Racial Equity 2030 - Internal White Paper
In response to this call, the Office of Research & Innovation (OR&I) is inviting expressions of interest from MSU faculty who wish to receive additional institutional support to prepare their proposal. OR&I expects to use an internal review process to identify those proposals that are likely to be competitive in this competition. Before preparing your internal white paper, please review the accompanying Racial Equity 2030 overview, timeline, scoring rubric Lever for Change reviewers will use to evaluate all applications as well as the Racial Equity 2030 Application Preview.
NOTE: Racial Equity 2030 is oriented toward scaling innovative solutions to address racial equity; as such fundamental and applied research proposals are not suitable for this competition.
In a white paper not to exceed three pages and using 11-point font, please address the following:
- MSU PI
- Department and College
- MSU Co-PIs
- Department and College
- External/Community Partners
- Project Title
Questions to Address:
- What is the issue you are trying to address? Who is impacted, and why does the problem exist in the current environment?
- Briefly describe how you will address the issue over the ten-year grant period. What are your anticipated results, and who will benefit? If relevant, what opportunities does your solution present for structural or systems change? How do you think change will happen as a result of your efforts?
- How will you embed the Kellogg Foundation’s commitments to racial equity and racial healing in your project?
- Racial equity affirms that all people, regardless of their racial/ethnic group identification, skin color or physical traits, deserve an equal opportunity to experience well-being in a just society.
- Racial healing is a process that restores individuals and communities to wholeness, repairs the damage caused by racism and transforms societal structures into ones that affirm the inherent value of all people.
- How is your approach different from existing methods and practices? What is unique and creative about it?
- Where are you currently implementing your solution? Where do you plan to implement your solution if awarded this grant?
- What gives you confidence that your project will work? Provide information and examples that support your thinking. These can include formal or informal studies, observations, and other indicators of change as defined by your community.
- Who are your external collaborators and partners? How long have you been working together on this issue?
- How is your team uniquely positioned to make a change, and why is your team the best choice to solve this problem? Importantly, how does the project team reflect and include the communities served by your project, and how are communities closest to the issue reflected in leadership of the project?
The internal reviewers will understand that white papers will not contain sufficient detail to fully evaluate each project. A team’s ability to address the eight questions above, however, should provide enough information for internal reviewers to assess the potential competitiveness of the project relative to the scoring rubric established by Lever for Change and the Kellogg Foundation for this competition.
Once a valid application has been submitted, a minimum of five reviewers will read each submission and provide scores and comments against each of the four traits listed below. Each trait will be scored on a 0-5 point scale, in increments of 0.1, for a maximum of 20 points.
GAME CHANGING (0-5, with 0 being CONVENTIONAL and 5 being TRANSFORMATIONAL)
Is the proposed solution intentionally designed to bring transformational change in policies, processes, institutions, or power structures?
0 to .9 - Solution reinforces the status quo, with little to no impact on existing policies, processes, institutions, or power structures. Solution lacks adaptability, shows little understanding of current conditions, and does not identify key leverage points.
1 to 1.9 - Solution will make incremental shifts in policies, processes, institutions, or power structures. Such changes are incidental to the solution, which is reasonable but vague in its understanding of current conditions and the pathway forward.
2 to 2.9 - Solution will make notable shifts in policies, processes, institutions, or power structures. Solution has some necessary components for fundamental change, e.g. understanding of conditions and identifying leverage points.
3 to 3.9 - Solution will create deep and significant change in policies, processes, institutions, or power structures. Solution is thoughtful and shows understanding of current conditions and complexities and identifies important leverage points.
4 to 5 - Solution will transform policies, processes, institutions, or power structures. Solution is rooted in deep understanding of current conditions and systems, identifies key leverage points, and works adaptively in a complex environment.
EQUITABLE (0-5, with 0 being INEQUITABLE and 5 being EQUITABLE)
Does the proposal address the root causes of racialized outcomes and inequitable systems? Is the approach and solution asset-based and inclusive of communities most impacted by the issue in decision-making?
0 to .9 - Proposal makes minimal effort to address root causes of racialized outcomes and inequitable systems, and the approach is not asset-based. Little to no evidence of inclusion of communities impacted by issues central to the proposed solution.
1 to 1.9 - Proposal makes some effort to address root causes of racialized outcomes and inequitable systems and takes an asset-based approach. Communities most impacted are involved, but the collaboration is vague or tangential to the overall effort.
2 to 2.9 - Proposal offers an authentic attempt to address root causes of racialized outcomes and inequitable systems with an asset-based approach. Impacted communities are centered and included, but depth and longevity of collaboration is unclear.
3 to 3.9 - Proposal addresses root causes of racialized outcomes and inequitable systems with a clear path towards an asset-based solution. Impacted communities are in decision-making positions, defining the problem and envisioning success.
4 to 5 - Proposal compellingly addresses root causes of racialized outcomes and inequitable systems. Asset-based approach acknowledges historical inequities and sets a path toward an equitable and just future. Impacted communities are in decision-making positions, taking the lead on defining success.
BOLD (0-5, with 0 being UNINSPIRED and 5 being AUDACIOUS)
Does the proposed solution offer imaginative or catalytic ideas or approaches that have the potential to create sustained conditions in which children, families, and communities can thrive? Are the core ideas truly inventive, outcomes bold and aspirational?
0 to .9 - Lacks new and original ideas or methods, with little likelihood solution will create sustained conditions in which children, families, and communities can thrive. Outcomes are vague.
1 to 1.9 - Introduces a few ideas that are original, but not core to the proposal. Outcomes have potential to create sustained conditions in which children, families, and communities can thrive.
2 to 2.9 - Offers several new or interesting ideas or approaches. Outcomes are likely to create sustained conditions in which children, families, and communities can thrive.
3 to 3.9 - Presents striking, catalytic approaches that will create deep and sustaining conditions in which children, families, and communities can thrive.
4 to 5 - Re-imagines possibilities and offers an exciting roadmap with experimentation or risk-taking. Will clearly create sustained conditions in which children, families, and communities can thrive.
ACTIONABLE (0-5, with 0 being IMPROBABLE and 5 being ATTAINABLE)
Does the team have the skills, capacity, knowledge or lived experience to implement the proposed strategy, or do they have a plan to build those skills or acquire strategic partners? Does the budget and project plan align with a realistic understanding of the costs and activities needed to implement the proposed solution?
0 to .9 - Team lacks required knowledge or experience and is unlikely to execute the project successfully. Project and financial plans are not feasible or practical.
1 to 1.9 - Team has basic skills, capacity, and knowledge to initiate action on the project. Plans are practical but could use additional refinement.
2 to 2.9 - Team has solid experience, capacity, and knowledge or lived experience. Realistic plans are aligned with project goals, with appropriate detail.
3 to 3.9 - Team is equipped to take action, with robust experience and connected to broader implementation partners. Project and financial plans are thoughtful and realistic.
4 to 5 - Team is experienced, has capacity, is well-positioned to meet stated goals, and has leveraged strategic partners to support and implement their strategy. Project and financial plans are convincing, realistic, and thorough.