@valpopal It is not a "screw up". It is just simply a missed opportunity. For the final time, One cannot put this entirely on the school if there are so many outside factors that could have prevented the school from receiving this grant. It does matter the proposal details. If proposal details didn't matter, there would be no rejection to talk about. As for your "successful templates" here is an excerpt from the contest conditions outlined in the links provided.
The competitive initiative is designed to encourage Indiana’s colleges and universities to work closely with community stakeholders to envision and jointly undertake significant community development efforts—beneficial to both the institution and community—to create more vibrant places in which to live, learn, work and play..
Clearly this initiative involved a joint effort between the communities and the universities in which they lie. In VUs case, the community and the university are largely standoffish and have been for the latter half of the 2000s. Within the last couple years, those relationships have changed between the community and the school. Clearly only a few year's worth of friendship was not enough. This is a point that the university failed. You cannot be a successful institution if your community doesn't care about you, which is why I am pleased to see those relationships changing. VU would most certainly be in better standing if the community cared about the institution. There is also a point to make that the community is at fault here as well, but most of the fault for this point is entirely on VU.
Now let's move over the the community. The community was involved in this process as well. Community leaders, local government, and local businesses were involved in this process as well. It is reasonable to assume that the local community didn't want to get involved in this initiative. As previously stated, while the dynamic is changing surrounding the university and the community. That dynamic has not changed enough to warrant community involvement. The residents of Valparaiso are notoriously hesitant about measures involving money.
Let's move onto the schools that did receive these grants and their surrounding communities. Most of these schools are either small institutions located outside of major municipalities, or communities that are recognized as being less than safe places. Surely this was a factor in determining who received money as it is a great convincer that you deserve the money above other institutions who submitted applications. As for Valparaiso, our city is often compared to Crown Point. Both of these communities are quite affluent for Indiana's standards and considered among the safest places in the state. Most of these institutions are located in cities with high crime rates and are considered some of the least safe places in the state and a few are among the most unsafe places in the country.
Lets dive into these cities for a moment: (Neighborhood Scout Statistics) (Per Capita Income 2022) (Violent Crime Statistics)
Some Crime Statistics are not available due to the small population of the communities
Valparaiso- PCI: 36,719 Violent Crime rate: 1.1
Greencastle- PCI: 24,637 Violent Crime Rate: 5.46
Whiting- PCI: 29,836 Violent Crime Rate: 1.55
Indianapolis: PCI: 34,592 Violent Crime Rate: 10.01
Winona Lake: PCI: 49,131 Violent Crime Rate: N/A
Hanover: PCI: 21,545 Violent Crime Rate: N/A
West Laf: PCI: 21,545 Violent Crime Rate: 1.33
Bloom: PCI: 31,069 Violent Crime Rate: 5.18
Terre Haute: PCI: 21,545 Violent Crime Rate: 6.07
Angola: PCI: 30,928 VIolent Crime Rate: .85
For more information on populations neighborhood scout and other sources work.
With the information, we can see that preference was given to communities that fit these demographics. Not too safe, Low income, or low population both student and community. Valpo only fits one of these demographics. Small Student population.
I could write more factors that likely affected the outcome, but this is already very long.
@rezynezy The fact that you declare this is "not a screw up" and can not put responsibility "entirely on the school" provides the best example that you are not willing to request accountability. Although, you do contradict yourself when you later state "most of the fault for this point is entirely on VU."
The proposal was a Valparaiso University product, a VU document and plan submitted under the authority of the administration and overseen by Pres. Padilla, for which members of the university should be solely accountable. The Lilly Foundation was looking to throw large sums of money at Indiana universities. The administration was even offered two opportunities to apply; the second grant proposal was a "mulligan" submitted following evidence of others accepted to be used as models. For composing grant applications, it hardly gets easier. This is a $25 million unforced error.
You are so unwilling to face the extent of the administration's failure here that you suggest without any reason "that the community is at fault here as well," a community that is highly praised for its cooperative developments. Then you create without any evidence a fantasy scenario in which the Lilly Foundation gave preference to communities that have a higher "violent crime rate," even though the stats you supply are mixed and there is no reason to believe that was a factor.
Apparently, you will search for any excuse to deflect from the culpability of the administration. Do you really believe Valpo could not have submitted a proposal on par with that offered by Calumet College of St. Joseph?
First of all. The violent crime rate was not the only metric used. There was also the matter of income, population, and student population. The community of Valparaiso may be highly praised for cooperative developments, but once again, the university and the community did not display a sense of cooperation for many, many years. As for this "fantasy scenario," the proof is in the pudding. The fact that you discount the evidence that the Lily Foundation had a preference proves that your view of Valparaiso as an institution is completely downtrodden and are willing to discount anything that contradicts your view of Valparaiso as an institution on "borrowed time".
What is the "screw up". They submitted a plan, but the plan was not accepted. It is a huge missed opportunity, but it is not as if the school gave 0 effort as you would like people to believe. They gave it a shot, but the proposal failed.
I do hold the university accountable. The law problem was entirely self-controlled. The athletics downturn was entirely under the school's control. The money problem was entirely under the school's control. I simply am not willing to immediately shout poo poo to the administration without due process much like you are willing to do.
I fault the school for not establishing a community relationship years ago. This contradicts your statement that I do not hold the school accountable for its shortcomings much like the information provided above. Like I said, if the school had established this relationship, the schools situation surrounding many aspects would be vastly different.
If you are such a good mind for creating grant proposals, why did you not offer your services to the cause? Clearly the school could have used this money as well as your insight. Why not help them to get a fighting chance? If you were denied access, then that's on them and the fault for that is on them. However, if you flat out didn't reach out, please elaborate as to why?
The administration is not faultless, no one is. This administration has its fair share of blunders, but this is not a blunder that they had complete control over. Once again, community leaders, local businesses, and local government were asked to pitch into this project as well. This would put the blame on, get this, the community.
Again, without the details of the proposal, one cannot identify the most probable cause as to why this proposal failed. Speculation is all we have and you seem to only speculate on matters that directly hurt the institution. Do you not want to see the school survive?
As for CC JS. They are coming off of a campus closure. It is quite easy to spin a sob story based on that. The area the college is located in is right next to East Chicago, another community that fits the prospective reasonings for approval I described.
What is the "screw up". They submitted a plan, but the plan was not accepted. It is a huge missed opportunity, but it is not as if the school gave 0 effort as you would like people to believe. They gave it a shot, but the proposal failed.
Thank you. We finally agree. The university submitted a proposal that "failed." As you state, "it is a huge missed opportunity." The administration's "effort" was clearly inadequate. VU flopped in its attempt to obtain a grant that the Lilly Foundation twice offered every opportunity to achieve with the aid of accepted models to follow in the rewrite and that 19 peer state universities, some of our closest competitors, successfully received to the average tune of $25 million. That is the definition of a "screw up."
A screw-up is not trying at all. I find it hard to believe that the administration didn't give their best effort to a project such as this.
I find it hard to believe that the administration didn't give their best effort to a project such as this.
That is the sad part: this may have been "their best effort," and it completely failed while 19 competitive Indiana colleges succeeded in obtaining about $25 million each. Now, I wish I could find this "hard to believe."
Not every college received 25 million. 1/3 of the schools received less than that. Some received half that amount. I sound like a broken record at this point but unless the proposals are released, one cannot know how good or bad the proposal was.
Not every college received 25 million. 1/3 of the schools received less than that. Some received half that amount. I sound like a broken record at this point but unless the proposals are released, one cannot know how good or bad the proposal was.
I know how much each college received since I was the one who posted the amounts: "Ball State (35m), Earlham College (25m), Indiana State (5.8m), Purdue (25m), Taylor University (30m), Wabash College (25m), DePauw University (32m), Rose-Hulman (30.5m), Notre Dame (30m), Hanover (30m), Grace College (27m), Marion University (25m), Indiana Wesleyan (24.3m), Butler (22.5m), Indiana Institute of Tech. (21m), Trine University (17.2m), Indiana Univ. (16m), Calumet College of St. Joseph (15m), Manchester University (12.1m)." The total was $445.8 million, an average of $23.5 million.
As for your comment: "...one cannot know how good or bad the proposal was." It is enough to know that the proposal was bad enough that Valparaiso is not among those universities on the list above!
How can you be certain their proposal was bad? It could have been a good proposal, but the committee chose to go with schools the felt could better use their funds(WHich is how a lot of scholarships, grand, etc determine their winners. Lots of good candidates so you need to be picky). Hence why I went into demographics in the first place. I'll respin the record, unless the proposal is released, the only fact that can be ascertained is the fact that Valpo missed out on some money.
How can you be certain their proposal was bad? It could have been a good proposal, but the committee chose to go with schools the felt could better use their funds(WHich is how a lot of scholarships, grand, etc determine their winners. Lots of good candidates so you need to be picky).
Exactly: I am trying to agree with you. Every grant application writer knows what you state is correct. Therefore, when composing the proposal—whether for a university, a department, a committee, an organization, or personal funding—my job was to convince the foundation that I knew how to "better use their funds." (I have also been in the position of judging applications.) Such persuasion is the way to achieve success and gain approval.
This is the difference between a good proposal and one that is not necessarily bad but is "bad enough" (my term, perhaps you would prefer "isn't good enough") to be among those chosen, which was the case in this instance. Grant applicants also know that some proposals might be a long shot because the lottery odds suggest a slight chance, but other applications should be just about the level of a slam dunk because all your peers are receiving them, the situation this appeared to be.
The fact that you use the metric "bad enough" concerns me. Is this your viewpoint when you teach as well? Let me spin up track A again. Unless I have the proposal, in my hand, there is no way to analyze how and where the university failed. They could have failed by writing a bad proposal. The community leaders could have pushed back, etc etc. There are too many factors at play to determine how and why the school did not make the final cut. Done deal. End of story.
@rezynezy I will end my argument with you about the grant proposal. Done! However, I will defend the metric of "bad enough" as useful in many aspects of evaluation. For example, last year the basketball team shot 32% from the 3-point line in D-1 games according to Team Rankings, an improvement from 29% the year before. I don't think anybody would claim that was "great," but some might want to say it was "good" or at least "better." Fine; however, it was still "bad enough" to contribute to losing 25 games, even if there might have been other factors.
Guys, you are embarrassing yourselves. Give it a rest.
Guys, the Lilly Foundation is a huge hitter in the theology/faith/community grant world and has been extremely generous with VU in decades past, but we have mostly squandered it. Over the decades, Lilly gave some pretty substantive grants to us for chapel/community formation, theology/leadership stuff, and of course the Lilly postdoc program... but in pretty much every case, the university never came through to back those programs with its own financial support, so they have withered once the initial Lilly money ran out or it was time for the university to come alongside. Even the postdoc program which really put us on the map as a place of excellence for pedagogy in undergraduate teaching, is severely shrunken from what it used to be.
Naturally Lilly is not going to want to keep seeding money to a place has a proven track record of dead-heading grant endeavors. It is also not really worth it for VU Chapel or CC or Theology people with the longstanding ties to Lilly to put whole lot of effort into applying for more money, if the past successful grants were never very supported by the admin/wider university - or if, as in this year, their very departments are up for discontinuance!!! If you are VU faculty who works on this stuff in the VU Lilly fellows program or Christ College or Theology or Chapel, then you've watched the Admin desicate or destroy most everything you've ever tried to start.
I'm not saying people didn't try hard for the Lilly this time around, since I'm not that close to it all and simply don't know. Presumably, if somebody from VU put in a grant app, then they were hoping to get it and would have tried to put some best foot forward.
But we must keep in mind there is a longer history here, and a big part of foundation grant-giving discernment is whether an institution has used funds well in the past to make lasting programmatic/community change. Today, most every grant application even requires some indication that the institution is not just going to spend the money and poof its gone, but that the institution has some long-range commitment to running and maturing whatever the endeavor is.
Unfortunately, VU just doesn't invest in that sort of long term competence. We have actually burned Lilly Foundation a couple times in that regard since we've mostly just taken their money and then cut the endeavor/people the minute it started to cost the university anything. We are pretty well known to Lilly, for better or for worse, and they're looking at the program discontinuance and art museum pawn shop news stories as we are.
I mean, if you were the grant-giving business for theology/faith/community stuff, how confident would YOU feel these days about investing (another) ten or twenty-five million dollars into Valpo?
Anyone know where exactly on campus this building is being built?
