Assessment Model for Non-Profit Proposal Writing

A majority of the non-profit organizations rely heavily on grants to fund the specific activities of a project or organization. Requests for funding are usually in response to a direct problem and solution and typically occur through the submission of a proposal. A proposal is a comprehensive document, used for persuasive purposes, that explains the nature of the particular problem, a proposed solution, a contribution in return for grant funded support and overall justification for why a project or organization is deserving of a monetary contribution.

Each proposal submission varies considerably on the targeted funding source or funder. Generally, there are three different types of funder: Federal, State or Local Government and the Private Foundation. If the proposal is targeting a federal funding opportunity, the document will be formal, cumbersome, and address a wide variety of questions. Scenarios and general legalities, similar to White's suggestion of addressing various factor when activities are federally funded (e.g., ADA accessible, etc.), must be addressed and aimed towards a specific problem and/or issue. If the proposal is targeting a state or local government funding opportunity, the document will be less intense and bit informal; however, it will still address a wide variety of questions, scenarios and general legalities aimed towards a specific problem and/or issue. Finally, if a proposal is targeting a private funding source, the proposal will be more informal and the questions presented will be general and less specific to one problem and/or issue. As suggested by White in regards to teachers, the funder will also detail the description or purpose of the request (or application), its format and the criteria that will be used to respond to or assess it (White, Teaching and Assessing Writing, 1998, p.25).

As noted above, each proposal submission is dependent on the targeted funding source, however, most proposals consist of eight core components or, as both Wolcott and Yancey would refer to as, the standards. The core components or standards of a proposal are: Overall Goal, Executive Summary or Abstract, Statement of Need, Project Description, Organizational Information, Background and History, Evaluation, Budget and Conclusion or Closing Statement. In order for a proposal to be considered a success, the proposal writer must address a variety of questions under each of the core components' sub-headings. The sub-headings tend to be weighed on a point-scale basis, attributing a set amount of points to the most important pieces of a proposal.

1. Overall Goal - 5 points
In this sub-heading, the proposal must clearly convey the overall goal of the project or organization. Typically, this section is limited to less than five sentences and often serves as the general description of the project to be used by the funder for grant announcements and press releases. Here, the proposal writer needs to explain the problem or issue to be addressed and what is the expected outcome of the proposed intervention or service. It is important that the overall goal relate directly to the criteria set forth by the funding opportunity or funder and is a realistic approach to a problem or issue.

2. Executive Summary or Abstract - 10 points
The executive summary or abstract is typically referred to as the "snapshot" of a proposal. The executive summary or abstract is always limited to one page and should concisely describe the six other sub-headings of the proposal. The executive summary or abstract should include project title, organization name and location, the problem area to be addressed, the targeted population and area of service, number of individuals to be served, brief overview of service, intended effect or outcome, total costs and amount requested and any unique capabilities.

As Peter Elbow suggests, the criteria for assessing the executive summary relies heavily on the variety, versatility, project innovation and level of risk. The organization can suggest an innovative approach and solution to a problem or issue, however, they must be able to support their stance, evidenced by a strong project development.

The executive summary or abstract is the first thing most funders and reviewers take into consideration and can often serve as the determining factor for a particular proposal to make it beyond the initial screening. This element of the proposal evaluation is similar to Wolcott's theory of holistic scoring in which the proposals are "rank ordered against one another, not against an ideal" (Wolcott, An Overview of Writing Assessment, 1998, p.72).

3. Statement of Need - 25 points
The statement of need describes the condition of the targeted population that requires improvement. The statement of need is the most important piece of the proposal, as it actually identifies that there is a justifiable need for the requested funds. The statement of need should be compelling and supported by documented facts, such as research findings, comparative statistics, demographic data and should be focused on the geographic area you plan to serve. The facts should be excerpted from reputable sources and directly relate to the proposed overall goal.

Questions that should be addressed in any type of needs statement include: What is the problem? How did it evolve? Who is experiencing the problem? Where does the problem occur? Is there evidence to support the claim? What are the advantages or disadvantages of addressing a particular need? How does the need relate to the overall mission and goals of the organization?

It is important for the proposal writer to support and strengthen the statement of need through the use of factual data and documentation. The proposal should not include general assumptions and should be used as a tool for creating a realistic vision of the identified problem. Needs statements that include actual population examples strengthen a particular case and serve as a tool of evoking empathy. This is the proposal writer's opportunity to address the human side of a particular issue and use the emotions of the funders and reviewers to the organization's advantage.

The introduction of personal experiences allow the proposal writer the opportunity to take ownership in the proposed project and hints to the funders and reviewers that the organization has a vested interest in the targeted population because they have taken the time to learn of their client's personal situations. The introduction of personal experiences, told from a client's perspective, also indicates to the funder and reviewers that the organization has an established relationship with the targeted population and is considered a trusting and safe place within the community. In direct contrast to Wolcott's theory of emotional writing, in this case, emotional writing can greatly improve the quality of a proposal, rather than adversely affecting the quality of writing (Wolcott, An Overview of Writing Assessment, 1998, p.27).

4. Project Description - 20 points
The project description section of the proposal should contain a description of the proposed service(s), the outreach plan, project activities and measurable goals and objectives. The project description should invoke a level of interest and excitement and force the funder to want to invest in this project. The project description will serve as direct evidence of a thorough planning session and an organization's ability to assess the project design. The project description answers the Who, What When, Where, Why and How?

Who? - It is important for the proposal writer to continually mention the target population and paint an image of a community in need. The proposal writer should write the project description to illustrate the events of a particular client and any of the proposed obstacles and/or barriers a client may encounter and the organization's proposed intervention. The proposal writer should also list any collaborators or partners who may be involved in the project or offer additional in-kind services to the project or targeted population. The funder, similar to both Wolcott and Yancey's suggestion, is in search of an outcomes based collaborative effort between one or more parties, all focused on achieving the same desired outcomes and project goal.

What? - This portion of the project description should detail the types of services or activities the organization will offer to the client. What will the project accomplish over the course of one month, two months, six months and beyond. What can the funder expect in return for their investment? A decrease in the number of homeless in the geographic area of focus? An increase in the number of pregnant women seeking prenatal care?

When? - When will the services occur? Will the project be year round, 24 hours per day, continuous or a one-time intervention? When does the organization anticipate reportable outcomes? When will the project begin, when will it end? Answering the "when" portion of the project description allows the funder or reviewer the opportunity to fully understand the project and grasps the overall project vision and goals.

Where? - Where will the services occur? Is the location accessible to the targeted population? Does the organization work from one main site or multiple locations? Where does the targeted population reside? Is the area rural or urban? If an organization is addressing a particular problem or issue within a specific community, there are obviously pre-existing barriers and obstacles, such as lack of transportation that a particular client may experience. Answering the "where" portion of the project description ensures that organization has a complete understanding of the community and/or area and understands the complexities of rural verses urban living.

Why? - Why is the proposed project an appropriate solution to the identified problem or issue? Why was the specific approach chosen over another approach? Why does a particular organization deserve the grant over another organization? The funder or reviewer should not have any outstanding questions and should be supplied with enough information and supportive materials to complete the review without questioning the project or proposal content.

How? ­- How will the project prove to be successful? How can the organization ensure that the grant will be used appropriately? How will a client receive the proposed service? How does the organization stand out from the rest of the organizations? How well did the proposal writer answer the questions outlined in the application? The proposal writer needs to continually ask himself or herself, how can I clearly describe the project activities? How can I substantiate my claims? How will the project activities continue after the expiration of the grant?

The project description must also include a description of the proposed staffing, complete with required credentials and experience. The proposal writer should differentiate between full-time and part-time staff members and their overall position duties and requirements. The staffing section should also include volunteer opportunities, as well as opportunity for staff growth. The project description should give life to the proposal and should be a balance between descriptive information and documented data.

5. Organizational Information, Background and History - 15 points
The organizational background is the funder and reviewer's glimpse into the history of the organization. The purpose of this component is to prove to the funder that a specific organization can accomplish the proposed project and create and implement a successful project. The proposal writer should speak of the organization's history, credibility, experience in providing the proposed project and any unique contributions to the community or geographic area of focus.

The organizational background is also an opportunity for the proposal writer to address the key leadership within the organization. Typically, proposals contain information on the President or Executive Director, Vice President(s) or Associate Director, Chief Financial Officer or Comptroller, as well as information on the Project Director and any other direct project staff. Included in the descriptions of the key leaders are their educational backgrounds, experience and any awards or special recognition. This information helps to define the organization's image and credibility, as well as community support. The organization's awards and honors can also be listed in this section, as well as their experience in grant management.

6. Evaluation - 10 points

The evaluation portion of the proposal should contain information on data collection, reporting procedures and a description of the evaluation tools. The purpose of the evaluation is to document measurable achievements in meeting the desired client outcomes in an effort to show that the project is having the intended effect. The evaluation section should strengthen the proposal, reflect reliable and valid results and benefit the organization and community.

Evaluation techniques could include surveys, tests, client records, progress reports, time allocation cards, case notes, activity schedules, telephone records, sign-in sheets, audio or videotape, photographs, staff notes, client interviews and health tests. The evaluation will prove or disprove the proposed goals and objectives and serve as a tool for future project development and/or enhancement and as White suggests, be used to appeal for additional funds.

7. Budget - 10 points
Although the budget is not part of the written proposal, a budget narrative is often required to support calculations and budget figures. In addition to a standard budget, listing total project costs and amount requested, the budget narrative should clearly detail all project costs. Included in the budget narrative are: details of personnel costs, consisting of position titles, number of positions, brief summary of position responsibilities, salary and fringe benefits.

The budget narrative must include the exact numbers used for all calculations (e.g., mileage rate, overhead rate, indirect rate, etc.). The funder is interested in learning how the number were interpreted and calculated. Similar to assessment, the funders are also a society based on numbers, in search of what a project budget really reflects. Typically, other sources of in-kind are included in the budget narrative, as well as a "back-up" plan should less money be awarded than originally requested.

8. Conclusion/Closing Statement - 5 points
The conclusion/closing statement is final opportunity for the organization to leave a lasting impression on the funder and plea their case for support. The conclusion/closing statement should reiterate the project goal, target population and proposed services. The proposal writer will sometimes use quotes or re-state the organization's mission and goals as the transition for the closing statement. It is expected that the closing statement/conclusion be once again, compelling, concise and reflective of the project goal.

Other Requirements
Aside from directly responding to core components of the proposal, other factors that contribute to a proposal's success is the general presentation. Key factors that contribute to a proposal's assessment are:

Sentence structure - Clear, concise and complete sentences.

Grammar - Standard Academic English should be used throughout the entire proposal, paying close attention to word usage and terminology. As White suggests, "brief references to mechanical and grammatical matters ... is practical and necessary." (White, Teaching and Assessing Writing, 1998, p.33)

Spelling - Misspelled words annoy funders and reviewers. Basically, if an organization does not take the time to review and edit, what will they do with the money?

Inappropriate use of slang/jargon - Write as if the funder and reviewer are members of the general population. Do not take anything for granted, do not assume that the funder or reviewer will understand what is being written. Keep it simple. As Cooper and Odell suggests, the proposal writer must keep the targeted audience in mind and use the dyadic approach to the author-audience relationship (Cooper and Odell, Evaluating Writing, 1999, p. 55).

Appropriate margins and paragraph spacing - White space allows for the eyes and mind to take a much-needed rest. This is particularly true if you are describing a complex project.

Font size - Standard is Times New Roman, 12 point of larger

Headings - Break up the proposal components by using headings and subheadings.

Page numbers and footers - Ensures that in the event a page is misplaced, the funder will be able to reassemble the proposal.

Bold and bulleted points - Effective for breaking up comprehensive lists and identifying important points within the proposal.

Use of graphics, tables, charts and graphs - When appropriate, complex information can be best presented through the use of graphics, tables, charts and graphs. Specifically for trend analysis.
Paper size - Standard 8-½ by 11-inch paper.
Packaging - Use of binders, clips and other presentation materials.

Proposals are reviewed through a holistic scoring process. Funders and reviewers are supplied with scoring rubrics that contain specific information applicable to each of the proposal's core components. The funder typically supplies the application, containing a series of questions and core components at least one month prior to the due date. Unlike the "real world approach," funders are not only concerned with the end result, but also, how an organization got there. The funder is a classic example of the product verses the process type of approach to assessment.

Similar to the basic criteria for evaluation, the funder is assessing the proposal based on the thesis (project goal), development and support (project description), Organization and stylistic sophistication absent of significant error. (Wolcott, An Overview of Writing Assessment, 1998, p.27).

In the end, the assessment process for proposals is one based on the method of true holistic scoring. Proposal review rarely, if ever, results in feedback from the reviewers, has a perceived benefit of fairness and accuracy and helps to create a community of grant professionals. The obvious disadvantages is that the nonprofit organizations do not have input as to how a proposal is viewed, which leaves room for misinterpretation or preconceived notions. The proposal writer, funder and reviewer all struggle to understand one another. The proposal writer is writing towards an ideal and the funder and reviewers are making decisions and critiquing based on one single example.