Scope of the Writing & Planning effort

A round table discussion among grant pros at a Title V pre-application workshop suggests that:

Developing a successful proposal is at least a 3 month process, with the last 6 weeks in intensive writing & budgeting - (think - 16 hrs/day X7)

...notes from a presentation by Susan E. Kelly, grants guru at Valencia Community College, at a Federal Title V pre-application workshop that we attended:

"Title V is about identifying problems that lie at the heart of your college and solving them over five years.

It is not about a small group of people creating an innovation on the fringe that only benefits a few people, as can be the case with other grants.

This is about real and significant change.

You begin preparing your college for that transition by collaborating to develop a picture of where you want to be in five years (the CDP - Comprehensive Development Plan), charting the path to get there, communicating the reason for the change over and over again, and helping people to see their role in the change.

For change to be successful and institutionalization to occur after the Title V-funded developmental phase ends several things have to happen.

              1. There must be buy-in at all levels.

              2. The plan must be realistic and it must provide for mid-point, process adjustments so that the resulting solution    is one that is worth institutionalizing.  You must be careful to project changes that can reasonably be accomplished within the five-year time frame, that are measurable, and that will impact the basic problems of the college.

              3. The plan must provide some means to cover the future costs of institutionalization.

              4. The institution must be prepared to deal with the process of transition."

"The planning process involves LACE, an acronym that Tom Keyes of the Title III office has shared at many pre-application workshops.

LACE is an acronym that stands for Literature, Authorities, Colleges, and your own Experience. Whatever planning process you use should call upon all four of these sources. If you have missed one of them, that would a task to undertake now. Let’s look at each one and the role it played in planning our proposal.

              Literature: Has your college conducted a literature review related to the key problems that are emerging in your planning?

In our case, we assigned a team of faculty and staff to do a literature review on several topics. (See pages 75-87 of our proposal.) The literature review will help you determine how other colleges are tackling similar problems, suggest a range of possible solutions, provide data about successful solutions at other colleges, and suggest the underlying theory that should govern a search for solutions. This is not that difficult to do.

              Authorities: Have you identified recognized authorities whose work is highly regarded in the field?

Have you consulted their written work? Have you consulted any of them directly about your problems? Note that we did both (see pages 87 and 94) and it was worth the investment of money.

              Colleges: The literature search and consultants helped us to identify other colleges grappling with similar problems and that had implemented successful solutions. (See pages 88- 89.)We visited those colleges to learn more about their approaches and to decide what could be adapted at Valencia. Again, this was an extra expense, but it was worth it in that it gave us added confidence that our chosen solution would be successful, and it also developed a team spirit among the group of planners that has carried forward into the implementation of the grant.

             Experience: We also took a hard look at our own internal experience. We wanted to review the real and sometimes painful truth, and not base our plans on cherished myths about ourselves.

That meant collecting data and examining it, not for the purpose of assigning blame or being negative, but for the purpose of beginning at a realistic point and ensuring that we were actually tackling the real problem and not just its symptoms.

We also looked at positive experiences at the college. Often we find individual innovations taking place on a small scale, maybe in only one classroom or with only one advisor, that show promise of providing solutions on a larger scale. The grant can be a way of moving those isolated innovations into the mainstream of the college. "

and notes from a round table at the same workshop: