Suggested Response to “Contrasting Research Proposals and Goods and Services Proposals”
Goods and services proposals differ from research proposals in that goods and services proposals lead to a tangible product (for example, a new museum exhibit), a service (a workshop on managing debt), or some combination of the two. Conversely, research proposals lead to a document (for example, a report, scholarly article, or conference paper) in which findings are disseminated. Because goods and services proposals often focus on a product or activity, the methods section, for example, often focuses more on specifications for the deliverables than on the process (which may be very important in a research proposal). In addition, goods and services proposals often contain clear criteria by which to evaluate the success of the product or service. For example, a proposal for a pollution-
Suggested Response to “Comparing and Contrasting Sample Proposals”
Responses will vary. Although different proposals may use different terms (for example, “cost” instead of “budget” or “statement of need” instead of “problem statement”) or may place information in different sections (for example, placing the evaluation discussion in the methods section), virtually all proposals answer the following questions:
What is the problem or need?
What do you hope to accomplish?
How do you plan to achieve your goal?
How much will it cost?
Why is your organization uniquely qualified for this project?
Who benefits?
How will you know if you succeeded in realizing your goal?
Suggested Response to “Analyzing Characteristics of a Proposal from a Nonprofit Organization”
Proposal writers for nonprofit organizations must demonstrate that their organization is best qualified to provide the goods or services outlined in the proposal as well as demonstrate that the nonprofit’s mission matches the priorities of the funding sources. Consequently, the sample proposal devotes considerable space in its first half to establishing the organization’s credibility, describing its qualifications, and explaining its mission. Once the credibility of the nonprofit has been established, less space is needed to discuss how (methods or proposed program) the organization will achieve its goals. The second half of the proposal has many of the standard sections discussed in research proposals: situation, funding request, outcomes, and evaluation.
Suggested Response to “Selecting Project-
A keyword search for “project management software” led to Capterra.com, a site that presents reviews of hundreds of project-
Suggested Response to “Writing Proposals to Different Audiences”
The essential difference between the two kinds of audiences affects the formal elements of the proposal and the strategy for making a persuasive case in ways such as the following:
Nonprofit funding sources usually give money only to nonprofit organizations or groups. To apply for funding, a group needs to prove, usually with a 501(c)(3) letter, that it is both tax-
Nonprofit funding sources usually limit funding to select groups that share their social or political goals. For-
Nonprofit funding sources are interested in understanding how the subject of the proposal fits within or extends an organization’s mission. For-
Nonprofit funding sources seem more interested in an organization’s mission, history, and activities. For example, they are interested in the size of an organization’s board, how board members are recruited, and their level of participation. For-
Both types of funding sources are interested in being associated with prestigious projects. Although differences in approaches certainly exist between the two types of funding sources, writing winning proposals for both types focuses on demonstrating that the organization seeking funding
understands the funding source’s needs
is able to fulfill its own promises
is committed to fulfilling its own promises
Suggested Response to “Selecting a Funding Source”
1. Sample memo:
TO: John Orr
FROM: [your name]
DATE: May 25, 2016
SUBJECT: Recommendation of Funding Source for Saltwater Intrusion Exhibit
This memo presents my analysis of four potential funding sources for our proposed Saltwater Intrusion Exhibit. First, I analyze the degree to which our project “matches up” with each funding source. Next, I recommend a funding source. Finally, I ask for your permission to submit a letter of inquiry to the foundation I recommend.
Analysis of Potential Funding Sources
Below I present my analysis of four potential funding sources for our proposed Saltwater Intrusion Exhibit. For each funding source, I considered eight factors from the profiles compiled from Environmental Grantmaking Foundations. For each factor, I decided whether the foundation was a match, awkward match, or no match. For match and no match, our proposed project, organization, and location either clearly matched up with the foundation or clearly didn’t. An awkward match suggests that, although the foundation might consider our proposal, our chances of successful funding are low.
| Factor | Phantom Creek Trust | Faria Family Foundation | Lorenzo Foundation | NOEET |
| History and philosophy | Awkward | Match | No | Match |
| Interests | Match | Match | No | Match |
| Issues | Match | Match | Awkward | Match |
| Activities | Match | Match | Awkward | Match |
| Funding level | Match | Match | Awkward | Match |
| Similar projects | Awkward | Match | No | Match |
| Emphases | Match | Match | Awkward | Match |
| Restrictions | Match | Match | Not reported | Match |
Next, I provide a summary of my analysis.
| Funding Source | Summary of Analysis |
| Phantom Creek Trust | Although this foundation might be interested in funding a project such as ours, it is a poor match for our organization because we are not located in the Pacific Northwest. |
| Faria Family Foundation | Located in the same county as our organization, committed to conserving California’s freshwater supplies, and focused on education, this foundation is a clear match on all factors. |
| Lorenzo Foundation | With this foundation’s focus on advocacy and government accountability, our proposed Saltwater Intrusion Exhibit is a poor match. |
| NOEET | Clearly interested in projects focusing on agriculture, oceans, and freshwater supplies. However, a funding analysis suggests that this foundation does not fund projects under $100,000. |
Recommendation
Based on my analysis of the four funding sources, I recommend we approach the Faria Family Foundation to fund our Saltwater Intrusion Exhibit.
Request to Proceed
With your permission, I will prepare a letter of inquiry. If you have questions about my analysis or the project, please contact me by phone at extension 0303 or by email at your_name@PHDC.org.
2. Sample letter of inquiry and abstract:
Port Hueneme Discovery Center
56 Seaspray Way
Port Hueneme, CA 93041
June 1, 2016
Mr. Joe Faria
Program Director
Faria Family Foundation
7634 PCH
Ventura, CA 93001
Dear Mr. Faria:
We are pleased to submit this one-
The attached abstract offers an overview of the exhibit and its expected outcomes. We look forward to submitting a full proposal during your next funding cycle if this overview meets your approval.
If you have questions about our proposed project, I can be reached by email at jorr@PHDC.org, or by telephone at 805-
Sincerely,
John Orr, Exhibits and Education Director
Port Hueneme Discovery Center
56 Seaspray Way
Port Hueneme, CA 93041
Saltwater Intrusion Exhibit
Introduction
The overpumping of water in Ventura County, especially the Oxnard Plain, has caused the water levels in underground aquifers to drop well below sea level. As a result, seawater has intruded into underground basins and contaminated the groundwater used for everything from farming to drinking water. The goals for the exhibit, consequently, are the following:
To help Discovery Center visitors recognize the nature and importance of groundwater to Ventura County, the state of California, and the nation.
To help Discovery Center visitors understand the saltwater intrusion problem in Ventura County, as well as possible solutions.
Proposed Approach
Provide Discovery Center visitors the opportunity to use a hand pump to draw drinkable water to the surface. Such an activity shows where drinkable water comes from and introduces the concept of an aquifer.
Use large samples of local bedrock with water seeping through to demonstrate how water percolates down through seemingly solid layers of rock and gravel.
Use transparent tubes filled with rock, sand, soil, gravel, and water in such a way that visitors can appreciate how aquifers can store and supply groundwater.
Construct a small-
Install four graphic panels describing the effect of saltwater intrusion and strategies for combatting it.
Include bedrock drill samples taken around the Oxnard Plain so that visitors can both see and touch the bedrock directly below their feet.
Qualifications
We believe we have the skills and experience to build and showcase this proposed exhibit. As a 501(c)(3) organization committed to environmental education, the center has, for the past 23 years, been providing educational opportunities that inspire lifelong learning. Our current Exhibits and Education staff have built 39 hands-
Budget
We estimate that the exhibit described above, exclusive of the drilling of the well, will cost approximately $40,000. We estimate that drilling the well will cost $16,000.