Final for grant proposal writing and evaluation writing: PLEASE INCLUDE ALL THE DETAILS LISTED IN THE DESCRIPTION AREA

hsm270_week2_reading.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Final for grant proposal writing and evaluation writing: PLEASE INCLUDE ALL THE DETAILS LISTED IN THE DESCRIPTION AREA

PLANNING, EVALUATING, AND GRANT WRITING

Knowing where you are and what you need are among the most important initial tasks of a suc- cessful program planning process. From conducting needs assessments to a simple program planning approach, this chapter will discuss the fundamental tasks for effective program plan- ning and evaluation. Essentially, the program planning process is similar to that of writing a well- developed grant proposal. Readers will learn about effective grant writing processes and techniques in this and the following chapters.

Grant and Contract

There is often confusion about the difference between the terms grant and contract. Coley and Scheinberg (1990) point out that “a grant is a sum of money given to an agency or individual to address a problem or need in the community,” whereas “a contract is a legal agreement that specifies the service to be provided and the results expected in exchange for resources” (p. 13).

A funding source may agree to provide $500,000 to fund a 2-year comprehensive homeless family intervention program proposed by a social service agency. At the end of the grant fund- ing in 2 years, the agency has to seek out new funding to support the program if it chooses to continue the program. Grant funding is awarded to start new programs, not the continuation of old programs. Meanwhile, the agency may also have a service contract with the county social service department to provide 6,000 units of mental health counseling service and 500 housing referrals for at least 300 homeless families annually. There will be a contract renegotiation at the end of each fiscal year to adjust the cost and the service volume, or even the service contents. In most situations, if the contractual services have been satisfactorily delivered and the need continue to exist, the services will continue with the new contract.

The difference between grant and contract is similar to that between stipend and salary. If a person receives a stipend or scholarship, he or she is sponsored and encouraged by the fund- ing source to engage in certain pursuits that are of interest to both parties. This sponsorship is time limited. On the other hand, if a staff person receives a salary, he or she would have an employment contract, or be on the basis of contract-at-will, to perform specific tasks or func- tions within a particular job title. In return for his or her service, the employer would provide an agreed upon salary with benefits. This employment contract presumably keeps going as long as the employment conditions continue to be favorable.

Program Planning and Grant Writing

A program planning process involves the development and use of activities, such as setting up goals, objectives, activities, and evaluation. This process presents the logic and the argument that justify the need, the significance, and the relevance of the proposed plan. A grant proposal is a

C H A P T E R

written program plan that is specifically developed to gain financial assistance from a funding source to support the proposed services. Program planning provides the process and the frame- work for the development of a service grant proposal. Grant proposal is a specific type of prod- uct of program planning. Both of them involve logical thinking and are objective driven. They also take into considerations of the political economy surrounding the funding source and the problem to be addressed.

Among the concerns for good program planning and grant writing are the understanding and involvement of the target population. It is not uncommon for a human service agency to assign the planning or grant writing functions to one of its managerial staff or to a contracted planner or grant writer. Proceeding from the usual deductive ways of planning and based on the available data and theoretical frameworks, these planners and grant writers develop their plans or proposals on their own. What is missing in this process is input from the target population. Such solicitation not only increases the quality of the program plan but also allows the opportu- nity to develop the very important “buy-in” from the target population.

A Simple Formula for Program Planning

Many are familiar with the usage of terms such as what, why, and how in making plans. By using this common strategy, one can easily map out the basic concerns in developing any plan. Based on this common approach, a program planning formula is developed to guide a comprehensive planning process (see Box 2.1).

Program planning is an ongoing and dynamic process. It is also consistent with systems theory; that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Program planning is not merely a sum of all the planning components; it is a dynamic process that is the result of the interplay (multiplications) of its various components. The planning product itself is more than a combi- nation of its parts.

Imagine that Mary goes to school every day with a stop at her parents’ home in order to drop off her children for daycare. If there are only two ways (A and B) to go from Mary’s house to her parents’ house, and there are only three ways (C, D, and E) from her parents’ house to the school, how many possible routes are there for Mary to go to school? As one may suspect, the answer is not five (A, B, C, D, and E). The correct answer is not the sum of the available ways. In fact, there are six ways to go from home to school with a stop at Mary’s parents. The answer of six represents AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, and BE. Mathematically, it is two ways multi- plied by three ways (2 ✕ 3 = 6). Similarly, program planning is not the five Ws plus two Hs plus one E; it is the multiplications of all these variables. The multiplications represent the many interactive outcomes that involve the interplay of the many components. Program plan- ning is not strictly a straightforward and linear-sequential process. Instead, it is a spiral process that involves the back and forth, as well as the ups and downs, of the interactions among com- ponents as it moves forward.

The first W that concerns any planner is the “why.” It is both the reason and the aim for the planning process. As a reason, it represents the needs and problems that bring about the desire for a program plan. As an aim, it defines the goals and objectives for the program plan to achieve. Program persons who do not understand the reasons for their program’s existence and the goals that they should achieve tend to be confused and lack accomplishments. On the other hand, pro- gram persons who fixate on the “why,” while their program lacks actual interventions or actions, tend to have plenty of empty promises and lack concrete outcomes.

PLANNING, EVALUATING, AND GRANT WRITING 11

“Who” represents the target population that the program plan intends to serve. It also com- prises the “whom”—by whom will these activities be implemented—the staff, the volunteers, and the cooperative organizations. A good program plan should have a clear understanding and description of its target population. This understanding includes the needs and problems of the target populations, their characteristics, and their environments. It enables the development and employment of culturally competent accesses to reach the population. This program plan should also contain the design or the composition of program staff to support the proposed ser- vices. These include both the qualification and quality of the program staff, as well as the staff management plan.

The “when,” “where,” and “what” are the logistics of the program. They are more than the implementation details. Timing and duration of programs—“when”—are essential to the suc- cess of the program. “Where” is about location and the accessibility of the program to the tar- get populations. “What” represents the equipments and supply that the program needs to achieve its goals.

The two H’s represent “how” and “how much.” “How” is delineation of the service delivery systems and their activities. The means through which the intended services are provided to meet the identified needs or objectives. “How much” is the “$64,000 question” of program budgeting. It involves not only how much money, but also how the organization allocates and uses the funds. In fact, it is by itself a program plan for the money and resources. It is a fiscal program plan that goes with the service program plan.

Finally, the E is the evaluation. How do service providers, service recipients, and the fund- ing source know the extent that the program has achieved its objectives? If so, how well? Furthermore, what kinds of impact might it have?

Needs Assessments and Other Preplanning Considerations

Many people consider needs assessment as a form of evaluation and techniques that are used at the beginning of any program planning process. It provides the necessary data to guide the development of the program plan. “A needs assessment describes the target population or com- munity, including demographic characteristics, the extent of relevant problems or issues of con- cern, and current services” (Lewis, Lewis, Packard, & Souflee, 2001, p. 31). Mayer (1985) defines needs assessment as “the difference between the extent of a condition or need in a given population and the amount of service provided to meet that need” (p. 127).

What is a need? Mayer (1985) reports Bradshaw’s (1977) discussions of four types of needs: normative, felt, expressed, and comparative. Normative need refers to certain conditions that are

12 CHAPTER TWO

BOX

2.1 PROGRAM PLANNING FORMULA

P2 = W5 x H2 x E

Whereas,

● P2 = Program Planning

● W5 = Why x Who/Whom x When x Where x What

● H2 = How x How much

● E = Evaluation

below the established social standards. Examples are family income that falls below the nation- al or local poverty line and students whose low family incomes qualify them for free school meals. Felt need refers to the want based on the individual’s standards. Depending upon their conditions and functioning, individuals may request to have different types of services they desire. A homeless mother and her two children normatively are in need of stable housing. She may also want housing in a particular neighborhood so she can walk to her work and drop off her children to a relative for care.

Expressed need refers to attempts by the individuals to fulfill their needs. Individuals such as the aforementioned homeless mother placing names of her family members on the waiting list for Title 8 housing assistance formulates the expressed need. Collectively, they become the service demand. Comparative need refers to the situation that an individual’s condition is rela- tively worse off or less desirable than that of other people. The fact that this homeless mother’s two children have more infectious disease-related emergency room visits than children their ages who live in a stable home reflects the comparative need and urgency for better care for the homeless families.

Rubin and Babbie (1997, p. 570) list several categories of needs assessment: (a) the key informants approach, (b) the community forum approach, (c) the rates-under-treatment approach, (d) the social indicators approach, (e) the community survey approach, and (f) the focus group approach. All of these approaches have their own advantages and pitfalls. Program planners may need to use more than one approach to gain a comprehensive or representative understanding.

Key informants are individuals who have special knowledge about the identified issues. They range from the service providers to the service recipients and their caregivers. Through the use of interviews and questionnaires, their special insights and comments regarding the situations will be collected.

Community forums such as open forums or town hall meetings provide a channel for con- cerned citizens to express and exchange their opinions.

Rates-under-treatment refers to the estimate of future service needs based on the current client data, including service usages and the waiting list. This approach can be carried out by doing documentary studies of existing or secondary data.

The social indicators approach utilizes the existing statistics and markers to study the con- dition of the target population. School dropout rate, infant mortality rate, and child abuse reports are examples of such an approach.

Survey of communities or target groups involves the use of both qualitative and quantitative research approaches to gather information directly from the target populations.

Finally, focus groups are usually made up of 12 to 15 people who represent the intended tar- get population. Through a set of guided focus group questions, they provide thoughtful respons- es to the topics. Additionally, the group discussions and dynamics also bring about new ideas and discussions that the planners have not thought about.

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches

Part of the misunderstanding of program evaluation and social research is that evaluation and research is all about numbers. Many believe that when using numbers, they apply statistics and a quantitative way of dealing. Furthermore, when statistics are involved, program evaluation is thought to be for science-minded people such as mathematicians, statisticians, or program evaluators. Some human service providers may argue they should concentrate on what they do best, such as dealing with people and improving their well being. They are better trained and

PLANNING, EVALUATING, AND GRANT WRITING 13

capable in more qualitative domains and should let the evaluators or managers deal with the headaches of scientific evaluation. Certainly, there are many faults in the logic just described. Nevertheless, they reflect the resistance and misunderstanding among many human service providers who believe they are “people people” not “science people”; that they should not be concerned about, and are not prepared to deal with, program evaluation.

In reality, depending on the research design, a program evaluation’s involvement of statistics could range from few to plenty. Additionally, program evaluation is not for the wrongfully stereo- typed science nerds only. It is a lively and exciting process that many human service providers have the needed expertise to contribute to and enjoy. Royse, Thyer, Padgett, and Logan (2001) state that “program evaluation is a practical endeavor, not an academic exercise, and not an attempt to build theory or necessarily to develop social science knowledge” (p. 2).

Program evaluation employs both quantitative approaches and qualitative approaches. Each approach provides the needed and unique set of data to evaluate the program. Many quantita- tive approaches employ the deductive ways of evaluating programs; while qualitative approach- es use many of the inductive methods. Often, both approaches are used to provide a comprehensive understanding and evaluation of programs.

In writing a grant proposal, the applicant agency is making an argument that it has the understanding of the identified problems and knows how to address the problems. The grant proposal is then the agency’s plan of intervention that follows the argument. Moore (1998) defines an argument “as a group of statements, one of which—the conclusion—is claimed to fol- low the others—the premises” (p. 2). Therefore, an argument “consists of three parts—a group of premises, a conclusion, and an implicit claim” (p. 5). In the case of a program proposal, the group of premises is the basic belief and understanding that support the proposed program. The conclusion is the group of proposed interventions and services. The claim is the expected out- comes. Program evaluation, therefore, is an attempt to assess the proposed argument. Evaluation is the assessment and investigation of whether the conclusions follow the premises and that the claims can be substantiated. Conversely, an evaluation could examine whether premises support conclusions. This concept of “argument” provides the basis for the use of a logic model that is to be discussed in Chapter 3.

Moore (1998) further explains the difference between deductive argument and inductive argument. She cites the classic example of deductive reasoning that “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal” (p. 5). From a general truth or premise, a person draws a specific conclusion. The premises, in fact, contain more information than the conclusion, and the conclusion follows from the premises. In this situation, no matter how much more information is available on Socrates, he is still mortal and the conclusion still stands. Deductive reasoning provides a more precise and confident assertion than that from inductive reasoning.

In an inductive argument example, individual specific situations are used to make the gener- alization “Socrates was mortal. Sappho was mortal. Cleopatra was mortal. Therefore, all people are mortal” (Moore, 1998, p. 6). The premises of three people’s situations become the evidence and the basis for the conclusion that applies to all people. The conclusion carries more informa- tion than the premises, and could be altered as new information arises and becomes incorpo- rated into the body of knowledge. The inductive conclusion is more of the nature of the probable, correlative, or contributory than that of a more causal determination of deductive reasoning.

Qualitative and quantitative evaluation approaches complement each other, in that they help tell the program “stories” more comprehensively with both structure and contents, with hard data and human touch. Most evaluation efforts employ both approaches at the same time.

14 CHAPTER TWO

Quantitative and Deductive Approaches

Quantitative approaches of evaluation usually involve the application of experimental or quasi- experimental research designs that may include the use of control and experimental groups. This first involves defining the research or evaluation question, and then developing hypotheses. Part of the research interest is the presence and absence of certain interventions or independent vari- ables. The effects of the interventions on certain dependent variables (i.e., results) are objec- tively evaluated and measured. Often this process involves a larger number of respondents who make up the sample size and the use of validated data collection procedures and instruments.

Program proposal often starts from a particular program philosophy or belief, which is fur- ther operationalized into a working hypothesis. Within the context of a program philosophy, the proposal will further derive program goals and objectives and to develop activities. It is expected that these planned activities will bring about the desirable changes that support the program philosophy or belief. Many human service providers believe the behavior of at-risk youths is the result of a lack of significant adults that could provide meaningful relationships and proper guidance. Based on this belief and the working hypothesis (i.e., youth who have a regular association with a positive adult figure are less likely to get involved in high-risk behav- iors), the agency organizes a 12-month youth mentoring program (independent variable and intervention), structured through several major objectives.

During this twelve month program period, the agency uses a variety of evaluation strategies, including probability sampling, pre- and postmeasures (preexperimental or experimental designs), and service recording to assess the program’s performance. The agency wants to know if and how the mentoring program works. It gathers information and evaluation data from pro- gram participants and other relevant information sources.

Deductively, the agency compiles and analyzes data from a large number of the program participants. Through the results of evaluation, the agency develops both general and specific knowledge. It can claim that a data-supported finding, such as the effects of the agency’s men- toring program, suggests that such intervention can help bring at-risk youth back to school. If Johnny is an at-risk youth new to the program, the agency can apply the previous evaluation find- ings and make a confident generalization or assertion that the mentoring program will be help- ful for Johnny.

Many variables—including the basic unpredictable nature of human beings and the ethical concerns of manipulation of human variables—make pure deductive and quantitative evaluation approaches involving human subjects very difficult and complicated tasks. They require exten- sive oversight and sufficient resources and funding. Everyday program evaluations, however, do not require the same kind of rigor like many academic or medical researches and evaluations. Logical and well controlled experimental designs are not only feasible for many program evalu- ation tasks, but also beneficial to program monitoring and improvement.

Qualitative and Inductive Approaches

Royse (1999, p. 278) describes the characteristics of qualitative research. First, it does not involve interventions, experimental designs, or manipulations of variables. Second, it is natura- listic in that it studies subjects in their own natural environment as they grow and change. Similarly, the research question evolves and changes. Third, participant observation provides the in-depth understanding of the identified issues through observations and interviews. Fourth,

PLANNING, EVALUATING, AND GRANT WRITING 15

qualitative research does not require large sample size, and the small sample size could also yield valuable information. Fifth, there is little use of measurement and numeric values. Through the use of his or her eyes and ears, the researcher is the tool of measurement. Sixth, the use of jour- nalistic narrative helps the researchers to have an in-depth and detailed look of a situation. Seventh, much of the qualitative research is exploratory in nature. Finally, the researcher is a learner but not an expert.

Yegidis, Weinbach, Morrison-Rodriguez (1999, p. 127) have similar assertion of qualitative research methods. The qualitative approaches are: (a) subjective, (b) designed to seek under- standing rather than explanation, (c) reliant on inductive logic, (d) designed to generate hypotheses, (e) designed to process data as received, and (f) made to use the researcher as the data collection instrument.

Qualitative evaluation provides many qualities that quantitative evaluation is unable to offer. Most importantly, it has the human face in its evaluation findings. Qualitative evaluation employs a variety of theoretical approaches and data collection methods. To name a few, one can find grounded theory approaches, ethnographic studies, case studies, observations, interviews, and focus group. Through these data collection methods, qualitative evaluations look into the rela- tions and dynamics of what happened during the course of the service delivery. They are inter- ested in the subjective reality and personal account of experience. Unlike quantitative approaches, hypotheses are not predetermined. Hypotheses, if any, may arise as a result of the data collected or from the insight developed during the data collection process.

Qualitative evaluation is a more empowering evaluation approach. Populations under study often are involved in the data collection process as collaborators than as subjects of studies. Formative or process information of the program and its participants can provide feedback for the program and the people in a rather timely manner. People are more engaged in the process and more informed about the preliminary results.

Qualitative evaluation is also more suitable to assess variables or situations that are hard to quantify or more subtle issues such as culturally specific behaviors and personal morale. Collecting data in natural settings allows qualitative evaluation to detect subtle and non- conventional behaviors more easily.

Inductive reasoning supports many of the qualitative evaluations. Inductively, people can learn about situations and make generalizations through a variety of patterns. Moore (1998) lists “the argument by analogy, inductive generalization, hypothetical reasoning, and the causal argu- ment” (p. 7). She further explains that learning through analogy involves the use of similar situ- ations to comprehend new or little known situation. Using information from a member of a set to make generalization to all members of that set is an inductive generalization. Hypothetical reasoning uses evidence logically to test against the conclusion in a more “scientific” approach. Causal argument is a special type of hypothetical reasoning that uses evidence to logically estab- lish or against a claim that one event causes another. These patterns of inductive reasoning pro- vide a variety of ways for designing and conducting qualitative evaluation.

Summary

Grant writing is a specific product of the program planning process. This chapter presents a sim- ple program planning formula. There are differences between a grant and a contract; neverthe- less, they are both attempts to address particular service needs. Needs assessment is usually the first step of any planning and grant writing efforts. There are both qualitative and quantitative ways to identify, understand, and express the needs that are targeted by the planning and eval- uation tasks.

16 CHAPTER TWO

References

Coley, S., & Scheinberg, C. (1990). Proposal writing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lewis, J., Lewis, M., Packard, T., & Souflee, F. (2001). Management of human service pro-

grams (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Mayer, R. (1985). Policy and program planning: A developmental perspective. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Moore, K. (1998). Patterns of inductive reasoning. (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt

Publishing Company. Royse, D. (1999). Research methods in social work (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Royse, D., Thyer, B., Padgett, D., & Logan, T. (2001). Program evaluation: An introduction

(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1997). Research methods for social work (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove,

CA: Brooks/Cole. Yegudis, B., Weinbach, R., & Morrison-Rodriguez, B. (1999). Research methods for social

workers (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

PLANNING, EVALUATING, AND GRANT WRITING 17