropriately applying the proposed dosage to help the target population?
• Are the deliverables and outputs of the activities reasonable, and could be defended at the level of budget and resources requested (or required)?
• Do you feel there will be a strong result? Does the return on investment justify participation by the grantor with your project plan? Will the project continue after grant funding?

Bottom Line: Allow yourself sufficient time to ensure a proposal submission is worthy of a funding source's attention. Is what you seek to do actually something that should be done? One of my recommendations is to have a disinterested party read and provide feedback about your proposal regarding areas of improvement or persuasiveness. Ask a colleague or an outside expert to pre-review your drafts. Will its implementation be mission-focused, a measurable benefit to the primary customer, and worth a future agency investment of time and effort?

“Because... it's YOUR money”,
would the grant be worth contributing to it yourself?

Help for addressing the Budget in your Project Narrative (6b)

The budget is arguably the most important component of your grant request (since without funding there is no project). However, for the purposes of our class, I've provided materials to read and watch in order to learn about project budgeting.

There is no line-item budget section in your final project submission. although I have asked that you include in your project narrative brief descriptions that relate to spending and the matching portion of your project plan.

Thus my article today is about things to consider when preparing budget comments in your class proposal.

The first mention of the budget would be part of your Abstract, which introduces the reader to the project for which you are requesting funding. In the Abstract you would indicate the total amount of your project and that portion you are requesting in a grant. From Your Community Health Foundation, for example, it might look something like this:

We respectfully request a 12-month grant from Your Community Health Foundation in the amount of $50,000. Our organization, through budget allocations,  partnerships, and in-kind contributions, will provide a $50,000 match toward the full project cost of $100,000.

Here are other examples of how you might provide the matching amount in your total budget:

If Your Community Health Foundation agrees to fund a two-year grant of $100,000 for our proposed project, our agency Board of Directors has agreed to provide cash matching amounts of $50,000 from our existing budget and an in-kind match equivalent of $50,000 through existing professional and staff services explained in our narrative, and necessary for implementing this project. 

In addition, we estimated in Year 2 that billable third-party insurance for patients receiving this service will total at least $100,000 and be applied toward the project expense; plus a major corporate partner of our enterprise has agreed to fund this project with a $25,000 grant. In total, we have identified and committed to the full $325,000 in project cost if Your Community Health Foundation graciously agrees to our request.

You need to keep the budget and its line items in mind when supplying “inputs” in the project narrative and logic model. It is around the same time you are discussing “dosage” activities with your primary customers. Your activities are intended to support the outcomes identified in the evaluation section of the grant. For example, describing inputs listed in the narrative and logic model might be:

To accomplish the training components in our project plan we will develop a series of online-accessible introductory and advanced learning modules, with a total of seven topic areas. A learning management consultant will be secured to develop this web-based interactive teaching experience. A secure internet hosting and registration service will be subscribed to on a monthly basis for students to enroll and manage their learning program. 

As you can see from the above example, I have identified the “inputs” needed for the activity and described the manner in which the activity will operate and have related direct expense. Of course, every project is different – in fact, for this class, we have many different projects, each of which will have a different matrix of project expenses and funding sources. Many grant RFPs supply a budget page in order to break down your budget into line-item listings but also grouped by sections (e.g. Personnel, Consultants, Equipment, Supplies, etc.). 

For the purposes of our class, we're not preparing a full budget, just a few paragraphs where brief explanations of the resources comprising your project would be deemed reasonable based on your action plan. These are general descriptions of what you plan to purchase or secure using the grant request and it's matching amount. No research is necessary to identify costs, just describe the inputs and resources needed to conduct your project and use common sense that the ultimate amounts would fit within your total proposed budget, originally identified in your Abstract.

I hope the information here, in your textbook, and in the materials, I provide in the Take-Away Resource Library and elsewhere, will be helpful to you in the future. Unfortunately, time and the extent of all the content of a grant proposal just don't provide us an opportunity to include a written budget portion during the class.

But if you have any questions about completing a real grant budget in the future, please feel contact me by e-mail.

I've said already that I would be happy to be a resource to you if you have questions in the real world. If you find yourself preparing a grant proposal, and would like to bounce off some ideas or content with me, it would be my pleasure.

SPECIAL FEATURE: 
Introduction to Project Budgets from Grant Space by The Foundation Center.

Surveys as an instrument to collect feedback, measure progress and promote improvement. (Week 6a)

We aren't spending a lot of time on surveying, but I hope that the information provided in Engage can be helpful to you should you find yourself creating constituent feedback or other survey types. 

In preparing for, or assessing after a program or project, surveys can provide a great deal of feedback and analysis toward your outcomes. 

While your project is live, you might consider doing mini-surveys of a handful of questions to gather progress information about interventions as they occur. This provides some immediate feedback but also formative progress and direction over time as you compare answers and trends. At the end of certain milestones, such as annually, you might do an overall feedback/satisfaction/ recommendation survey of all participants (and other stakeholders) in your program that might be more detailed. 

Surveys are also intended to gather the information that you can act upon. For example in an education program, do parents, teachers, and students all feel the same related to the benefits of a program? In healthcare do doctors, nurses, patients, and family answer similar questions differently? You might ask each group about the results of learning something, changing something, behaving differently, measuring something, improving something (or not), and so forth. These types of results could provide interesting comparisons between different target groups of stakeholders. But they also provide information on how things are generally progressing with your project, which might generate new actions on your part.

You should be concerned about conducting surveys that have an overabundance of "open-ended" questions requiring a "fill-in" comment box. As much as I will include a few questions with text-based answers in a survey, my general observation is that the open-ended question would result in a vast amount of information collected, which is very difficult to assess in a timely manner. Some survey software is making it easier to evaluate text-based answers, but for now, I am a proponent of asking questions with applications that provide timely and specific outcome-focused answers.

You should also be careful about having a large number of yes/no questions. Simple "yes/no" answers will not normally provide a deeper understanding needed to determine if program improvement is called for, or has been achieved. There are certain research-based instruments specifically designed with a "yes/no" and building-blocks approach, weighted for specific analysis. but for the group of us who are not research scientists, yes/no is not the best approach.

And, I am a proponent of "pre-post" data collection opportunities using a Likert Scale for assessment, comparison, and trending over time. For example, in the case of a training program, pre-post testing by collecting key knowledge points before the class and then again after (and sometimes months after the training to measure 'retention' of knowledge). Another example is an assessment before treatment, collecting the same data points at the start, which after the period of time of applying your "dosage" can illustrate and compare outcome changes in knowledge, skills, attitude, behaviors, or condition.

Another opportunity with surveys is to dig a little deeper into population-focused results by preparing "cross-tabulation" response tables, something most survey software will help you with. (I have used "Survey Monkey" which has this feature.) And a range of demographic questions allows you to “cross-tabulate” answers against each other, which is really helpful in assessing intensity by different customer profile categories. (Population-focused by gender, income, age range, ethnicity, location or race; or even how answers to one question compared against answers to another). That’s why I like the idea of collecting a variety of demographic information upfront (initial intake questionnaires) before you start asking the questions related to personal feelings, service feedback, outcomes, and quality of care.

It's also important to consider the source of data for analysis. The information available through the electronic health records, laboratory testing, or patient examinations, for example, are a better source of fact than asking the customer directly how they feel or about their health. In most cases, the trained provider has fact-based data/analysis; where a survey about feelings is less reliable or descriptive at a point in time. 

So if the data you seek is available through some existing expert reporting tools, having the same information provided by a participant in a feedback survey may not be as helpful when considering facts as outcomes.

Surveys are an instrument to collect feedback, measure progress and promote improvement. And today's technology and communication tools make data collection efficient, effective, and timely.

Baby Boomers are why you include "outcomes" in your final project! (Week 5b)

The greatest generation were output generalists; 
baby boomers changed the game.

There are some really good reasons why I emphasize key indicators, outcomes, quantifiable results, measurable impact, and return-on-investment in grant writing. And why grant funding requests should always “begin with the end in mind”; supported by meaningful statistics describing the magnitude of need. But also why research-based documentation that supports your “dosage” is the appropriate evidence to address the problems of your primary customers. Ultimately a request for someone else's money should offer proof that "if"you do this, then "that" will result. As close to "cause and effect" as you can get.

Blame the Baby Boomer generation!

Interestingly, the focus on “outcomes” within the health and human services sector is relatively new; the funder community took first real notice when emphasized by the United Way in the 1990s. This followed a long stretch of Performance Management as the evaluation tool, which seemed to focus more on process and outputs rather than solutions. It’s not that having significant results from donor investment wasn't always important, but before 'outcomes' it seemed that just doing something was accepted as sufficient, rather than actually proving the "something" did any good!

Thus the environment changed. And although gifts and grants were increasing substantially back then, so were the number and type of organizations asking for those funds. The volume of nonprofits nationally was rising at a phenomenal rate, up nearly 1,000,000 organizations just between 1990 and 2010 and it is continuing to grow, by a LOT!

PLUS, those darn ‘baby boomers’ were maturing and becoming community leaders and successful in business. They were driving a significant change in the manner of giving, through “social entrepreneurship” and investing in “social venture capital”.  The Baby Boomers generation was only 44% of the nation’s population, but they personally held 70% of the US disposable income.

This was much different than the “greatest generation” before them, who donated through annual funds and unrestricted gifts; and who watched government and philanthropy spend money any way they wanted (way back when).

It’s the reverse now since more restricted giving has required a "business-like" return-on-investment approach. One that expects nonprofit programs and services to prove that it works. This is the current driving force of most of our nation’s philanthropic, corporate, and government grant-makers.

So here we are today facing many challenges within the health and human services sectors, often trying desperately just to attract funding for continuing operations, let alone new or enhanced ones.

At the government level, we are still suffering from significant cutbacks in discretionary funding due to the last economic downturns and more conservative budget approaches. In the private sector, although there is more charitable money to spend (due in a large part to a massive generational transfer of wealth populating philanthropies nationwide). The focus of giving is narrowed to those that can first prove a significant need, and then provide evidence that leads to solving the problem as soon as possible.

Combining all of this with intense competition within the not-for-profit sectors, it’s no wonder both public grants and private philanthropy priorities focus primarily on a research-based cause and effect approach when deciding on grants and major gifts.

Be S.M.A.R.T. for Objectives and Outcomes... More or Less! (Week 5a)

Do you check the meter?
I encourage S.M.A.R.T. statements as a strong format to craft objectives and outcomes, but there is a slight difference in structure between the two.

Both emphasize expected results as potential measures that are specific and quantitative. These are important components of both objectives and outcomes. 

For OBJECTIVES focus on what you generally plan to accomplish; more about the direction and described magnitude which your outcome indicators will illustrate. I refer to this as S.M.A.R.T. Intent. In most cases, the specific numeric change expected may be missing in a S.M.A.R.T. Intent Objective.

But OUTCOMES should have the specific numeric change expectation you seek to achieve; indicators which are targets about the indicator of significant improvement in your primary customer. How much specifically is your project expected to move the dial. Did the meter change for the better?

No doubt you will have read many different versions of terms and definitions. S.M.A.R.T. is one of those areas where opinion and experience lead to a variety of explanations. But then of course, when crafting quantifiable outcomes, I like mine.

Specific, Measurable, Aggressive yet Attainable, Realistic, Time-Bound

For example, here is a S.M.A.R.T. statement for an objective, or what I sometimes refer to as S.M.A.R.T.-Intent as the expected indicator change is mentioned but not always quantified.

Objective: To implement research-supported intervention programs leading to a significant percentage of participating patients who are current smokers achieving and maintaining a non-smoking status by the conclusion of the program and for a period thereafter.

How is this OBJECTIVE S.M.A.R.T?

Well, first it's a little long, but I'm trying to prove some points. But as specific as it may appear, it is actually a general statement when compared to the Outcome below. I consider this one having S.M.A.R.T. Intent. But this statement is specific enough since it says that a significant percentage of patients will become non-smokers. 

The OBJECTIVE above will be measurable since the percentage change (move the dial) will ultimately be used in your outcome. It’s time-bound as the results will need to be completed by the program conclusion and for some period thereafter. And I’m proposing a research-supported intervention to underpin the program’s ability to attain relatively aggressive targets (That's the A.A. in S.M.A.A.R.T.) of what I seek to implement.

Next, let’s take an example of what might be a related S.M.A.R.T. OUTCOME statement:

Outcome: By the conclusion of a two-year period of grant funding, 60% of the smoking-status patients who complete the proposed neighborhood health clinic smoking cessation program, will achieve non-smoking status for a minimum period of three months. One year following the conclusion of grant funding, 35% of program participants completing the project plan will achieve non-smoking status for a minimum of 12 months.

Within your outcomes, there should be no generalization in your statements, as you have in the objective. And I know this is also a long outcome. In a real proposal, I would split this outcome and its objective into two each.

Outcomes should have a direct relationship with the target indicators you seek to move forward, as a proposed numeric achievement. In most cases, your outcome will illustrate an improvement through a comparison of some measures you collected prior to your intervention (the baseline) and then again after your dosage is applied.

How is my outcome S.M.A.R.T. or S.M.A.A.R.T.? It’s very specific in that 60% of my smoker participants will achieve non-smoking status for at least three months, and then a third for an entire year. It’s attainable based on the research base, but not overly aggressive since we are talking about motivated participants who joined a program with physician oversight to quit smoking.

There are two time-bound measures, one by the conclusion of the grant and the second a year later. The second indicator is an expectation after the grant concludes, but provides for a level of magnitude which illustrates a strong commitment by the applicant to the outcomes. In both cases, it’s measurable as a quantifiable change in target population behavior.

As I've said in the past (and so did Stephen Covey originally) “Begin with the end in mind.” And the "end" should be an outcome that is the important result of conducting an intervention. You lead with a research-based, evidence-supported dose and duration intended to be persuasive of your project's ability to help someone... solve a problem... or address a need. Of course, you also need to begin at the beginning, and that is the objective. Both need S.M.A.R.T. structure, but have a slightly different emphasis, more or less!

Why Use 'Best Practice' and 'Evidence-Based' Initiatives (Week 4b)

The proof makes a stronger case than a personal opinion.

I encourage students to write grants which replicate evidence-based programs and provide proven problem-solving solutions benefiting their primary customers. In a request for someone else's money, it is strong support of your case and the greatest 'return on investment' to both the applicant and the funding source.

Although there are new and original solutions out there, my goal is to help others be successful in their funding requests. Replicating success is the best way to reach that goal.  Funding sources are more comfortable replicating proven success when funding new programs. 

The National Council on Aging provides a succinct summary of the advantage of "evidence-based" programs.

• Funders increasingly demand that programming is based on solid evidence.
• Agency leaders want to concentrate limited resources on proven programs.
• [Customers] are looking for programs that have been proven to work.

Health Affairs is a journal on health policy. They published an article discussing the use of evidence-based approaches to inform health interventions and policy... "Promoting Evidence-Based Public Health Policy: Can We Have Better Evidence And More Action?" As part of the summary remarks, I was particularly impressed with this conclusion:

"When the science base is adequate to support decisions, more can be done to rapidly translate results into decisions on expanding or changing programs and policies designed to improve health. 

Dissemination of results can be accelerated, tools developed to facilitate their use in a variety of settings, incentives provided for implementing recommended programs and policies based on the best evidence, and results measured."

The take-away resources I've gathered and shared with you include web sources of best practices in health and human services. You might find valuable information here in developing your project plans; but also for future reference when considering new program development and outcome-focused initiatives for your employer. 

These sources will prove helpful to identify and develop target indicators you seek to improve through project initiatives. In many cases, they provide a quantifiable comparative baseline upon which you can apply your action plan ‘dose’ and its 'duration'; and then identify meaningful target indicators against which you seek to "move the dial" and achieve visible improvement.

So I'm pleased to provide you On the Web: Internet Resources located on my Instructor Blog at http://brucebrodsky.blogspot.com. This website is available for access now and in the future. I continually add to the content areas new capacity-building resources for nonprofit agencies. There are over 300 weblinks divided among different topical sections. One of these is Evidence-Based and Best Practice Programs, and the second is Data, Research, and Topical References. Both are valuable in new and enhanced program development.

Evidence-Based Associates implements community-based juvenile justice programs, and they refer to research-based programming as value-focused for the customer. 

"The concept of a program that is based on the most scientifically proven data to deliver the best outcomes delivers a powerful and meaningful value proposition from many perspectives. Hundreds of millions of research dollars have proven that some programs work and some programs don’t... The “best value at the lowest risk” is investing in programs that are scientifically proven to work."

In my earlier post on "A Basic Theory of Change", I included a graphic (below) illustrating how evidence should guide your choices of interventions; this is to support the potential cause and effect relationship between what you propose to do and your S.M.A.R.T. outcomes. Evidence-Based and Evidence-Informed activities should be supported by research, so as to demonstrate a high likelihood they will both (a) address the need and (b) result in your intended benefit to your primary customer.

A little research goes a long way to answer the really important questions. (Week 4a)

Support your project through proof and replicating evidence-based success.

When preparing a proposal for a new program for the people you serve, evidence of need and a logic-based rationale for the 'dosage', are among your initial starting points. 

Why does your primary customer (those who directly benefit from what you plan to do) actually need what you want to do for them? What are the 'at-risk' or other characteristics of the people being addressed that illustrate this need? If it is an entire community (or neighborhood or city or state) that requires what you propose, what's missing from their life that so desperately exhibits a need for this help. Essentially, why do this project at all?

Much of what is used to support needs in a grant application is US Census demographic statistics. But there are other data closer to home, prepared by official sources or topical experts that are the result of research. Much can also be found in local or state government planning studies, usage reports, and gap analyses. Critical to requesting someone else's money is gathering data, with directional trends or facts that illustrate both the significance and the magnitude of need. 

By using national, state, and neighboring community information, you can provide comparative knowledge to illustrate the magnitude of the need of your target community compared to others. A strong point in a statement of need requires the emphasis on your locality; does your community or your target population have more of a problem than your neighboring areas, region, state, or nation? Comparing these demographic and population risk characteristics, often through charting, is a good use of space in a grant proposal, particularly one with page limits. It helps you illustrate the magnitude of the need.

On the projects you propose, I know that not everything has been invented, developed, or created; and there will be new interventions in health and human services in the future. 

However, for those knowing the mantra of Ivory Soap (99 44/100% pure), that same percentage may apply to your life's work when you propose ANYTHING... so now (or perhaps until you become a research scientist) you should apply recognized best practice or existing evidence-based interventions as your dosage (the intervention applied to your target customer) when considering proposed solutions for solving problems using other people's money. For most of us submitting grant proposals, it's best to replicate the success of others.

Bottom Line: when preparing new programs or grant proposals, stick to solutions that have earned proof that they work. In effect, how do you know that what you propose can actually work? Then describe in your proposal how a recognized best practice or evidence-based intervention is the logical approach to solving problems for the individuals you are seeking to help. A persuasive case is one that is supported by research- or an evidence-based solution so you can hypothesize "if this is done"... "then this will result".

Program-related research can support your assumptions. And it is why you start with the "end in mind" that has proof of results that benefit your primary customer. Include in your proposal key documentation of strong evidence of the proposed program's effectiveness. The extra benefit of using evidence-based research is that it will normally identify the initiatives you should implement to achieve success, thus contributing to the activity section of your proposal.

Who Are Your Customers!

I often pull from the Peter Drucker handbook when discussing the people we serve. They are your customers; those who are primary (direct beneficiaries of your help) and those that are supporting (everyone else with an interest in helping your direct beneficiaries). Why is it important? Because in the end, it's your primary customer (not your agency) the funding source wants to help. Here are two examples of differentiating primary and supporting customers.

If you are addressing a project to improve services for seniors, the affected elderly are your primary customer. Measurable improvement is best applied against real people in a grant. And their family members can be supporting customers, as can stakeholders with an interest in the project, such as agencies providing services for seniors.

If you are conducting a project to reduce the incidence of a particular health condition, such as obesity in youth or skin cancer in adults, the persons at-risk of the condition are your primary customer. The supporting customers might be the medical community you educate, or perhaps the media to share information for public consumption.

Peter Drucker said... primary customers are the people whose lives you are changing as a result of your work. That's a powerful statement and inclusive of the key concepts of outcomes in a grant application - changing lives through results. 

Important and measurable results are indicators that change, directly and positively impacting a target population's documented need, and are your strongest outcomes.

Thus when developing your activities or initiatives, you should not only consider what you are proposing to do but also for whom you are providing this activity or service. How close is your proposed action plan to the direct beneficiaries? 

Why is it important to use key community indicators as targets when defining and developing ideas for inclusion in your funding proposal? 

Because in the end, you will be defining measurable outcomes – or what meaningful things will change, and by how much once you apply your proposed activities to your primary customer. How will your project “move the needle” on some key indicator? Was knowledge increased? Did behavior improve? Have new skills been learned? Has a person’s condition changed for the better... and then all of this by how much?

Changes in key indicators and measurable outcomes mean more when compared to a starting point (or some other baseline measures). Can you provide proof or evidence that what you propose has been successful elsewhere and has value to the target population you seek to serve? And then, what will be the meaningful and quantifiable positive change that results once the dosage you propose has been applied during the time period of your proposed program?