NPM 6140 Grant and Report Writing Winter 2016 Online CRN Course Instructor: George T. Kosar, Ph.D DRAFT

Transcription

1 NPM 6140 Grant and Report Writing Winter 2016 Online CRN Course Instructor: George T. Kosar, Ph.D Office hours by appointment Students should contact the division director if unable to contact the instructor, or in the event that some concern about the course arises and is not addressed by the instructor: Rick Arrowood, JD, Graduate Professor and Academic Specialist ; Course Description: Introduces grants and grant proposal writing. Knowledge of the grant writing cycle allows nonprofit professionals to use their time productively. Topics include effective research, creating a plan for the program, elements of a good proposal, components of the proposal package, and strategies for getting a proposal reviewed by a foundation or corporation. Offers students an opportunity to research an RFP or identify a foundation, write a grant proposal, and prepare it for submission to a funding source. Prerequisites: Students should have a specific project or fairly well-developed idea to build upon as the basis for their coursework and final grant proposal. Also, students written work is expected to be clear and comprehensible, reflecting a solid command of the English language. Course Methodology and Objectives: The course seeks to improve writing and research skills within the context of a broader understanding of the grantseeking and philanthropic world. On a practical level, it emphasizes reader-based prose, revising skills, and the Five C s of effective writing. On a more theoretical level, the class discusses several philanthropic case studies in order to illuminate strategic questions involved in developing projects and writing grant proposals. Likewise, the course focuses not only on the practical structure of proposals, but also on theory of change methodology and issues such as project sustainability and evaluation. Upon completion of the course, students will have had the opportunity to: Approach grantseeking and proposal writing more positively and confidently; Understand grant and report writing best practices; Identify trends in philanthropy; Improve formal writing competencies, including structure, grammar, style, and persuasiveness; Carry out prospect research; Understand and develop clear, coherent goals and objectives; Understand and develop outcome measurements and evaluations; Strengthen their ability to interact successfully with funders; Prepare a grant application. Readings and Resources: Textbook: The Only Grant-Writing Book You ll Ever Need, Ellen Karsh, Fourth Edition, Basic Books, ISBN Case Studies, Readings, Foundation Center Directory Online NPM Professor Kosar

2 Expectations, Course Grading, and Grading Rubric: Students must actively participate in discussions. Assignments must be turned in on time. Specific directions will be given for each assignment. Students are expected to complete the following course requirements: Research Project: 15% Letter of Inquiry: 20% Grant Proposal: 25% Weekly Discussions (5): 25% Document & Situation Analyses (4): 15% A B C A B C B C F 0-69 Academic Honesty and Integrity Statement: The University views academic dishonesty as one of the most serious offenses that a student can commit while in college and imposes appropriate punitive sanctions on violators. Here are some examples of academic dishonesty. While this is not an all-inclusive list, we hope this will help you to understand some of the things instructors look for and strongly recommend that you include the text below as part of your syllabus. The following is excerpted from the University s policy on academic honesty and integrity; the complete policy is available at Cheating - The University defines cheating as intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise. When completing any academic assignment, a student shall rely on her/his own mastery of the subject. Examples: Unauthorized use of notes, text, the Internet, or other aids during an examination. Copying from another student s academic work. Unauthorized communication during an examination. Handing in the same assignment/paper for more than one course without explicit permission from the instructor(s). Intentionally viewing a test before it is administered. Storing notes in a portable electronic device for use during an examination. Fabrication - The University defines fabrication as intentional and unauthorized falsification, misrepresentation, or invention of any information, data, or citation in an academic exercise. Examples: Inventing data or facts for an academic assignment. Altering the results of a lab experiment or survey. Citing a source in a bibliography that was not used. Stating an opinion as a scientifically proven fact. Plagiarism - The University defines plagiarism as intentionally representing the words, ideas, or data of another as one s own in any academic exercise without providing proper citation. The following sources require citation: Word-for-word quotations from a source, including another student s work. Paraphrasing (using the ideas of others in your own words). Unusual or controversial facts not widely recognized. Audio, video, digital, or live exchanges of ideas, dialogues, or information. NPM Professor Kosar

3 Writing Quality Rubric: Grades will take into account writing quality. The following guidelines apply to assessments of writing: Grading Grammar, Mechanics, Usage Clarity and Coherence While there may be minor errors, the paper follows normal Sentences are structured and conventions of spelling and grammar throughout and has been words are chosen to carefully proofread. communicate ideas clearly. High Level of Proficiency Moderate Proficiency 1 full grade level reduction Minimal Proficiency 2 full grade levels of reduction Appropriate conventions for style and format are used consistently throughout the written assignment. Frequent errors in spelling, grammar (such as subject/verb agreements and tense), sentence structure, and/or other writing conventions distract the reader, but the reader is able to completely understand what the writer meant. Writing does not consistently follow appropriate style and/or format. Writing contains numerous errors in spelling, grammar, and/or sentence structure that interfere with comprehension. The reader is unable to understand some of the intended meaning. Style and/or format are inappropriate for the assignment. Sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs make the writer s points easy to follow. Sentence structure and/or word choice sometimes interfere with clarity. Needs to improve sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs to make the writing easy to follow. Sentence structure, word choice, lack of transitions, and/or sequencing of ideas make reading and understanding difficult. To help improve writing skills, the following resources are available: Smarthinking (available free in Blackboard Tool section) allows students to submit personal written material in any subject for review by an e-structor within a 24-hour window (in most cases). The Purdue Online Writing Lab provides free writing resources with help in grammar, sentence structure, and general writing skills. Discussion Board and Discussion Grading Rubric: For each online discussion topic, students must respond to the discussion question(s) in a primary response. They must also respond to fellow students postings at least twice; these secondary responses should be made to those postings that one finds most interesting or compelling. To be able to receive full credit, responses must be posted during the assigned week. A/A Distinguished/ Outstanding Grading Discussion Board Participated 3 or more times during the week and posted outstanding information. Posts made in time for others to read and respond; initial contribution posted during Primary Response days Submitted 2 responses to other student posts Delivered information that shows thought, insight, and analysis have taken place Made connections to previous or current content or to real-life situations NPM Professor Kosar

4 B+/B Proficient B Basic C+ Below Expectations Participated at least 2 times during the week and posted proficient information. Initial contribution posted during Primary Response days Delivered information that shows thought, insight, and analysis have taken place Made connections to previous or current content or to real-life situations, but the connections are not very clear or are too obvious; posts contain new ideas, connections, or applications, but they lack depth and/or detail Participated at least 1 time during the week and posted basic information. May not all be made in time for others to read and respond; are generally competent, but the actual information they deliver seems thin and commonplace Made limited, if any, connections, and those are often cast in the form of vague generalities Contain few, if any, new ideas or applications; often are a rehashing or summary of other comments Participated at least 1 time during the week and posted information that was below expectations. May not all be made in time for others to read and respond Are rudimentary and superficial; there is no evidence of insight or analysis Contributed no new ideas, connections, or applications May be completely off topic Three Types of Activity: Assignments, Discussions, and Analyses The CPS week runs from Monday morning to Sunday night. Our online activity consists of three types of work, which are highlighted below in three colors: ASSIGNMENTS include: textbook readings, 3 written assignments, and handouts available on Blackboard under Course Material. For the three written assignments: in the Assignments folder, click on View/Complete Assignment. Attach your completed assignment as a Word document (or equivalent) and click Submit. WEEKLY DISCUSSIONS cover the following topics and follow the schedule below: Week 1: Online introductions. Only a primary response is required. Weeks 2-5: One case study per week (to obtain them, see Blackboard s Books section) Week 6: Discuss Project Streamline report. Only a primary response is required. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Post Primary Response(s) Post your Secondary Responses by responding to at least two postings (from other students) that you find most compelling or interesting NPM Professor Kosar

5 ANALYSES require you to interact with one another in Weeks 3-5 to assess one document and three situations: In Week 3, you will conduct a Document Analysis of a Letter of Inquiry. In Weeks 3-5, you will conduct Situation Analyses of three brief case studies that I have written. Each of these cases is adapted from actual experiences, but specific information about these situations has been changed to protect the innocent. Back Bay University asks you to navigate the universe of foundations; The Phone Call asks you to handle a phone call that goes horribly wrong; and The Grant Renewal asks you to deal with a rather complicated opportunity to renew funding. COURSE SCHEDULE: Introduction & Course Logistics Week 1: January 11-17, 2016 Course Overview Introductions Assignments due in Week 1: Begin conducting prospect research on Foundation Directory Online (FDO) website Discussion: Student introductions Grantmaking and Grantseeking I Week 2: January 18-24, 2016 Funders The Proposal Process Reader-Based Prose Assignments due in Week 2: Text: Lessons 1-3, Funders Roundtable (FR) I Discussion: Philanthropy Between Supply and Demand Case Study Creating An Online Information Marketplace For Giving: The Hewlett Foundation NPM Professor Kosar

6 Grantmaking and Grantseeking II Week 3: January 25-31, 2016 Letters of Inquiry Assignments due in Week 3: Text: Lessons 4-7 Prospect Research Report (PRR) Submit as a DISCUSSION Board Posting Call Discussion: Philanthropic Strategy Case Study EMCF: A New Approach at an Old Foundation Document Analysis: Letter of Inquiry Situation Analysis: Back Bay University Evaluation & Strategy Week 4: February 1-7, 2016 Evaluation and Measurement Theory of Change and Logic Models Assignments due in Week 4: Text: Lessons 8-12, FR II Letter of Inquiry (LOI) Discussion: Evaluation and Measurement of Philanthropy Case Study Focused Philanthropy: The Steans Family Foundation North Lawndale Initiative Situation Analysis: The Phone NPM Professor Kosar

7 Budgets and Problems Week 5: February 8-14, 2016 Budgets Problem Statements Assignments due in Week 5: Text: Lessons Discussion: Philanthropic Capital Markets Case Study Peninsula Community Foundation Situation Analysis: The Grant Renewal The Grants System Week 6: February 15-20, 2016 Post-Submission Process Reforming the System Assignments due in Week 6: Text: Appendices 1-6, FR III Grant Proposal Discussion: Issues in Grant Application and Reporting Project Streamline report Drowning in Paperwork, Distracted From Purpose NPM Professor Kosar