Guidelines and General Background

The Presidential Mini-Grant seeks to encourage faculty to promote innovation on campus through the development of new academic and student affairs initiatives. Projects will involve students who encourage departmental colleagues to confront a problem or issue of community climate within the context of that department's particular needs. These projects ultimately build to a larger goal of providing students with high quality education, professional development, research and programs with the broadest possible access.

The specific nature of these initiatives should be determined by departmental needs. Two or more departments may collaborate and share a mini-grant. They may include curricular innovations, student development initiatives, faculty development or student projects. 

While the review committee encourages departments to range as freely and as imaginatively as possible in framing proposals, there are some guidelines they should bear in mind. 

• Funds cannot be used to supplement or replace employee/student salaries or to subsidize fellowship related costs.  
• Only departments or programs are eligible to submit applications. 
• Only one individual faculty or staff member should be identified as the project coordinator.  
• Note: Students cannot be appointed as the project coordinator, as this individual will be the designated account signatory for expenditures of allocated funds if the grant application is approved.

A Mini-Grant Review Committee composed of faculty, staff and student representation will review applications. Selections are made based on the potential of the project to ensure that the University continues to provide invaluable educational experiences for today’s diverse student body.  Preference will be given to proposals that are tied to the goals of Our Moment. 

Drawing on a total pool of $30,000, the award amount will be determined by the number of grants selected and approved for funding.  Each Presidential Mini-Grant recipient will be recognized at the Annual Awards Dinner. 

Note:  If a grant is submitted by a faculty member, the application must be signed by the chairperson.  If submitted by the chairperson, it must be signed by the dean.  If submitted by a staff member, it must be signed by the highest level department administrator.

The application form includes questions requesting the following information (ALL QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED):

• A description of the project, including the problem/issue to be addressed and SMART implementation plan
• An evaluation plan, including indicators and data collection methods
• Plans for department members and students involvement (both required)
• Project connections to the University’s strategic plan
• Personal philosophy statement on work around campus climate
• A proposed budget covering project costs

View the Proposal/Evaluation Plan Guidelines document for guidance.  Please be aware that all budget proposals must follow NYS Procurement Guidelines. Please see the Procurement Office website for any questions or concerns.

Each successful applicant must submit a report to the President upon completion of the initiative. The report should evaluate the effectiveness of the funded project and outline all project expenses. The report will be due no later than June 30th.

10 Common Errors

1. Budgeting funds to supplement or replace employee/student salaries or to subsidize fellowship related costs.  
2. Proposing projects that are already offered at the University or could augment existing projects undertaking similar aims.
3. Formulating projects that are perceived as necessary components of the longstanding departments, centers or programs as opposed to facilitating innovative projects related to timely concepts. 
4. Failing to specify the purpose of grant activities in the budget.
5. Preparing a multi-year project and budget. These are one-year grants.
6. Neglecting to connect the University’s strategic plan to the project or offering agency and professional organization DEI plans instead.
7. Answering only one part of the following grant question: “If the committee is not able to provide the total funds requested, are you able to implement the program, either without the funds or with assistance of other funding sources? Which items/expenditures would you consider as priorities?”
8. Submitting ambiguous evaluation plans or detailed and comprehensive evaluation plans without a collaborator who has the research expertise to implement the plan.
9. Specifying a project for only one segment of the student population without explanation as to how the project could benefit the Stony Brook community as a whole or how the project could expand at a later stage after the grant is implemented.
10. Overlooking how the members of a department, students and the larger Stony Brook Community will be involved and or benefit from the project.