Volume LVI, Number 2
Building a Culture of Grantsmanship at an Urban Community College via Internal Funding Opportunities
Sofia Oviedo, Ph.D.
Hostos Community College, CUNY
Research Programs Director, Office of the President
Yoel Rodríguez, Ph.D.
Hostos Community College, CUNY
Chair and Professor, Natural Sciences Department
Antonios Varelas, Ph.D.
Hostos Community College, CUNY
Professor of Psychology, Behavioral and Social Sciences Department
Abstract
Securing external grants is essential for the nation’s institutions of higher education where decreased funding for research and educational programs has triggered the imperative to find ways to supplement university budgets. However, there are many challenges that inhibit grantsmanship success, particularly for those at community colleges, including limited time due to teaching, advising, service and other scholarly duties, the absence of experience and grant writing skills, and the void of a culture of grantsmanship at the institution. To address these gaps at an urban community college, an internal funding and professional development program, the Hostos Research Center (HRC), was created and replicated the internal funding processes developed by Balaji et al. (2007) and Kulage and Larson (2017). The HRC aimed to educate faculty and staff on grantsmanship to increase the number of competitive applications submitted to external funding sources and increase the likelihood of success for those applications. The HRC internal funding competitions mirrored the processes used by the prior studies and awarded over $300,000 in grants over a three-year period. Survey responses on the impact of the HRC indicated increased motivation to apply for new grant opportunities, improved grant writing skills, and overall awareness of grant opportunities.
Keywords: internal funding program, community college, grantsmanship, grant writing, professional development
Introduction
Securing external grant funding for educational programs and research is essential in today’s higher education (Leak, et al., 2015). This need is especially present at the nation’s community colleges where the decrease in available funding for research and intervention-based educational programs has triggered the imperative to seek external funding to complement and support university budgets (Mitchell, et al., 2015). There are a host of well-established challenges, however, that inhibit grantsmanship success for community college faculty and staff, including a lack of time due to teaching, advising, service, and other aspects of scholarly duties; a lack of advance notice of available grants to pursue; difficulties seeking external funding sources; challenges preparing proposals and budgets; complexities in getting necessary approvals; and dealing with campus administrative staff on the distribution and management of funds (Boyer & Cockriel, 1998; Dooley, 1995; Monahan, 1993; Shuman, 2019; Walden & Bryan, 2010). Furthermore, the skills required to write and attain competitive grants were sometimes not present (Kleinfelder, et al., 2003; Walden & Bryan, 2010).
Efforts to improve grantsmanship included those that provided direct support and incentives for faculty and staff to apply for external funding (Ahn et al., 2022; Pinto & Huizinga, 2018). Goff-Arbritton et al. (2022) reviewed faculty views on barriers and facilitators to grant success. They identified internal funding and resources provided by the university as important contributors. Helpful university resources included: funds for pilot work and manuscript submissions, funds to pay student research assistants, support for travel to attend conferences or meet with funding agencies, funds to purchase equipment, and bridge funding provided between funded projects.
In line with these findings, support for faculty and staff in the form of internal competitive grant programs has been shown to improve grantsmanship skills and increase the probability of securing external funding. A pioneering example was presented by Balaji et al. (2007) at The Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine. They developed a competitive grant program aimed at stimulating faculty to submit more competitive research proposals to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) more frequently. Faculty were required to submit a complete research proposal following the NIH application format to participate in the internal funding program. External reviewers with relevant expertise critiqued and scored the proposals using NIH’s standard review criteria. Based on the scores, an internal review panel at the university then recommended up to three proposals for funding. In the first year of the pilot program, eight applications were received and three were selected for internal funding which were subsequently submitted to the NIH. The following year the internal funding program saw an increase to 12 applications and two were selected for an internal grant and submitted to the NIH. Additionally, over the last two years of the program, there was a 50% increase in the number of submitted applications. The authors noted several benefits to implementing the pilot program. These included: exposed novice investigators to the NIH grant writing experience, provided external reviews in a reduced time period to promote timely proposal revision and submission, and awarded grant funding to help investigators gather the preliminary data to advance their projects.
Kulage and Larson (2017) shared another example of an internal funding award program. They reported on the outcomes of a pilot grant initiative instituted at a school of nursing designed to encourage the preparation and submission of external grant applications. The authors reported that over a five-year period, the program invested $127,000 to support 14 grants. These grants ultimately yielded over $3 million in external funding, including major federal grants and foundation funding. Additionally, the funded projects contributed to the faculty’s scholarly development through peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentations. With competition for public and private sector funding ever increasing, internal grant programs are a valuable institutional resource. These programs can incentivize faculty to develop well-crafted proposals that are more likely to be funded.
The work described in this paper aimed to replicate the program models and outcomes reported by Balaji et al. (2007) and Kulage and Larson (2017). The authors created and evaluated the impact of an internal funding program on grantsmanship at an urban community college. The program was designed to consider the “truths” and “myths” for faculty about the grantsmanship process (Cook & Loadman, 1984). Truths included the need for faculty to be knowledgeable about funding sources, be able to craft clearly written funding proposals including budget preparation and documentation, and to have awareness of proposal submission deadlines. Myths included that there was a stigma associated with faculty whose proposals were not funded, who you know is more important than proposal quality, and the granting process was intentionally difficult (Daniel & Gallaher, 1990). Additionally, the program addressed the three major impediments to funded research activities: lack of procedural information, lack of information about funding sources, and lack of a clearly defined system of rewards for those who obtained external funding (Daniel & Gallaher, 1990).
Hostos Community College (HCC) of The City University of New York (CUNY) is a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) community college in the South Bronx. HCC was among the public institutions of higher education leveraging grant opportunities to address the growing challenges associated with reduced funding and operating budgets. To support this effort, HCC established an internal funding program, which will be referred to as the Hostos Research Center (HRC) moving forward. The HRC was designed and implemented to train and educate faculty and staff on grantsmanship so they could develop more competitive applications and increase their likelihood of securing external funding. HRC competitions provided up to $10,000 for winning proposals that went through an application process similar to those that exist at major external and federal funding sources, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The HRC internal funding program was expected to help faculty and staff develop the skills necessary to secure funding for research, high-impact educational programs (Baker et al., 2015; Haeger et al., 2020; Kuh, 2008; Lopatto, 2003, 2010), and scholarship and mentoring programs (Rodríguez et al., 2020, 2022, 2023). Furthermore, the program could demonstrate that a community college could also be competitive in grants attainment. This would be possible if its faculty and staff were trained, and a culture of research and grants development was institutionally fostered.
Institutional Background
HCC was established in 1968 with a central mission to meet the needs of the South Bronx community and to provide access to higher education. In 2022, HCC served over 5,000 students, a largely Latinx and Black (95%) population, mainly in their twenties, and 69% female. The significant majority were 1.5 generation immigrants (children of immigrants born in the U.S. that attended U.S. high schools) and 77% spoke a language other than English at home. Students faced significant economic and educational barriers in the South Bronx. Seventy-seven percent had household incomes below $30,000, and 95% were eligible for financial aid. HCC has always provided rigorous, standards-driven learning experiences that meet higher education expectations in a supportive, diverse, and multicultural setting. HCC faculty and staff were highly qualified and reflected the diversity of its students: 58% female and 85% non-White (Hostos Community College, Self-Study Report, internally published, 2022).
In 2021, Ms. MacKenzie Scott, philanthropist and author, recognized the transformative work HCC carried out for decades. She awarded the college $15 million, the largest donation the college had ever received. This extraordinary gift aimed to advance HCC’s strategic goals that included: provide high quality education, support, and resources; help students successfully complete their education; equip students to secure higher than living wage employment; and create transfer opportunities to continue their academic pursuits. HCC leveraged this donation by allocating funds to launch several important initiatives, which were designed to: promote retention and graduation, enhance intentionality in student advisement, increase access to career development opportunities, support faculty and staff engagement in research and grants development, and advance innovation in teaching and learning strategies.
Among these initiatives was the creation of the HRC, the first research center of its kind at any of CUNY’s community colleges. The mission of the HRC was to foster a culture of research and grants development and enhance students' access to professional experiences. This aligned with the HCC mission to provide opportunities for intellectual growth, socio-economic mobility, and develop the proficiencies needed for lifelong learning and success. The HRC established five main goals: (1) to promote research on teaching and learning as a vehicle to gain knowledge on the implementation of high-impact educational practices; (2) to encourage and facilitate the dissemination of faculty and staff research findings via presentation, discussion and publication; (3) to promote research including intra- and inter-departmental collaboration, external collaboration, and team building; (4) to identify institutional needs and strengths to be translated and materialized into funding opportunities that maximize capacity building; and (5) to provide guidance and support for students’ access to professional experiential activities and partnerships with external institutions. The HRC was designed to expand faculty academic identities and leverage their unique skill sets to address institutional needs and create pathways for student access to research opportunities.
The HRC Internal Grants Program
The HRC provided opportunities for faculty and staff to develop grantsmanship skills while filling in the resource gaps by offering grant writing workshops and two internal funding competitions. The IDEAS (Innovating, Developing and Executing Actions with Success) development project award was a seed grant that aimed to support proposal/project development that would be submitted for internal/external funding opportunities. The ADELANTE (ADvancing Excellence in Liberal Arts, scieNces, Technology and Engineering) project award supported research, need-based, and/or creative/transformative interventions in all disciplines including the Arts and Humanities, Behavioral and Social Sciences, and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). IDEAS grants were designed to provide short-term funding for pilot work to inform full-fledged proposal/project development, whereas ADELANTE grants supported year-long projects that allowed for more in-depth research development, evaluation, and student research engagement. Both internal funding competitions mimicked grant applications at external funding agencies and aimed to develop skills for larger external funding opportunities.
The IDEAS Call for Proposals was issued towards the end of the spring semester to encourage faculty and staff to undertake the pilot project over the summer months. The required grant narrative was no more than two pages with a project period of three to four months. The expectation was for grantees to use their IDEAS project outcomes/findings to inform a comprehensive proposal for submission in the subsequent academic year. The ADELANTE Call for Proposals was issued in the fall semester of the academic year, and more closely mirrored the outline and requirements of a federal research grant application. The application required a five-page narrative containing: 200-word abstract, rationale, research questions/hypotheses, objectives, methodology, activities, expected outcomes, timeline, and future plans. Additional application materials included: budget following guidelines for allowable/non-allowable expenses, budget justification, and biosketches for all key project personnel. The HRC provided detailed guidance for the construction of the grant narrative along with formatting requirements. Additionally, virtual “Office Hours” sessions were offered to provide prospective applicants with an overview of the grant application process, including the preparation of application materials, and question and answer periods.
A review committee evaluated the applications. The committee consisted of faculty and staff with experience in drafting successful grant applications to external funding sources. They reviewed and scored each application following a rubric and criteria developed by the HRC Co-Director. The review committee scored all applications and then discussed the applications in a panel review format. Each committee member was assigned specific applications that they presented and provided their assessment and recommendations. The group engaged in a robust discussion of each application. The committee members made recommendations for funding based on a consensus, and grant awards were then submitted for approval by the HCC President. The review process took about two to three weeks. Applicants were notified of their application status by early March. Grant awards typically ranged between $6,000–$10,000.
After receiving awards, grantees were required to attend an orientation session with the HRC staff that detailed the grant administrative and fiscal processes. The initial grant cycle allowed for six months for project completion. However, due to grantees’ feedback about needing more time, the project period was extended to one year during which time all proposed activities were carried out and funds expended. The Call for Proposals for IDEAS and ADELANTE are included in Appendices A and B, respectively.
Table 1 shows the program’s results across four IDEAS and three ADELANTE grant award cycles. For the first grant cycle, eight IDEAS applications were received, and seven grants were awarded for a total of $4,500. In the second cycle, 10 IDEAS grants were received and six were funded for a total of $8,500; 19 ADELANTE applications were received, and 11 grants were awarded for a total of $86,525. In the third cycle, 11 of 12 ADELANTE grants were awarded for a total of $98,153, and nine of 10 IDEAS grants were awarded for a total of $11,000. In the fourth funding cycle, nine of 15 ADELANTE grants totaling $85,793 were awarded, and six IDEAS grants were awarded for a total of $9,000.
Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) Functionality
RAPR utilizes REDCap (Patridge & Bardyn, 2018; REDCap, n.d.) a web-based application to receive, review, and authorize research studies submitted to RAPR. REDCap is a well-established tool within the research community and has gained broad acceptance within AH as a toolset for providing secure, web-based data collection services. In May 2023, the REDCap interface for AH was upgraded to include the Alerts & Notifications, and Project Dashboards features (Patridge & Bardyn, 2018), which allowed RAPR to switch on November 1, 2023, from a less nimble application to the more advanced REDCap platform.
The Alerts & Notifications feature enables RAPR administrators to construct alerts and send customized email notifications to scientific and feasibility reviewers. Notifications can be sent to one or more reviewers and can be triggered when the administrative review form has been completed and saved. The notification customization requires defining alert triggers, when and how many times the notification should be sent, attaching multiple study documents, and specifying the recipient, sender, and message text. A personalized message is sent to reviewers including the message piped in field variable (e.g. referenced data entered in previous fields in the REDCap project) such as the review deadline, date of the PRC meeting, and study considerations. Additionally, each reviewer receives a unique evaluation form link embedded in the text, eliminating the need to log in to REDCap to complete their review.
The Online Designer feature was used to customize data collection instruments (i.e., forms), allowing the capture of feedback from different stakeholders, including investigator (Intake forms), reviewers' scorecard criteria evaluation (Evaluation forms), research support managers (Feasibility forms), and service line directors (Leader forms).
RAPR uses branching logic to design the intake form. This feature allows RAPR to show different parts of the form based on specific answers given to certain questions. For instance, if a submitter answers “yes” to the question “Do you plan to use Advocate Aurora Research Institute resources?”, the field “Select the AARI resource(s) needed” will appear.
The file uploading feature is an integral part of the intake form, used to request various study documents such as protocol templates, data collection tools, delegation of authority logs, department support letters, budgets, and other relevant attachments. The rich text editor feature allows the hyperlinking of required document templates, enabling submitters to conveniently download the necessary templates directly from the intake form.
Project Dashboards are web pages that display dynamic content and can be customized to provide a high-level summary of the project. To build a dashboard, data can be imported directly from a form or a customized report. The rich text editor and the wizard tool were used to streamline the writing of smart variables and obtain aggregated data, pie charts, bar graphs, and tables for metric purposes. Once a dashboard is customized, it is automatically updated whenever forms are completed and saved. The dashboard is accessible only to RAPR administrators but can be shared via a public link. Additionally, dashboards can be exported as PDF or CSV files.
Figure 1. HRC Grants Awarded 2021-2024
|
Grant Name and Cycle
|
Total Number of Applications Received
|
Total Number of Grants Awarded
|
Total Funding Awarded
|
|
IDEAS Cycle 1
|
8
|
7
|
$4,500
|
|
IDEAS Cycle 2
|
10
|
6
|
$8,500
|
|
IDEAS Cycle 3
|
10
|
9
|
$11,000
|
|
IDEAS Cycle 4
|
6
|
6
|
$9,000
|
|
ADELANTE Cycle 1
|
19
|
11
|
$86,525
|
|
ADELANTE Cycle 2
|
12
|
11
|
$98,153
|
|
ADELANTE Cycle 3
|
15
|
9
|
$85,793
|
|
Total
|
80
|
59
|
$303,471
|
Across the four funding cycles, 60 faculty/staff members were awarded $303,471 in funding for ADELANTE and IDEAS. Additionally, the ADELANTE-funded projects engaged 50 students as research assistants across various disciplines including education, natural sciences, and the humanities, providing students with hands-on research and career-building skills development.
Methods
The study examined the impact of the HRC’s internal funding program during the initial implementation period across three academic years (AYs). The study had two main objectives: (1) to understand the extent to which faculty/staff participation in the HRC’s internal funding program served as a professional development tool for developing grant applications to external funding agencies; and (2) to gain insight into faculty/staff grantsmanship experiences including: experience applying for HRC grant opportunities, level of engagement in grant seeking/grant writing efforts, and types of capacity building resources needed to enhance faculty/staff grantsmanship efforts.
Three questions guided this study:
- What is the impact of the HRC internal funding program on faculty/staff grantsmanship development?
- What are the grantsmanship practices of HCC faculty/staff and how often do they engage in these practices?
- To what extent does the HRC internal funding program improve HCC’s public and private grant funding prospects?
An online survey was administered to all HCC faculty and staff to explore their grantsmanship experiences and perceptions of the grantsmanship process at HCC. The survey examined experiences for faculty/staff that participated in the HRC internal funding program and those who did not participate. This included faculty/staff who applied for HRC funding but were not selected, and those who chose not to participate. Additionally, a comparative examination of external funding secured over a six-year period was performed to quantitatively assess the impact of the initial implementation of the HRC.
Participant Recruitment and Survey Implementation
An IRB-approved recruitment email was sent to all HCC faculty and staff including those that participated in the HRC internal funding program. The email contained a description of the study’s purpose, its intended goals, and a link to the survey. Surveys were completed anonymously. The online survey consisted of closed and open-ended questions. The survey items, presented in Appendix C, focused on three main areas that included: (1) faculty/staff grantsmanship activity prior to and after applying for an HRC grant opportunity, including scholarly products developed and grant applications submitted to external funders; (2) faculty/staff experience applying for and administering an HRC grant; and (3) influence of HRC grant application/administration experience on faculty/staff attitudes and views toward their grantsmanship capacity. Survey responses were analyzed and reported using descriptive statistics including response frequencies and corresponding percentages. Responses to the open-ended survey questions were grouped and categorized into topical areas that are relevant to grantsmanship capacity-building.
HRC Program Comparative Analysis
An analysis of grants applied for and secured by HCC faculty and staff was conducted to provide a baseline of HCC grantsmanship activity prior to the development of the HRC. This was compared to the level of grantsmanship activity conducted during the initial period of the HRC’s development. Data was provided by the Hostos Office of Grants Research and Administration (OGRA), the administrative office that is responsible for supporting faculty and staff with the coordination of all grant submissions to external funding initiatives and those administered through CUNY. The following indicators of grantsmanship activity were examined: the number of grant applications submitted to public and private funding sources, the number of grant applications that were approved by funding source, the total amount raised by funding source each academic year, and number of faculty and staff engaged in the grantsmanship process each academic year. The analysis also considered grantsmanship activity before, during, and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Results
Survey Findings
The survey received a total of 32 respondents. Their demographics included: 59% who identified as full-time faculty and 19% who identified as staff/administrators; 38% reported that they had at least 11 years of experience at HCC and 34% reported they had no more than 10 years of experience; 38% identified as female, 31% identified as male; 31% identified as White/Caucasian, 19% as Hispanic/Latinx, 9% as Black, 6% as Mixed Race, and one as Asian/Asian American. Of the faculty respondents, 44% indicated they held a professorial rank including one Lecturer.
In terms of grantsmanship experience, 82% indicated having some level of experience with grant submissions (i.e., at least one submitted grant application) prior to applying for HRC grant opportunities. Over half (56%) of the respondents had applied for an ADELANTE/IDEAS grant, 50% of which self-identified as program awardees. Furthermore, 56% of those who were ADELANTE/IDEAS applicants reported that they were planning to submit a grant application to an external funder to support the continuation of their HRC-funded project. Fifty-six percent of ADELANTE/IDEAS grant recipients also reported that they were planning to publish an article and/or present their findings at a conference in the current or upcoming academic year.
Respondents’ views on the impact of the HRC grant experience on their professional development showed increased motivation to apply for new grant opportunities (61%), improved grant writing abilities (56%), increased awareness of other grant opportunities (56%), and new project ideas were generated (56%). Some respondents provided qualitative feedback on what they valued most about the HRC grant experience including “the new skillset that I acquired in the process,” “opportunities to develop several ideas,” and “handling the research and administration part at the same time.” Others valued the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues and were inspired to apply for additional funding to advance their work, as shared in the following example:
I appreciated working closely with a colleague on the grant itself for writing it and then working with the Co-PI doing the grant itself. And it motivated us to get additional funding to continue the research through a funder outside CUNY. So that was really helpful to have the boost of the IDEAS grant.
In terms of the administration process, findings for the 18 respondents who applied for HRC grants reported satisfaction with the application process that included: awareness of the grant opportunities (89%), info sessions and office hours (61%), the application submission (78%), and award notification processes (83%). There were some (22%) who reported dissatisfaction with the fiscal administration processes due to delays in the reimbursement of travel expenses. The 14 respondents who did not apply for an HRC grant cited several factors that kept them from applying. The most salient responses included: limited time to complete an application (43%), a lack of guidance on the application process (28%), and limited grant writing experience (21%).
The survey’s findings also provided additional insight into the grantsmanship activities that faculty and staff typically engaged in. Of all 32 respondents, 44% indicated that grant seeking/grant writing was not an integral component of their work responsibilities. Forty-seven percent only engaged in grant seeking/grant writing activities on an “as needed” basis (i.e., searching for grant opportunities, reviewing requests for proposals, collaborating with others to plan/write a proposal, and serving as a reviewer for internal grant competitions). This could potentially be a factor influencing their level of engagement in grantsmanship. While respondents may not be engaging in these types of activities on a consistent basis, they expressed interest in participating in future grant writing activities. Most respondents (62%) reported an interest in participating in grant writing workshops offered by the HRC, as well as meeting with Grants and Research Administration staff to get help with developing proposals (50%). Some also indicated they would participate in follow-up meetings that provide constructive guidance and support towards proposal completion. Furthermore, several respondents provided recommendations for resources to support grant development including workshops on effective budget preparation, one-on-one sessions to identify grant opportunities, faculty release time to support research, and additional resources to support writing and review of grant submissions.
Grant Applications and Awards Analysis
Figure 1 shows the number of grant applications submitted by HCC faculty and staff, and the number and percentage of grant applications that were awarded each academic year (AY) from AY 2018-2024. Grantsmanship activity was aggregated across four types of funding sources: federal funding agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation), state and city funding agencies (e.g., New York State Education Department), CUNY internal grant opportunities (e.g., PSC-CUNY and other initiatives), and private funders with collaborative grants.
Figure 1. Proposals Submitted and Awarded 2018–2024
Note. The dashed line denotes the inception of the Hostos Research Center.
In the three academic years prior to the onset of the HRC (AY 2018-21), an average of 40 grant applications per AY were submitted by HCC faculty and staff. The number of proposal submissions ranged from a low of 34 to a high of 52, with an average success rate of 66% per AY. Interestingly, the year with the lowest success rate of 47% in AY 2019-20 was the year with the highest number of submitted proposals.
In the three academic years following the creation of the HRC and onset of the internal grant competitions (AY 2021-24), the average number of proposals submitted remained constant at 41 per academic year, which is nearly identical to the average submission rate for the three years prior. However, the proposals submitted following the creation of the HRC were funded at an 86% success rate, appreciably higher than the 63% average success rate in the three years prior.
This data should also be considered in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic which can be said to have had an impact starting in March of 2020. In the two academic years prior to 2020, 86 proposals were submitted at a success rate of 60%. In the two years immediately following the onset of the pandemic (AYs 2020-22), the number of proposals submitted fell to 63 although the success rate increased to 79%. The decline in proposal submissions is understandable. Higher education institutions faced extraordinary circumstances and major challenges as they grappled with shifting from in-person to remote modes of teaching and learning, while also addressing the acute needs of faculty, students, and staff.
A detailed breakdown of the amount of grant funding awarded by funding source, including federal grants, city/state grants, CUNY grants, and private/other grants, across this same six-year period is provided in Table 2. Overall, HCC experienced a 110% increase in grants awarded from AY 2018-19 to AY 2023-24. This dramatic growth can be attributed to the success of faculty and staff in securing major federal grants during the three-year period after the onset of the HRC, with total federal grants raised of $16.2 million.
Table 2. Grants Awarded by Funding Source 2018-2024
Note. The grant award amounts have been adjusted for inflation using the National Institutes of Health Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (NIH BRDPI) with 2023 as the base year.
City and state funding awards are also important to highlight, as these demonstrated HCC’s capacity to secure renewed funding by state and city agencies for ongoing academic and vocational training programs. Funding was secured from the Science and Technology Entry Program (STEP), Collegiate STEP, Liberty Partnerships Program, Vocational Education Program (Perkins), CUNY Edge, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Title II, and the Welfare Education Program during this period. Additionally, funding from city and state sources increased from $2.7 million in AY 2018–19 to $4.3 million in AY 2023-24, an increase of 58%.
Grants awarded for CUNY submissions (the university’s internal grants program) have remained consistent during this six-year period, ranging from $45,793 to $53,966, with decreases noted during the pandemic. But the most recent AY 2023-24 saw a resurgence in grants that were slightly higher than pre-pandemic levels of success. In the three years prior to the onset of the HRC, the total amount of funding pursued via grants from private/other sources, ranged from $202,487 in AY 2018-19 to $861,758 in AY 2023-24, an increase that bodes well for continued success in this funding area.
Table 3 presents a comparative analysis of grants awarded for the three-year period before the implementation of the HRC funding program (Period 1) and the three-year period during the initial implementation of the program (Period 2).
Table 3. Comparison Analysis of Grants Awarded 2018-2024
Note. All values are adjusted to 2023 dollars using the NIH BRDPI.
All funding sources showed substantial increases from Period 1 to Period 2. Federal funding showed the largest percentage increase (560.3%) and the largest increase in variability. City/State funding showed the most modest growth (38.6%) but remained the most stable funding source. The standard deviations increased for all funding categories, indicating greater funding variability in the second period. The total funding more than doubled, with an overall increase of 162.1%.
Discussion
HRC Internal Funding Program
This study replicated the models of two internal funding programs at higher education institutions that sought to increase the grantsmanship capacity of faculty to secure external funding (Balaji et al., 2007; Kulage & Larson, 2017). The HRC internal funding program integrated key elements, specifically, the use of competitive grant applications and review processes that were comparable to those of external funding agencies. Similar to these programs, the HRC internal funding program provided funding for project development and received increased numbers of grant applications over time. There were some differences noted in terms of each program’s scope. The HRC program provided two distinct grants for short and long-term project development (IDEAS and ADELANTE), whereas the other programs provided only one type of grant award. HRC funded grants across broader disciplines, while Balaji et al. (2007) awarded grants for NIH-focused research, and Kulage and Larson (2017) focused on nursing research.
The HRC funded more proposals with 59 across four funding cycles, as compared to 14 proposals funded by Kulage and Larson’s (2017) program, and five proposals funded by Balaji et al. (2007). In terms of investment scope, HRC awarded over $300,000 in grants over four funding cycles, which is more than double the $127,000 awarded by Kulage and Larson’s program over five years. Yet Kulage and Larson’s grant program reported a higher return on investment with $3 million secured in external funding. The HRC funding program operated during a very productive period that saw HCC faculty/staff secure higher amounts of external funding, but its definitive impact in leading to new external grants will require additional time to evaluate.
This study expanded on what was learned through the other programs by delving into the experiences of faculty and staff and contributing to our understanding of institutional supports that can foster a culture of grantsmanship. The study examined the impact of the HRC funding program on grantsmanship development and obtained insights into existing practices and views toward grantsmanship engagement. The HRC’s survey findings indicated that the HRC internal funding program has had positive effects on faculty and staff grantsmanship development. In particular, the HRC is associated with improvements in reported grant writing skills, increased awareness of grant opportunities, motivation to apply for grants, and generating new project ideas. HRC grant recipients also identified additional benefits such as collaborating with other colleagues, gaining project management experience, and being inspired to pursue external funding. These are all important factors that contribute to grantsmanship engagement that can propel faculty and staff to secure new funding from external sources.
Anecdotally, there are also notable examples of HRC grantees that were successful in securing new grants that advanced the development of their projects. One of the funded ADELANTE research projects, led by faculty in HCC’s game design unit, was a game design internship, Other Possible Games, that engaged 13 students over two summers in a new incubator space where they gained exposure to the professional world of game design. This was a part internship, part summer course, where students worked together with faculty to develop original games while earning credits towards the Associate in Applied Science Game Design degree. This research internship addressed critical industry-specific challenges for HCC students entering a heavily competitive industry, providing skill-building and networking opportunities while simultaneously informing critical research in this field. Building on the success of the internship, which was first funded through ADELANTE, the faculty leading this initiative were successful in securing external funding of over $90,000 from private sources. This influx of new funding provided continued sustainability for an internship program that is elevating student knowledge, building a community of practice, and promoting college innovation.
Another success story comes from two IDEAS grantees from the HCC Division of Student Development and Enrollment Management, who secured a major grant to implement the Academic Completion Initiative, which they piloted with an IDEAS grant of $2,000. With their initial pilot findings, they were able to submit a highly competitive proposal to a CUNY funding initiative, to secure a significant grant of $174,657 that supported an expansion of this academic intervention program. This program promoted student retention and academic improvement by engaging HCC students as peer mentors who are trained to support fellow students on academic probation with tutoring, academic guidance, and encouragement to help them achieve good academic standing.
Both examples showcased the intended outcome that the ADELANTE and IDEAS grants make possible for HRC grantees that pursue additional funding to support their pilot projects. These examples also demonstrated that the HRC is a catalyst for new programmatic ideas and interventions designed to improve the learning experience for HCC students. The development of the HRC is intended to serve as a motivating force for promoting and supporting a culture of grantsmanship, and its implementation is making positive strides in that direction. It is also serving as an incubator for HCC faculty/staff to create and test solutions to innovate learning and teaching practices in a supportive environment.
Providing a seamless grant application process and grant administration support are factors conducive to grantsmanship engagement. The implementation of the HRC internal funding awards provided an opportunity to test out the pre-award and post-award processes and make improvements as needed. Survey feedback from most of the HRC grantees was positive regarding the HRC application process including the promotion of grant opportunities, information sessions offered, and application submission. An area of dissatisfaction was noted in the fiscal administration processing due to delays in travel expense reimbursements. Establishing strong fiscal and administrative processes is vital to the continued effectiveness of the HRC. The administrative staff continues working toward improving and expediting the processing of grant related expense reimbursement.
HCC Grantsmanship Engagement
Nearly half of respondents did not view grantsmanship as a key component of their work responsibilities, which may have influenced respondents’ reported level of engagement in grantsmanship activities. Most only engaged in grantsmanship when deemed necessary. Given faculty/staff members’ workloads and other academic responsibilities, engaging in grantsmanship can be difficult to prioritize. As has been shown by other studies, teaching commitments, committee service, and administrative responsibilities were cited as barriers to faculty engagement in grantsmanship activities (Goff-Albritton et al., 2022). Some survey respondents that did not apply for HRC funding noted that limited time precluded them from completing an application. Lack of time has been cited as a major barrier by previous studies as well (Sehlaoui et al., 2021).
Providing institutional support can help to facilitate grantsmanship engagement. In their study of supports and barriers to faculty persistence in grant seeking, Pinto and Huizinga (2018) found that institutional structures of support, such as internal awards for faculty research, hiring grant writers, and having dedicated staff to support faculty, facilitated faculty engagement in applying for external grants and building a culture that supports grantsmanship. Survey respondents identified activities that they would participate in such as HRC grant writing workshops and meeting with HCC grants staff to support proposal development. They also provided recommendations of additional resources to support grantsmanship engagement. The HRC’s internal grant opportunities and grant writing workshops provide this vital institutional support and serve as incentives to improve motivation toward engagement in grantsmanship activities.
HRC Impact on External Funding
The development of the HRC comes at an opportune time for HCC, particularly through the influx of funding from the MacKenzie Scott grant, and the re-engagement of faculty, staff, and students to campus life after the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors’ examination of grantsmanship data both before and after the inception of the HRC provides the context necessary for understanding the impact of the HRC on building a research and grants development culture that facilitates faculty/staff success in securing external funding. HCC experienced a significant increase in grants development during the three years of implementation of the HRC, during which time HCC faculty secured the highest amount in federal funding than in the previous three years. While the authors acknowledge that the substantial increase in federal funding can be attributed to faculty commitment to developing innovative programs with the support of new federal funding, this is viewed as a positive trend that can provide encouragement to other faculty and staff to apply for grants.
HCC staff in the Division of Continuing Education and Workforce Development have also been consistently successful in securing external funding to support workforce development programs, which is an area of programmatic funding that can grow further with the support of the HRC. By providing faculty and staff access to grant opportunities and capacity building workshops, the HRC is engaging them in the grantsmanship process and supporting their grant writing efforts to achieve success. Providing increased grant opportunities through the HRC also promotes a supportive grant seeking environment where faculty and staff are encouraged to develop and submit their proposed research interventions for further study. The HRC also serves as a mentoring space where it can bring experienced faculty and staff together with those who are new to promote sharing of best practices in grants development and multi-disciplinary collaboration. This is extremely important in fomenting scholarly development and providing an exploratory space for the development and iteration of new research innovations across all disciplines.
Limitations
The study faced several limitations. First, the small sample size yielded a small return on usable responses. While the survey was disseminated broadly and received responses primarily from full-time faculty members, more targeted strategies for adjunct faculty and staff could have increased their participation and sample size. Second, data collection and analysis were also limited to the survey results. Additional insights into respondents’ grantsmanship experiences, barriers, and motivating factors to grant seeking, could have been explored in more depth through structured interviews. This will be an important component to include in future research. Third, a few respondents provided feedback on their engagement of a student research assistant, which prevented the ability to fully examine this area of inquiry. The authors deem that it will be necessary to examine the student research mentorship component through a separate evaluation process. Finally, the analysis of grants data did not include indirect costs recovered from awarded grants. The indirect costs were not tracked and could not be included in the analysis. Indirect cost recovery is an important indicator of institutional success in securing grants, as these funds support institutional infrastructure and administrative costs. Future studies of internal funding programs should include analysis of indirect cost recovery rates and total amounts to better assess the program’s institutional impact.
Conclusion
The HRC funding program was instrumental in building faculty and staff capacity to secure grants that advance new research development and generate innovative ideas to address institutional and academic support needs. The HRC’s grant awarding mechanisms showed promise for increasing faculty and staff success in securing external grants to increase the development of research that advances academic, institutional, and community priorities. The HRC has also served as a catalyst for engaging faculty and staff in the grant writing and project administration process in a systematic way, while also contributing to the engagement of students in mentored research. Amidst the continuing challenges that community colleges face to secure public and private funding, the value of the HRC internal funding program combined with the practical application of the grantsmanship process, can serve as a model for institutions of higher education seeking to revitalize grantsmanship culture and promote institutional innovation.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the Hostos Community College Office of the President for the leadership and vision provided for the development of the Hostos Research Center, the Office of Grants and Research Administration for the institutional grants data provided, and the Office of Academic Affairs for their support of faculty and staff grantsmanship efforts. We are grateful to the support of the Ms. MacKenzie Scott grant awarded to Hostos Community College that has sponsored the development of the Hostos Research Center.
Sofia Oviedo, Ph.D.
Research Programs Director, Office of the President
Hostos Community College, CUNY
500 Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY 10451
soviedo@hostos.cuny.edu
Yoel Rodríguez, Ph.D.
Chair and Professor, Natural Sciences Department
Hostos Community College, CUNY
500 Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY 10451
yrodriguez@hostos.cuny.edu
Antonios Varelas, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Behavioral and Social Sciences Department
Hostos Community College, CUNY
500 Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY 10451
avarelas@hostos.cuny.edu
Authors' Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sofia Oviedo, Hostos Community College, Office of the President, 500 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10451, United States. Email: soviedo@hostos.cuny.edu
References
Ahn, S., Morgan, S. E., Mosser, A., & Bixby, J. L. (2022). Encouraging innovation: Should
internal funding programs favor faculty who are already productive? Journal of Research Administration, 53(1), 144–161. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1348011.pdf
Baker, V. L., Pifer, M. J., Lunsford, L. G., Greer, J., & Ihas, D. (2015). Faculty as mentors in
undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative work: Motivating and inhibiting factors. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 23(5), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2015.1126164
Balaji, R. V., Knisely, C., & Blazyk, J. (2007). Internal grant competitions: A new opportunity
for research officers to build institutional funding portfolios. Journal of Research
Administration, 38(2), 44–50. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ902224.pdf
Boyer, P., & Cockriel, I. (1998). Factors influencing grant writing: Perceptions of tenured and
non-tenured faculty. SRA Journal, 29(Spring), 61–68. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ570461
Cook, D., & Loadman, W. E. (1984). Developing instrumentation to reflect perceptions and
attitudes toward proposal development. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 283–299.
Daniel, L. G., & Gallaher, I. (1990). Impediments to faculty involvement in grant-related
activities: A case study. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 22(2), 5+.
Dooley, L. M. (1995). Barriers and inducements to grant-related activity by a college of
education faculty. Research Management Review, 7(2), 10–24.
Goff-Albritton, R. A., Cola, P. A., Walker, J., Pierre, J., Yerra, S. D., & Garcia, I. (2022).
Faculty views on the barriers and facilitators to grant activities in the USA: A systematic
literature review. Journal of Research Administration, 53(2), 14–39. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1362093.pdf
Haeger, H., Banks, J. E., Smith, C., & Armstrong-Land, M. (2020). What we know and what
we need to know about undergraduate research. Scholarship and Practice of
Undergraduate Research, 3(4), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/3/4/4
Kleinfelder, J., Price, J. H., & Dake, J. A. (2003). Grant writing: Practice and preparation of
university health educators. American Journal of Health Education, 34(1), 47–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2003.10603525
Kuh, D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://navigate.utah.edu/_resources/documents/hips-kuh-2008.pdf
Kulage, K. M., & Larson, E. L. (2018). Intramural pilot funding and internal grant reviews
increase research capacity at a school of nursing. Nursing Outlook, 66(1), 11–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.06.003
Leak, R. K., O’Donnell, L. A., & Surratt, C. K. (2015). Teaching pharmacology graduate
students how to write an NIH grant application. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(9), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe799138
Lopatto, D. (2003, March). The essential features of undergraduate research. Council on
Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 139–142. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=8b47f05fecb485b85b17d9c371607a3422a822de
Lopatto, D. (2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Peer Review,
12(2), 27–30. https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/126/2020/10/Lopatto-2010.pdf
Monahan, T. C. (1993). Barriers and inducements to grant-related activity by New Jersey state
college faculty. Society of Research Administrators Journal, 24(4), 9.
Mitchell, M., Palacios, V., & Leachman, M. (2015). States are still funding higher education
below pre-recession levels. Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, 0(71), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.58188/1941-8043.1524
National Institutes of Health. (2024). Biomedical Research and Development Price Index
(BRDPI). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/gbiPriceIndexes.html
Pinto, K. M., & Huizinga, D. (2018). Institutional barriers and faculty persistence:
Understanding faculty grant-seeking at a predominantly undergraduate institution. Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 65–72.
Rodríguez, Y., Angulo, N., Nieto-Wire, C., & Varelas, A. (2020). Engineering student
perceptions of combined faculty and peer academic performance. The Chronicle of
Mentoring & Coaching, 1(13), 430–436. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10215493
Rodríguez, Y., Varelas, A., Angulo, N., Nieto-Wire, C., & DePass, A. L. (2022). The Hostos
Engineering Academic Talent (HEAT) Scholarship Program: An educational model to enhance socio-economic mobility for community college students. ASEE Annual Conference 2022, 38361. https://peer.asee.org/the-hostos-engineering-academic-talent-heat-scholarship-program-an-educational-model-to-enhance-socio-economic-mobility-for-community-college-students.pdf
Rodríguez, Y., Angulo, N., Nieto-Wire, C., Varelas, A., & DePass, A. L. (2023). Improving
engineering students’ outcomes via multiple forms of mentorship. The Chronicle of Mentoring & Coaching, 7(16), 720–725.
Sehlaoui, A. S., Gross, E., & Ruengwatthakee, P. (2021). Motivating factors and obstacles
behind grant research: The case of a teaching-focused state college. Journal of Research
Administration, 52(1), 38–58. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1293036.pdf
Shuman, K. M. (2019). Grant proposal preparation readiness: A glimpse at the education level of higher education faculty. Journal of Research Administration, 50(1), 89–107. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1213259.pdf
Walden, P. R., & Bryan, V. C. (2010). Tenured and non-tenured college of education faculty
motivators and barriers in grant writing: A public university in the South. Journal of Research Administration, 41(3), 85–98. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ945950.pdf
Appendix A
IDEAS Call for Proposals
Hostos Research Center (HRC)
Committee on Sponsored Programs and Grants (CSPG)
2024 IDEAS Project Development Award
Innovating, Developing and Executing Actions with Success
Program Solicitation
The Hostos Research Center (HRC) and the Committee on Sponsored Programs and Grants (CSPG) invite Faculty and Staff to submit IDEAS – Innovating, Developing and Executing Actions with Success Project proposals addressing institutional needs and/or current research questions with potential to be translated and materialized into external funding opportunities.
Each HRC-CSPG – IDEAS Project will receive $1,000 or $2,000 (see below Award Information) as a summer 2024 stipend / start-up funding to develop a grant proposal to be submitted to an external funding opportunity. This initiative is aligned with the HRC-CSPG’s mission of fostering a sustained institutional grants culture by creating an environment to encourage everyone to apply successfully for grants. Collaborative research including intra- and inter-departmental/division collaboration, and team building initiatives are welcome.
Award Information
Anticipated Funding Amount: $10,000
Award Amount: Individual submission $1,000 and team submission (i.e., two or more individuals) up to $2,000.
Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals: Full and part-time faculty and staff are eligible to apply as PI/Co-PIs. Full/part-time staff are eligible to apply/participate in a proposed project but request for salary/compensation is not allowed. Executive staff may participate as Co-PIs but are not eligible for a funding award. Previous IDEAS award recipients are eligible to apply but priority will be given to those who have not applied/received an award in prior rounds.
Proposal Deadline: Friday, June 21, 2024, at 11:59 PM. See Proposal Preparation Instructions section outlined below.
Award Notification: Friday, June 28, 2024. HRC-CSPG award decision will be communicated to applicants by email.
Proposal Preparation Instructions
Proposals should be no more than two pages long and should include the following sections:
- 1. Project Title
- Abstract – Up to 200-word limit snapshot of the project including rationale, objectives/hypothesis, activities/methodology, expected outcomes.
- Project Narrative | No more than two pages long and should include the following sections:
- Rationale for the project – What is the problem(s) / need(s) you will address? Any relationship to previous work (your work or others' work)? What is(are) the overarching goal(s)?
- Objectives | Hypothesis – The specific actions and measurable steps needed to achieve the goal(s). | If research component, what is the research question you will explore?
- Activities | Methodology – How will the problem(s) / need(s) be solved? Activities to achieve objectives and goal(s). | If research component, the Research Methods to explore the research question/hypothesis.
- Timeline for the work (e.g., biweekly, month by month) – Keep in mind that this is a short-term project of about 3.5 months.
- Future Plan – Identify potential external funding opportunities and programs (e.g., NSF, NIH, NEH, Gates Foundation). Next steps to take when funds end. Provide a brief explanation why the identified funding opportunity is appropriate for the current proposal.
- References – Provide literature used to craft/back up project narrative.
- Biosketch – Two-page long biosketch (NSF-style format).
Proposal Font, Spacing and Margin Requirements (NSF-style format)
The proposal should meet the following requirements:
- Use one of the following fonts:
- Arial (not Arial Narrow) at a font size of 10 points or larger; or
- Times New Roman at a font size of 11 points or larger.
- Margins, in all directions, must be at least an inch.
- Single spaced format.
- Paper size must be no larger than standard letter paper size (8 1/2 by 11").
Submission Portal
Please click here to access the IDEAS Project Application Template.
Please click here to submit IDEAS Project Development Award.
Expectations for Winning Awards
To make meaningful progress on the development of a grant application based on the awarded project proposal, to be submitted to an external funding source. A summary of the progress of the grant application, including any potential funding sources, is to be submitted to HRC-CSPG on or before Friday, October 18, 2024.
Appendix B
ADELANTE Call for Proposals
Hostos Research Center (HRC)
Committee on Sponsored Programs and Grants (CSPG)
2024 ADELANTE Project
ADvancing Excellence in Liberal Arts, scieNces, Technology and Engineering
Program Solicitation
The Hostos Research Center (HRC) and the Committee on Sponsored Programs and Grants (CSPG) invite Faculty and Staff to submit ADELANTE – ADvancing Excellence in Liberal Arts, scieNces, Technology and Engineering Project proposals for funding to address research, need-based, and/or creative/transformative interventions in all disciplines including the Arts and Humanities, Behavioral and Social Sciences, and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). A new track is seeking proposals that address issues affecting the South Bronx community. Each HRC-CSPG – ADELANTE Project awardee will receive up to $10,000 (see below Award Information) to develop their proposal research / intervention(s) and is expected to apply for external funding (i.e., outside of Hostos) during the 2024 – 2025 academic year.
HRC-CSPG’s mission is aligned with the College’s mission to provide opportunities for intellectual growth, socio-economic mobility and develop the proficiencies needed for lifelong learning and success. Collaborative research including intra- and inter-departmental/division collaboration, and team building initiatives are welcome. ADELANTE Project is aligned with the joined HRC-CSPG’s mission to foster a culture of research and grants development, enhance student access to professional experiences, and improve student retention.
Award Information
Anticipated Funding Amount: $124,000
Estimated Number of Awards: Up to 15
Individual Award Amount: Up to $10,000 per award
The HRC-CSPG ADELANTE Project supports two types of projects:
- Track 1 | Expand Research Opportunities for Faculty and Staff in All Disciplines; each project’s total funding may not exceed $10,000 including $3,000 for at least one Hostos undergraduate research student assistant (up to 12 awards).
- Track 2 | Expand Research on Issues Affecting the South Bronx Community; Research / interventions that address critical issues affecting the health and quality of life for the South Bronx community including, but not limited to, effects of gentrification such as vehicular and pedestrian traffic, excess garbage, disorder and crime; lack of affordable housing; health issues disproportionately impacting community residents; education and youth development needs. For additional background on community needs and issues affecting the South Bronx, see the Statement of Community District Needs: Bronx Community District 1. Each project’s total funding may not exceed $10,000 including $3,000 for at least one Hostos undergraduate research student assistant (up to 3 awards).
Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals: Full and part-time faculty and staff are eligible to apply as PI/Co-PIs. All faculty who are actively engaged in research and want to mentor undergraduate research students are eligible. Full/part-time staff are eligible to apply/participate in proposed project but request for salary/compensation is not allowed. Full/part-time staff may request reimbursement for travel expenses related to a conference presentation. Executive staff may participate as Co-PIs but are not eligible for a funding award. This call for proposals is giving priority to those who have not applied/received an award in prior rounds.
Proposal Deadline: Friday, February 2, 2024, at 11:59 PM. See Proposal Preparation Instructions section outlined below.
Award Notification: Friday, March 1, 2024. HRC-CSPG award decision will be communicated to applicants by email.
Administrative Information Session for Awardees: All awardees will be required to attend an information session in early March to learn about the fiscal processes required for implementing the grant, reimbursement procedures for expenses, purchasing, and stipend payment processing.
Project Period: March 15, 2024 – March 14, 2025
Proposal Preparation Instructions
- Project Title | Track
- Abstract – Up to 200-word limit snapshot of the project including rationale, objectives/hypothesis, activities/methodology, expected outcomes.
- Project Narrative | No more than five pages long and should include the following sections:
- Rationale for the project – What is the problem(s) / need(s) the project will address? Any relationship to previous work (your work or others' work)? What is(are) the overarching goal(s)?
- Objectives | Hypothesis (If research component) – The specific actions and measurable steps needed to achieve the goal(s). If research component, what is the research question you will explore?
- Activities | Methodology – How will the problem(s) / need(s) be solved? Activities to achieve objectives and goal(s). If research component, the Research Methods to explore the research question/hypothesis.
- Expected Outcomes and Timeline (e.g., biweekly, month by month) – Keep in mind that this is a one-year project. If you plan to conduct research with human subjects, please include the IRB application process in the timeline.
- Future Plan – Next steps to take when funds end. Any sustainability plans? Provide potential external funding opportunities.
- References – Provide literature used to craft/back up project narrative.
- Research Mentoring Plan – Describe plan to train the undergraduate research assistant. Special consideration will be given to those projects that include working with Hostos Career Services to provide students with career professional development and transition to employment. Research assistant name is encouraged to be included if already identified.
- Budget – Provide a detailed budget of grant expenses including 1) Personnel (e.g., full-time/part-time faculty summer salary up to $3,000, undergraduate research assistant $3,000). Full/part-time staff are eligible to apply/participate in ADELANTE projects, however, requests for staff salary/compensation including Higher Education Officer (HEO), and College Laboratory Technician (CLT) is not allowed. Full/part-time staff may request reimbursement for travel expenses related to a conference presentation. 2) Other Than Personnel Expenses (OTPS; e.g., travel, supplies). Award is all-inclusive. Release time allocation is not allowed. Purchase of laptop/computer equipment is not allowed. Note that travel expenses will be paid by reimbursement to PI/Co-PI.
- Budget Justification – Brief justification of budget items. Resources – As you craft your proposal, please confirm that you have access to all resources necessary to develop, implement, and complete the project or allocate the appropriate funds within the scope of the project.'
- Biosketch – Two-page long biosketch (NSF-style format).
Proposal Font, Spacing and Margin Requirements
The proposal should meet the following requirements:
- Use one of the following fonts:
- Arial (not Arial Narrow) at a font size of 10 points or 11 points; or
- Times New Roman at a font size of 11 points or 12 points.
- Margins, in all directions, must be at least an inch.
- Single spaced format.
- Paper size must be no larger than standard letter paper size (8 1/2 by 11").
Application Template and Submission Portal
Please click here to access the ADELANTE Project Application Template and here to submit ADELANTE Project Award.
Expectations for Winning Awards
To make meaningful progress on the awarded project proposal research / intervention(s), awardees are expected to apply for external funding opportunity during the 2023 – 2024 academic year. A summary of the project progress, including any dissemination, publication, exhibit, and/or potential funding sources, is to be submitted to HRC-CSPG on or before Wednesday, April 30, 2025.
Appendix C
Hostos Research Center Survey
The Hostos Research Center aims to provide faculty and staff with opportunities for research and grants development to increase and enhance the submission of applications for external funding. The Hostos Research Center also aims to foster faculty and student research mentorship through funded research projects that will provide Hostos students with development of research skills and engagement in professional research experiences. Your completion of this survey will help us to improve the activities and resources provided through the Hostos Research Center. Please complete this survey to provide us with feedback (your answers will be anonymous).
- Prior to learning about/applying for a Hostos Research Center grant opportunity, how many grant applications have you written and submitted for funding from CUNY or other funding source?
___ None
___ 1 – 5 grant applications
___ 6 - 10 grant applications
___ 10+ grant applications
- Did you apply for an internal grant opportunity (ADELANTE/IDEAS) offered by the Hostos Research Center?
___ Yes (go to Q. # 3) ___ No (skip to Q. 28)
- Which Hostos Research Center grant(s) did you apply for (check as many as apply)?
___ ADELANTE Track 1 (not including student research mentorship)
___ ADELANTE Track 2 (including student research mentorship)
___ IDEAS
- Were you awarded a Hostos Research Center grant?
___ Yes (go to Q. 5) ___ No (skip to Q. 29)
- Was this your first time being awarded a grant through the Hostos Research Center?
___ Yes ___ No
- Which Hostos Research Center grant(s) did you receive (check as many as apply)?
___ ADELANTE Track 1 (not including student research mentorship)
___ ADELANTE Track 2 (including student research mentorship)
___ IDEAS
- What was your role in the ADELANTE/IDEAS funded project?
___ Principal Investigator
___ Co-Principal Investigator
___ Staff
___ Other: _______________
- Since completing your ADELANTE/IDEAS project, are you planning to submit a grant application to support the continuation of this project in the near future (through CUNY/external funders)?
___ Yes, in the current academic year (2022-23)
___ Yes, in the upcoming academic year (2023-24)
___ Not sure yet
___ Not yet
- If yes, what other funders/grant opportunities will you be applying to (if known at this time)?
_________________________________________________________________________
- Since completing your ADELANTE/IDEAS project, are you planning to publish an article, report, or present findings at a conference?
___ Yes, in the current academic year (2022-23)
___ Yes, in the upcoming academic year (2023-24)
___ Not sure yet
___ Not yet
- If yes, to what journals/publications do you plan to submit article/report (if known)?
_______________________________________________________________
- How satisfied were you with the grant application process for ADELANTE/IDEAS?
(Likert scale: Very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied)
Statement:
- Advertising/promotion of grant opportunities
- Grant Info Session/Office Hours (if attended)
- Submitting grant application
- Award notification
- How satisfied were you with the support/guidance received for the administration of the grant? (Likert scale: Very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied)
Statement:
- Overall grant/project management experience
- Review of administrative processes for payment/reimbursement
- Processing/timeliness of faculty stipends
- Processing/timeliness of adjuncts/staff payments
- Processing/timeliness of student stipends
- Ordering supplies/materials
- Travel reimbursement processing
- To better understand how the Hostos Research Center (HRC) grant experience has impacted your professional development, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. (Likert scale: Strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree)
Securing the HRC grant has…
- Increased my confidence to apply and obtain grants in the future
- Increased my motivation to apply for new grant opportunities
- Helped to improve my grant writing abilities
- Increased my awareness of other grant opportunities I might pursue
- Increased my ability to generate new project ideas
- Is there any aspect of the grant application/administration process that could be improved?
- What did you value most about your experience managing a new project?
- Do you have any other feedback/recommendations for Hostos Research Center capacity-building activities/initiatives for faculty/staff?
- Did you engage students as research assistants in your project?
___ Yes (go to question 19
___ No (skip to question 29)
Questions 19 - 27 pertain to faculty/staff that engaged student research assistants in their projects.
- How many students did you engage in your research project?
___ One
___ Two
___ Three or more
- How many weeks during the project period were students involved as research assistants?
___ Four weeks or less
___ Five to eight weeks
___ Eight to twelve weeks
___ Over 12 weeks
- How much time did you spend training student(s) to prepare them for the assigned tasks?
___ One to two days
___ One week
___ Two weeks
___ Training was continuous during project period
Other: ___________
- Please describe the activities that the student research assistant conducted during the project period.
- Please rate your level of satisfaction with student's progress in each of the following areas. (Likert Scale: Very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat satisfied, very satisfied)
- Completing assigned tasks in timely manner
- Learns new concepts, ideas, and methods easily
- Speaks up appropriately and communicates information effectively
- Listens for guidance and asks for clarification
- Recognizes problems and seeks solutions
- Resolves problems in adequate time
- Ability to be thoughtful, show good judgment, and make reasonable decisions
- Produces consistent, high-quality work
- Self-motivated and can complete work in a timely manner
- Completes work despite obstacles/problems
- When given feedback, takes action to improve/make changes
- Works effectively with supervisor
- Demonstrates professional conduct
- How often did you meet with student(s) to provide mentoring during the project period? Mentoring that focuses on student's academic progress, research skills development, career readiness, personal development.
___ Once a week
___ Once every two weeks
___ Once a month
___ Other: ____________
- Please select from the list below the topics that you and the student discussed during the mentoring sessions. (Select as many as apply)
___ Student’s academic progress
___ Student’s professional development (research skills, career readiness, planning)
___ Student’s personal development (personal goals and how student can achieve them)
___ School/work/life balance
___ Other: _______________
- What did you value most about your experience mentoring a student(s)?
- What supports could the Hostos Research Center provide to strengthen/improve the faculty - student research mentoring experience?
At the completion of Q. 27 skip to Q. 29.
28 pertains to faculty/staff that did not apply for a Hostos Research Center grant opportunity.
- What were the factors/reasons that led you to decide not to apply for a Hostos Research Center grant? (select as many as apply).
___ Not aware of the funding opportunity
___ Not enough time to complete an application
___ The grant opportunity did not align with my funding needs/purposes
___ Limited grant writing experience
___ Lack of guidance/information on the application process
___ Other: ______________________________________________
Questions 29 – 32 for all respondents.
- The Hostos Research Center is interested in learning more about your grant seeking/grant writing experiences to inform our capacity-building offerings for faculty and staff.
- Is grant seeking/grant writing an integral component of your work responsibilities? If yes, how many hours a month do you typically spend on grant development activities?
___ Yes ___ No
# of hours per month: ____ (enter NA if not applicable)
- Tell us about the types of grant seeking/grant development activities that you typically engage in. (Options: Weekly, monthly, quarterly, as needed)
Activity:
- Search for available funding opportunities in my area of expertise.
- Review one or more Requests for Proposals.
- Review examples of successful grant proposals i.e., that were funded.
- Collaborate with others to think about writing a proposal.
- Participate in grant information sessions offered by Hostos Research Center and/or CUNY/external funders.
- Participate in grant information sessions offered by Hostos Research Center and/or CUNY/external funders.
- Serve as a reviewer for internal/external grant competitions.
- Write and submit grant proposals.
- Please answer the following related to possible future developmental activities related to grant writing that might interest you. (Options: Yes, No, Maybe)
Statement:
- I am willing to participate in a grant writing intensive workshop.
- I am willing to participate in monthly or bimonthly follow-up meetings where ongoing assistance and instructions are provided resulting in a completed proposal after 6 months.
- I think I am comfortable working on my own.
- I am willing to meet with staff from the Office of Grants and Research Administration for help in developing grant proposals.
- I am willing to attend grant writing workshops that are organized by the Hostos Research Center.
- What additional resources/supports would be helpful to you in the preparation/submission of a grant application?
Demographic Questions:
- What is your gender identity?
___ Female
___ Male
___ X (Non-binary)
___ Prefer not to say
___ Other: _________
- Which race/ethnicity best describes you?
___ Black/African American
___ Latinx/Hispanic
___ Asian/Pacific Islander
___ Native American
___ White/Caucasian
___ Biracial
___ Prefer not to say
___ Other: ___________
- How long have you been working at Hostos?
___ One year or less
___ Two to five years
___ Six to ten years
___ 11 years or more
___ Prefer not to say
___ Other: ____________
- What is your role at Hostos?
___ Full-time faculty member
___ Adjunct/part-time faculty member
___ Administrator
___ Staff member
Other: _______________
- Faculty: Please provide your professional rank.
___ Lecturer
___ Instructor
___ Assistant Professor
___ Associate Professor
___ Professor
___ Other: ____________
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!