Proposal
Home Up Presentation Proposal Alternative Portfolio

 

GRANT PROPOSAL (30% course grade: 25% for your proposal, 5% for critiques)

This assignment is intended as an opportunity to practice a useful skill. It is labor-intensive, and in real life successful grants are often written by teams rather than individuals; so if you would like to collaborate with one or more classmates, ask. Material on writing grant proposals and links to useful sites will be provided at the class site. "Your library," for purposes of this assignment, may be the library at which you actually work, a real library which you can research, or a hypothetical library based on plausible knowledge of public libraries in general. Your proposal will be based on

bulletAnalysis of community needs: what you propose would be of genuine and demonstrable use to members of the community your library serves.
bulletClear articulation of the library’s mission and capabilities: what you propose would advance the library’s goals, and would be something the library’s resources enable it to do uniquely well, either alone or in collaboration with other community agencies.
bulletIdentification of at least one appropriate funding source: what you propose would advance the goals of the funding agent(s); the library and its allies are not begging for much-needed aid, but offering much-needed capabilities to help the funding agent achieve these desired goals.
bulletDevelopment of a detailed strategy for realizing goals: what you propose would be feasible (as shown by your timeline, budget, etc.) and cost-efficient, achieving the desired goals more effectively and/or more cheaply than other alternatives would.
bulletInclusion of a clear plan for evaluating and reporting success: you will be accountable for what you propose.

The exact form of your grant proposal will depend on your choice of funding agent, as you will follow that agent’s directives carefully. Attach a brief essay covering parts of the assignment that are not clear in the application itself (for example, why the selected funding agent is the best fit for this project). 

You will submit a first draft of your grant for review by a small panel of classmates, and you will serve as a reviewer for three or four classmates’ proposals. Your first draft need not be perfect, but it must be submitted on time so that your peer reviewers will have two weeks for response. Your critique of classmates' proposals must be submitted on time so they will have two weeks to incorporate your best suggestions before the final proposal is due. The object of the review panels is not to be harshly critical, but to help each grant writer identify and enhance the strong points in his or her proposal, while addressing and compensating for any weaknesses. Procedure for critiques:

bulletOctober 25: first draft of proposal due to instructor. Preferred format: Word document, sent as attachment to WebCT e-mail. Alternative: Mount draft on own website, and give URL to instructor.
bulletInstructor will group critiques by interest, format, or other affinity. Each group should have three or four proposals, so each student will have two or three critiques to write. 
bulletOctober 27: instructor to post proposals for groups. Each group will have exclusive access to 1) a discussion topic, and 2) proposals by classmates in that group only. 
bulletNovember 8: proposal critiques and feedback due from group members and instructor, two weeks before final due date for grant proposals. Critiques may be submitted early -- this can only help. Critiques should be submitted by WebCT e-mail to individual classmate; please copy instructor, in order to get credit for your critique. (Your mail is private, and I won't see what you write to each other if you don't copy me in.)

Criteria for grading

4. Above the Standard (B+ or A-)

bulletAnalysis of community needs: needs and interests of your population (the whole population, or a selected group in the library's service area) have been carefully analyzed; there is a good match with the proposed project; the case is made persuasively, and supported by well selected evidence. If funding agent's guidelines call for little discussion of community needs, relevant material is included in a cover essay accompanying the draft proposal. 
bulletArticulation of the library’s mission and capabilities: the library's relevant goals and service response are clearly stated; the library's resources for meeting the problem are realistically assessed, and collaboration with other community agencies has been initiated if appropriate. The case is made persuasively, so the library appears ideally positioned to accomplish what the funding agent wants and to serve as a demonstration of what is possible. If funding agent's guidelines call for little explanation of library characteristics, relevant discussion is provided in a cover essay accompanying the draft proposal. 
bulletIdentification of at least one appropriate funding source: stated goals and policies of the funding agent create a reasonable expectation that this is a project they would fund; the library will be able to meet the funding agent's requirements without losing sight of its own objectives; if more than one funding source has been considered, the most appropriate one has been chosen. Information about the funding agent is included in the cover essay; URL for funding agent's guidelines is given if available. 
bulletDevelopment of a strategy for realizing goals: the proposed project will achieve the desired goals more effectively and/or more cheaply than other alternatives would; it is feasible (as shown by your timeline, budget, etc.) and cost-efficient. It is a project likely to attract funding, and is presented in such a way as to maximize its appeal to the funding agent. 
bulletPlan for evaluating and reporting project outcomes: the proposed evaluation is appropriate to the grant sought and the funding agent's requirements; it will provide a meaningful measure of how well the funded project succeeded in realizing its objectives; it will not be too costly or complex to carry out, given the library's resources. 
bulletForm: all sources are properly cited. There are few errors in spelling and grammar; layout is clear, and fully compatible with the funding source's requirements. First draft and critique are submitted on time.   
bulletCritiques of classmate proposals: critiques address points listed above, and will help each grant writer identify and build on strengths in his or her proposal, while addressing and compensating for any weaknesses. Critiques demonstrate understanding of what the proposal writer is trying to achieve, and may refer to funding agents' guidelines (often available online). 

3. Meets the Standard (B)

bulletAnalysis of community needs: needs and interests of your population (the whole population, or a selected group in the library's service area) have been analyzed and documented; there is a good match with the proposed project.  
bulletArticulation of the library’s mission and capabilities: the library's relevant goals and service response are stated; the library's resources for meeting the problem are assessed. 
bulletIdentification of at least one appropriate funding source: stated goals and policies of the funding agent create a reasonable expectation that this is a project they would fund; the library will be able to meet their requirements without losing sight of its own objectives.
bulletDevelopment of a strategy for realizing goals: the proposed project will achieve the desired goals more effectively and/or more cheaply than other alternatives would; it is feasible (as shown by your timeline, budget, etc.) and cost-efficient.
bulletPlan for evaluating and reporting project outcomes: the proposed evaluation is appropriate to the grant sought and the funding agent's requirements; it will provide a meaningful measure of how well the funded project succeeded in realizing its objectives; it will not be too costly or complex to carry out, given the library's resources. 
bulletForm: all sources are properly cited. There are few errors in spelling and grammar; layout is clear. First draft and critiques are submitted on time.   
bulletCritiques: critiques make useful comments, pointing out ways to improve proposals. 

2. Below the Standard (C+ or B-)

bulletAnalysis of community needs: population needs and interests may have been incompletely documented or analyzed, or may not be met by the proposed project. The project may be framed in terms of the institution's needs rather than the public's (e.g., "This library needs an elevator so we can meet ADA standards and keep state funding," as opposed to, "This library needs a way for library users with impaired mobility to access materials on the upper stories. For X percent of our population, access is limited because they are wheelchair bound or use walkers; for another X percent, baby carriages and other burdens make the stairs impossible. The needs of these users are diverse, and the library's limited size makes it  impossible to relocate all needed collections to the ground floor. Cost-benefit analysis shows that an elevator would be the most economical solution").  
bulletArticulation of the library’s mission and capabilities: all the library's goals and service responses may be stated, or none, rather than just the relevant ones; there may be no assessment of the library's resources for carrying out the grant project, and appropriate collaboration with other community agencies may have been overlooked. 
bulletIdentification of at least one appropriate funding source: the funding agent may be inappropriate to the project, or its requirements may be such that the library cannot meet them without losing sight of its own objectives; or the assignment may be turned in with no explanation of how the funding source was chosen, or what its guidelines are. 
bulletDevelopment of a strategy for realizing goals: the proposed project seems unlikely to achieve the desired goals more effectively and/or more cheaply than other alternatives would; timeline, budget, etc. are sketchy and/or unrealistic. 
bulletPlan for evaluating and reporting project outcomes: the proposed evaluation may not be directly relevant to the grant sought or the funding agent's requirements; it may not provide a meaningful measure of how well the funded project succeeded; it may be too costly or complex to carry out, given the library's resources.
bulletForm: all sources may not be properly cited. There may be many errors in spelling and grammar; layout may be sloppy, or transparent attempts to meet the funding agent's space requirements by shrinking margins and font sizes may substitute for economy in writing. Some requirements for handing in work may not be met (e.g., there may be unnecessarily many documents).   
bulletCritiques: may be late or uninformative. May simply say, "great job, keep up the good work." May make suggestions based on hasty reading of the proposal, with no effort to determine what the writer is really trying to get at or what the funding agency would want.