HPER 3300: GRANT WRITING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

Section I: Overview Of The Grant Program

A. Introduction

The following for proposal (RFP) is designed to provide funds to assist in the development and implementation of a health enhancement program.

The purpose of the RFP is provide interested applicants with sufficient information to enable them to prepare and submit proposals for consideration by the course instructor to help improve the health of high-risk populations within the state of Michigan. Proposed programs may impact statewide or local issues, depending on the nature of the problem and the population at risk.

Projects must be carried out within a 12-month time period beginning January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. No funds may be used to support program development prior to project start date. A total of $100,000 is available for this competition, with up to 2 awards being given. The average award will be $50,000, with a maximum of $75,000. Costs can include staff salaries and other benefits, supplies, etc., but cannot include equipment or capital improvement costs.

Students who find a suitable funding agency and alter their proposal to fit the needs of the funder are eligible for an additional 10% extra credit for this course. Simply speaking, that is the difference between a, e.g., B and an A as a final grade.

B. Eligibility

This competition is available to non-profit agencies, universities and other schools, government agencies, and non-profit professional associations. No awards will be granted to individuals or for-profit organizations.

C. Important Dates

All RFPs are due in triplicate no later than 5:00 April 15, in the mailbox marked “Bensley”, 4024 SRC.

Section II: Application Requirements

  1. Review Criteria

All applications for project grants will be evaluated on the basis of the review criteria provided below, as well as the overall strengths and weaknesses of each response.

  1. Abstract/Program Summary (5 points)
  2. Problem Statement and Statement of the Need (20 points)

3.Target Population (5 points)

4.Project Design/Intervention (20 points)

5.Impact Objectives (15 points)

6.Timeline (5 points)

7.Evaluation (10 points)

8.Budget (15 points)

  1. Professionalism (5 points)
  1. Abstract/Program Summary

Is an abstract or program summary included with this proposal? Has the author clearly summarized the project purposes and methods? Can reviewers ascertain the purpose of this project from the abstract/program summary?

  1. Problem Statement and Statement of the Need

Has the author explicitly stated the need for this project? Is the need based on a top-down approach (i.e., national, regional, local)? Have current statistics/references been used in building a case for this project? Has the problem been explicitly identified?

  1. Target Population

Is the target population for this project explicitly stated? Did the author adequately describe the target population (e.g., age, race, gender, SES, geographic location, grade, etc.)? Is the target population truly “at risk?”

  1. Program Design/Intervention

Is the method of intervention in this project sound, feasible, and innovative? Does this project build on previous programming? Are the literature references appropriate for the proposed project? Does the method relate to solving the problem stated in the “Statement of Need?” Do the methods presented make sense?

  1. Impact Objectives

Do impact objectives relate to the problem identified in the “Statement of the Need?” Are the objectives measurable? Are the objectives behaviorally written? Do all impact objectives relate to the methods of implementation? Are any objectives missing (i.e., are there project activities with no objective attached to them)?

  1. Timeline

Is a timeline included? Does the timeline accurately reflect the method of implementation? Is the timeline feasible (i.e., can this project be completed in the period outlined in the timeline)? Has time for program development and evaluation been included in the timeline?

  1. Evaluation

Are the methods used for data collection appropriate for this project? Are data collection instruments based on previously used and reliable scales? Are all impact objectives being evaluated? Did the author indicate how the data will be analyzed?

  1. Budget

Is the budget accurate and feasible? Do budget items reflect major expenditures (e.g., personnel, fringe benefits, supplies, travel, etc)? Is in-kind funding included? Are items clearly explained in the budget narrative?

  1. Professionalism

Is the proposal professional in appearance (print, font, binding)? Are there any misspelled words or grammar errors?

Section III: Contact Information

All questions should be directed to the Grant Officer, Dr. Robert Bensley, 4034-18 SRC, 387-3081, . Applicants are encouraged to make regular contact with the grant officer in order to ensure their proposals are within the guidelines of this RFP.

Section IV: Scoring of Grant Proposals

1.Abstract/Program Summary_____(5)

2.Problem Statement and Statement of Need_____(20)

3.Target Population_____(5)

4.Project Design/Intervention_____(20)

5.Impact Objectives_____(15)

6.Timeline_____ (5)

7.Evaluation_____ (10)

8.Budget_____(15)

9.Professionalism_____ (5)

TOTAL_____ (100)