Introduction:

My name is Delo Freitas, and I have been working closely with CoFED to gather data about Green Fees and other sustainability-related funds at universities across the U.S. and Canada. The following information is compiled from several sources, including phone interviews and university websites. The result of this data is a compilation of advice for students hoping to receive funding for their cooperative projects with Green Fee funding, and a Google fusion table documenting existing Green Fee locations which had been compiled by Mieko Ozeki, Sustainability Projects Coordinator at University of Vermont.

Interviews

Survey Questions

Interviews from people who are or have been on granting bodies aimed at assessing what the top factors are that guide their granting decisions.

emphasized areas:
–best practices among past applicants and what not to do
–recommendations for prospective applicants
1.) How would you define “sustainability”? How is this reflected in your granting body’s choices?
2.) In the past three years, which projects have been most compelling and successful? What made them so?
3.) How many food-related projects were funded in the past three years(This includes farming, distribution, sustainable food education, garden projects, etc.)?  Have food-related projects been funded consistently in the past? Why or why not?
4.) In practice, what have you found to be the three most influential criteria to your specific granting body?
5.) Also, what are the three least desirable qualities to see in a project?
6.) For prospective students, are there any further recommendations that you would like to give?

Respondents

Interview Results

Katherine Walsh, TGIF at UC Berkeley
Katherine is the coordinator of The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF) at UC Berkeley. She stressed the importance of student involvement, strong metrics, visibility, and accessibility in a project. She also recommended collaboration as an excellent way of shortening a student’s learning curve and proving themselves proactive.

Q: In the past three years, which projects have been most compelling and successful? What made them so?

A: A compelling project has many components. One of the most important is adherence to the institution’s bylaws and the environmental impact. Does the project help the institution to meet its outlined sustainability goals? Though often these goals focus more upon waste, energy, water, and transportation than upon food, it is still important to speak to these regulations when planning your project and writing and presenting your proposal.

Q: How many food-related projects were funded in the past three years(This includes farming, distribution, sustainable food education, garden projects, etc.)?  Have food-related projects been funded consistently in the past? Why or why not?

A: For UC Berkeley, only 6% of the last four years’ (2008-2012) projects have been food-related. This is not an intentional practice on the behalf of the granting committee but simply a byproduct of the types of projects that have requested funding. In the future Berkeley hopes to even out the categories and see more food and transportation projects being funded. As of now, however, Waste and Education & Behavior Change account for 48% of TGIF’s overall spending. (Find more info here )

Q: In practice, what have you found to be the most influential criteria to your specific granting body?

A: In practice, the top criteria influential to project funding is metrics, or figures, of the proposal. Can the project and team show that the sustainability impact will be realized with concrete data? This is paramount to a project’s success, because it shows a granting committee that the project well-thought out, and will not be a waste of money on behalf of the students who fund the projects. Make your proposal strong and clear-cut, whether the project is qualitative or quantitative. Also be sure you will be able to continue to supplement your project with data in the post-grant implementation stage. Some examples of useful data may include counting numbers of readers on list serves, facebook, or attendance at events. Other methods include green certification of events or projects, energy consumption bills, types of food consumption bills, food bills of students, or any other before project vs. after data set that is applicable and useful. Student involvement is also very important to granting committees. They want to see that not only staff, but students being proactive and getting experience. A student-proposed project is immediately more compelling than a staff-proposed project in the eyes of a granting committee. The project should also have aspects of “Education and Outreach”. The best projects are visible and accessible to students and community members, who can benefit from the projects that get funded by their tuition. An interactive project is best. Finally, projects need to be able to prove to granting committees that they will be able to continue on without ongoing funding from the granting committee. A project that can stand on its own two feet is necessary as most grants are one-time only; the project needs to show how it will be sustained. Having an established sponsor, student groups, etc., is important to see in the proposal. In the case of business start-ups, however, simply saying that the business’ income will supplement the project is sufficient.

Q: What are the least desirable qualities to see in a project?

A: A major flaw in a project is a lack of awareness of what has or has not been done in the past by the granting body–if a project similar to the one newly proposed has already been implemented, it is unlikely to receive funding. Instead, the granting committee may suggest getting involved with the existing project. In Katherine Walsh’s words, “There is no need to reinvent the wheel”. Proposals should also be well-written and well-thought out. Though not as important as the idea itself, a sense of professionalism on the part of the team and proposal is a powerful determining factor. In this vein, it is important to make sure the metrics are equally well-thought out as the rest of the proposal. Many projects ask for too little or too much money; it is important to check the numbers and ensure they are realistic projections to show the granting body that you know what you are doing.

Q: For prospective students, are there any further advice that you would like to give?

A: For students, the more collaborative the group and project are, the better. Many staff members or other student groups are actually happy to get involved and work together, especially with money becoming hard to come by for projects. This also shows a granting body the students are being proactive and building strong ties and communication skills. Again, don’t forget metrics. It’s important to a granting body, and therefore to the projects, to be both accountable and transparent to the public but most importantly to the students. Solid figures are a powerful method of achieving these goals.

Kevin Ordean, Green NAU at Northern Arizona University
Kevin is the Co-Founder of Green NAU at Northern Arizona University. He stressed student engagement, ensuring your project is shovel-ready, and the importance of a project’s potential for assimilation into the university’s existing framework.

Q: In the past three years, which projects have been most compelling and successful? What made them so?

A: One of the most compelling proposals was a project called “VeloComposting”, which revolved around volunteer compost-collection from bikes. This project impressed with a strong and realistic budget proposal that broke down every cost down to the nails and strong, explicit correlations to the outlined goals of the granting committee. Also make sure to include supporting data, and that it is concrete and helpful. Try and speak the language of the granting committees and administration who want to know if and when you will be seeing returns on your project. If possible bring business cases from other universities and show how their similar project has already have x impact upon carbon output, energy use, food cost,etc.

http://green.nau.edu/green_fund/projects/2011-2012/Velo.aspx

Q: How many food-related projects were funded in the past three years(This includes farming, distribution, sustainable food education, garden projects, etc.)?  Have food-related projects been funded consistently in the past? Why or why not?

A: The granting committee at Northern Arizona University has only been operating for two years, but in that time has funded several projects relating to food, with a hiring of a campus organic gardener, a Slow Food festival, and two composting systems. These projects have actually been some of the most successful and transferable; the part-time organic gardener hired was recently made a full-time employee at the university.

Q: In practice, what have you found to be the most influential criteria to your specific granting body?

A: For Northern Arizona University, most of the specifications for funding speak specifically to climate neutrality, so it’s important that proposed projects speak to these goals specifically. Metrics are important in this context; the granting committee wants to see tangible numbers that make a project as transparent as possible to students. Another important aspect of projects must be their ability to provide outreach and awareness for Green NAU funded projects and sustainability at large. It’s extremely important to engage the students and make the projects visible and approachable, as the ultimate goal of projects is assimilation into the mainstream culture, i.e. making sustainability the norm instead of the exception. A strong project shows a realistic method of reaching this goal. Also, it’s necessary for the project to be “shovel-ready”–in other words, a desirable project is one that is ready to begin implementation immediately after receiving their grant. The granting committee wants to see that the plan is sound and all you are waiting for is the check to begin developing your idea into a reality.

Q: Also, what are the three least desirable qualities to see in a project?

A: An example of a food-related project that went unfunded speaks to some undesirable qualities of a project. This specific group and proposal wanted to initiate a student-run food cat, yet had no communication with campus dining, which had an exclusive contract over food distribution on campus. No food cart was allowed, as the campus dining organization has no incentive to allow a start-up to take away from their business. The question that should have been asked was, “How do we get Campus Dining involved?” There was no need to remake the wheel; in this case, collaboration and using existing channels could have led to better results. Students could have attempted to have Campus Dining distributed local produce, etc. if they had been willing to be creative within the existing framework, and in this context they could still have asked for funding and would more likely have received it. This comes back to the importance of doing your research. It’s important for a granting committee to see the proposed project is feasible and has not already been done or attempted.

Q: For prospective students, are there any further recommendations that you would like to give?

A: Make sure you have done your homework. Know your project, its costs in money and time, and its probable returns–and make sure your numbers are as realistic as possible. A granting committee wants to see proposals taking the process seriously. Also, don’t take anything personally. Be willing to think creatively, be flexible, and work collaboratively. Take the time to talk with directors and managers in administration if the proposed project is voted down, and discuss what baby steps can be taken in the here and now to make the project more feasible in the future. Speak to the granting body’s criteria as explicitly as possible. Also, try for matching funds on your project–a strong project often draws on other sources of funding and does not rely wholly upon one granting committee. This is especially important for long-term, large-scale projects that will require ongoing funding and maintenance. Every project must have a realistic long-term plan. Expect to follow up on your project, and make sure to present data not only before completion but also after. Also make sure your project continues to be transparent.

Lilith Wyatt, Sustainability Projects Fund Administrator, McGill University
Lilith Wyatt is the Sustainability Projects Fund Administrator at McGill University. In her interview she focused on the importance of collaboration and experiential student learning, describing McGill’s goal as a community working together towards a shared future. She also spoke about including aspects of engagement, communication, and learning in projects.

Q: How would you define “sustainability”? How is this reflected in your granting body’s choices?

A: For McGill University, sustainability is defined not only in terms of environmental impact but also on economical and societal levels, and funding is considered accordingly. The emphasis at McGill is on relationships, collaboration, and facilitation between students and staff. Sustainability is also considered in the transferability of projects and skills, with applied student research and experiential student learning leading to new skill sets for students that can be carried over into the working world. For the McGill granting committee, the idea is a community working together with a shared vision towards a shared future.

Q: In the past three years, which projects have been most compelling and successful? What made them so?

A: A successful project is one that can change what the campus feels like; in other words, a project should be able to add to the experience of being on campus, and involve the students directly in the process. The most compelling projects are visible, and should be able to educate and inform the community at large. It is also important to make a project that can stand on its own–a grant can kickstart a project, but it cannot fund it forever. Therefore a compelling project is one that can prove its ability to sustain itself independently. An example of a project that successfully filled these requirements is McGill’s project “McGill feeding McGill.” This project provides locally grown produce from a campus  Horticultural Center to McGill’s downtown residences  and McGill students, providing seasonal fruits and vegetables to the University’s Food and Dining Services Department. The program has grown to provide the vast majority of McGill’s dining hall’s produce, and has also allowed for academic integration into its processes and production. The project has opened up many research opportunities, including methods of extending growing seasons and using wasps as organic pesticides. In essence, this project has succeeded due to its visibility, its ability to grow and evolve, its ability to lend itself to collaboration and educative purposes, and its ability to generate its own income.

http://www.mcgill.ca/sustainability/mcgill-feeding-mcgill

Q: How many food-related projects were funded in the past three years(This includes farming, distribution, sustainable food education, garden projects, etc.)?  Have food-related projects been funded consistently in the past? Why or why not?

A: McGill has funded a surprisingly large amount of food-related ventures, especially in the form of urban gardening projects. In fact, at the program’s conception fully half of the projects that initially received funding were food related, simply because the students were consistently proposing that type of project. McGill is also unusual in that they have a smaller amount of funding going to energy, which is often one of the most emphasized categories for funding.

Q: In practice, what have you found to be the three most influential criteria to your specific granting body?

A: Engagement, Communication, and Learning are three of the most important aspects to any project. It is paramount that a project speaks to a large group. Collaboration is also extremely important, because multiple players can get things done better and faster than one team working alone. It’s important to find others willing to share your vision, be they peers, staff, or administration. In addition, working with others shortens your learning curve, allowing you to use the perspectives of others to more effectively implement your project.

Q: Also, what are the least desirable qualities to see in a project?

A: A weak project is one with a team that has not done its homework. Good ideas can be undermined by not speaking to the right people, not asking the right questions, and not knowing whether or not a similar project has already been implemented. Successful projects must be flexible, open to advice and redirection when necessary.

Q: For prospective students, are there any further recommendations that you would like to give?

A: Have a plan for evaluating success–what will it look like? How will you know it when you see it? This may mean metrics but not necessarily–it can be a mistake to let the structure overwhelm the idea in a project. Make sure to include data when useful and necessary, but if the project is simple, small, and relatively intuitive, make sure the metrics are flexible and do not add them if not relevant. Again, find ways to shorten your learning curve. This may mean speaking to your local coordinators, setting up contacts in administration or other institutions, people who can put you in touch with useful contacts and let you know what is already being done in your field of interest. It can be useful to think bigger and decentralize the ideas of your project, especially when looking for funding and collaborators. What do you want to accomplish? Is there more than one way to achieve that goal? Also as a general piece of advice, integrative mandates are worth pursuing as unstructured sources for funding on your home campus.

Mckenzie Beverage, Student Sustainability Committee at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
McKenzie is the Program Advisor of the Student Sustainability Committee at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In her interview she discussed the importance of collaboration, engagement, and the goal of creating a closed-loop system. She also mentioned the importance of understanding the mission of your university  and your contribution  when submitting your project proposal.

Q: In the past three years, which projects have been most compelling and successful? What made them so?

A: A good project can demonstrate collaboration between parties and engages the campus community. As far as food and farming projects specifically, projects should strive to create more of a closed-loop system between waste and food, but the same argument applies to production and consumption. A strong project also finds other methods of funding to supplement their needs; this proves to a committee that the team is serious about the success of their idea and is willing to find ways to make it happen. A strong project also speaks to economic and social sustainability as well as environmental, and makes that apparent in its goals and implementation. An example of a successful project adhering to these guidelines is UI’s Portable, Deployable Farm Stand. This project consists of two food carts, one bike powered, that supply fresh produce to local marketplaces, including the school quad and the area’s local farmer’s market. Its visibility, potential for education and outreach, its small scale and uniqueness have made it an especially successful project.

Q: How many food-related projects were funded in past years(This includes farming, distribution, sustainable food education, garden projects, etc.)?  Have food-related projects been funded consistently in the past? Why or why not?

A: Several food-related projects have been funded in the past few years including the aforementioned deployable farm stand, the student farm, which has been collaborating with campus dining and the student body. Many of the programs, however, are specifically geared towards energy partially because of the structure of funding at this particular institution. The sustainability fund comes from two pools of money, one specifically set up to finance green energy projects and the other for more general usage. In addition, as a land-grant school with emphasis put upon agriculture and engineering, many projects are related to these two fields.

Q: In practice, what have you found to be the most influential criteria to your specific granting body?

A: An influential criteria in a project and its initial proposal is effective communication. Granting bodies want to see impacts, be they social, economic, or environmental, described well in both qualitative and quantitative cases. Calculations for project costs are expected to be realistic and transparent. It is also important when putting forward a project proposal to be creative and to think outside of the box. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Again, a strong project involves the student body and makes sure that it is visible and educational.

Q: Also, what are the least desirable qualities to see in a project?

A: An unsuccessful project has not done its research. Make sure to understand the university’s mission before submitting a proposal to ensure that your idea fits within its guidelines and mission. Make sure a project similar to your own has not already been implemented.

For prospective students, are there any further recommendations that you would like to give?

It’s enormously helpful to make contacts in the field you wish to come into. Look up faculty, staff, and administration that can support and advise your project, and help you to understand how your project fits into the existing fabric of your institution’s community, and how it can best enrich it. This is a very important task and one that often requires multiple perspectives and disciplines.

David Seaward, Green Grants program at NYU

David Seaward is the coordinator of the Green Grants program at NYU. He stressed the importance of project’s potential for impact and institutionalization. He also spoke about the strengths displayed in a CoFED related project funded by Green Grants and what made the project so compelling.

Q: How would you define “sustainability”? How is this reflected in your granting body’s choices?

A: For NYU’S Green Grants program, sustainability is defined as the practices that meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future. When considering sustainability in this way, it is necessary to view it from not only the environmental perspective but the social and economic as well. In David Seaward’s words, “The Selection Committee awards grants for the most feasible, impactful and innovative projects that have potential for institutionalization on campus or long-term self-sustainment.”

Q: In the past three years, which projects have been most compelling and successful? What made them so?

A: There are many aspects to a compelling and successful project. An important aspect of any project is its potential for institutionalization–can the project become permanent? Can it be scaled up, or transferred to another aspect of campus? An example of this at NYU is a cooking education series grant that was supported by a Green Grant that now can become the responsibility of the Campus Dining Program.  One of the main goals of NYU’s Green Grants program is to produce successful projects that are copyable for the larger community and can be assimilated into common practices. In addition, the most compelling projects show great potential for both institutionalization and for impact upon the university community. It is also important that a project’s projected success can be measured, and that these measurements are made by qualified members of the team or staff. Granting committees want to see that either the group making the proposal or some other supporting party has the necessary experience to make realistic projections of time and money costs. Qualification can be proved by having past experience in the field in question, providing letters of support or recommendation from staff, faculty, or relevant community members, etc. An example of a successful project that fulfilled these requirements is actually a CoFED-related cooperative food project that has been very successful in New York. Its proposal for funding through Green Grants was well received for several important reasons. First of all, the project team researched and pursued the necessary permits for their space from the university and had interest and letters of support from administration. They also had ten organizations, including school clubs, that promised to use the food co-op as a source for catering events. The food cart represented an alternative to campus dining, but also managed to garner internal support and had a large amount of visibility with its chosen location.

Q: How many food-related projects were funded in the year(This includes farming, distribution, sustainable food education, garden projects, etc.)?

A:Ten of the sixty four projects funded in the past year have been food-related. This includes projects involved with composting, as food production and composting .

Q: In practice, what have you found to be the three most influential criteria to your specific granting body?

A: Three of the most influential criteria outlined on NYU’s Green Fund applicationtoolkit are:

Operational Impact:
• Does it demonstrate meaningful, substantial environmental benefits?

• Is it greenwashing (making misleading, non-environmental claims)?

• Can the project’s resource savings or economic impacts by readily measured and quantified?

• Does the project have the potential for scaling  up, or institutionalization, later?

• Are there cost-savings? Does  cost-benefit analysis help to justify project?

Other Impacts:
• Community service, education (as opposed to awareness), teaching, research,  innovation—how are these created, sustained and measured?

• Is the project innovative?

• Is the project visible on campus?

Feasibility:
• Is this feasible? Is it reasonable, sensible, logical, intelligible and plausible?

• Does the applicant and project team have the knowledge, skills, time and initiative to carry out this project, or is it just a green suggestion that the Office of Sustainability has to implement?

• Are they requesting too much money? Not enough money? Do they need more budget details?

• Is the project of a suitable pilot scale in terms of funding, implementation time, size and target audience?

• Will they need help or permission from other NYU operational departments? Has the applicant contacted and received assurance of collaboration from all third-parties that will  be instrumental in realizing success of the grant?

Q: Also, what are the least desirable qualities to see in a project?

A: A successful project can’t fall prey to “greenwashing”– or, as put in the Green Grants toolkit, “making misleading, non-environmental claims.” Some projects are good ideas, but may run counter to goals of the sustainability office, or may simply not fall under the outlined criteria for a sustainability fund granting body. An example of this in David Seaward’s experience was a project for water filtration, which failed to do its research as previous data had shown in a past project the filtration was not helpful in convincing consumers to switch to tap water from bottled water, and furthermore ran against the goals of the campus sustainability office to promote tap water as safe and healthy for drinking. Research skills have to be demonstrated; make sure not to miss important information that could readily be accessed by a cursory look into the background and past of similar projects and related bodies. Also be sure to double check your potential support and get it in writing–one project conveyed to the granting committee that they had local support, but when members of the granting body followed up with the person in question, they found the opposite to be the case.

Q: For prospective students, are there any further recommendations that you would like to give?

A: Have everything on paper worked out in advance–letters of support from community members, having the correct permits done or lined up, proves to a granting committee that your team is serious about getting their project funded and off the ground. Look up and pursue contacts and permits and show this to the committee. Also, if your project is a business be sure to have a cash-flow model showing how your project can sustain itself after the initial grant.

Anshika Kumar, Campus Sustainability Fund (CSF) at UW Seattle

Anshika Kumar is a coordinator and board member of the Campus Sustainability Fund (CSF) at UW Seattle. She emphasized the importance of following up with potential issues relating to your project and the necessity of being creative with your project and communicating well with important parties.

Q: How would you define “sustainability”? How is this reflected in your granting body’s choices?

A: Pragmatically speaking sustainability can be defined as getting things done in a way ruled by simple common sense–sustainable is intelligent in that it requires foresight and takes into account longevity and resiliency. The challenging thing about CSF however is that as a granting body in control of a large portion of funding, it is necessary to have quantitative standards with which to measure projects’ success and adherence. To that effect much of the CSF’s criteria has remained open-ended in order to provide for a large array of projects to be funded and forwarded.

Q: For prospective students, are there any further recommendations that you would like to give?

A: Know the people you are working with and build strong relationships with them if possible. There is always a possibility of other involved parties either helping to further your project or significantly restrict it. It is therefore important to follow up with any and all potential issues and objections as soon as possible and be willing to be creative and flexible with your plans. On the other hand, though it is invaluable to be willing to collaborate and compromise, it is a mistake to compromise to the point it becomes so watered down that you no longer care about the project. Make sure you understand what it is you want to accomplish–if there are multiple ways to reach this goal, great; but be aware that a shift in methods may lead to a shift in the ultimate outcome of your project. Granting bodies also expect projects coming in ready to roll; make sure your project is as close as possible to achieving this goal by making sure you have followed up on everything you need as far as permits, support, and staff–basically a granting committee hopes to see that the only thing you are waiting for to begin your project is funding. Also know that a successful project is one that is able to evolve, and be scaled up or down–understand that the final implementation of your project will most likely be in a different form than the original plan; sometimes a team must settle for a smaller budget and project. Be aware of the potential issues of bureaucracy and plan accordingly. Try and find people who support your project and won’t get cold feet when the project hits rough patches. Know whose interests will be compromised by your project and make sure to speak to their concerns. This can include Dining Services, Unions, etc. Focus on communication and transparency. Understand that nothing is a sure shot. A strong project can speak to involvement and engagement, jobs, education and outreach, and environmental impact. Also try for matching funds, you never know what may turn up!

Samples of Funding

TGIF (The Green Initiative Fund) at UC Berkeley/2008-2012

Green Fund at Northern Arizona University/2010-2012

Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF) at McGill University/2010-2011

Student Sustainability Committee at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/2011

The CSF at University of Washington/2011

Five Campus Average

Notes

http://www.uvm.edu/sustain/webfm_send/173

Information used on Green Fees by Mieko Ozeki, Sustainability Projects Coordinator at University of Vermont : http://www.uvm.edu/sustain/webfm_send/173

Google Fusion Table of Green Fee Distribution:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1DgnJ9-VsuSAhrWfFgKkReATj34p5L1Ns9z-jV4c