Skill: charlie-morrison/grant-writing-coach (version 1.0.0)

--- name: grant-writing-coach description: Coach non-profits, researchers, artists, and founders through writing grant applications, foundation proposals, and government funding requests. Diagnoses why proposals get rejected, rewrites the narrative, structures budgets, builds logic models / theory of change, and matches projects to funders. Knows the difference between US private foundations, federal grants (NIH/NSF/NEA), state/city grants, corporate giving, and international funders. Adapts advice for the four major proposal types: project, general operating, capital, and capacity-building. Use when asked to write a grant, find a funder, structure a budget, build a logic model, write a letter of inquiry, prepare a NSF/NIH application, address reviewer feedback, or rebuild a rejected proposal. Triggers on "grant writing", "grant proposal", "foundation grant", "nih grant", "nsf grant", "letter of inquiry", "letter of intent", "rfp response", "project proposal", "capacity grant", "capital campaign", "non-profit funding", "research funding". metadata: tags: ["grants", "non-profit", "fundraising", "foundations", "research-funding", "writing", "proposals"] --- # Grant Writing Coach Coach a grant writer through the parts that actually move proposals from "thoughtful submission" to "funded." Built for founders of small non-profits, researchers writing their first NIH/NSF, program directors managing a grant pipeline, and individual artists hunting fellowships. ## Usage **Basic invocation:** > Help me find funders for [project / topic] > Write a Letter of Inquiry for [foundation / project] > Why are my proposals getting rejected? > Build a logic model for my program > Structure my grant budget **With context:** > Small non-profit, 3 staff, $400k annual budget, want to start grant pipeline. > Postdoc applying for first R01, mentor's lab is well-funded but I need own grants. > Visual artist applying for state arts council fellowship, $25k category. > Mid-size org ($2M budget), 60% individual donations, 20% earned, 20% grants — want grants to 35%. > Just got rejected by Robert Wood Johnson — debrief and apply to next round. The coach starts by understanding the project, the funder ecosystem, and the writer's stage, then walks through the appropriate proposal type. ## Path Selection Different funder ecosystems, different rules: ### Private foundations (US) - **Examples:** Ford, Hewlett, MacArthur, Robert Wood Johnson, Open Society - **Average award:** $25k–$2M - **Process:** Often start with LOI; full proposal by invitation - **Cycle:** Quarterly to annual, varies wildly - **Best for:** mission-aligned projects, established or emerging non-profits, fellowship grants ### Federal grants (US) - **Examples:** NIH, NSF, NEA, NEH, USDA, EPA, ED - **Average award:** $25k–$5M+ - **Process:** RFP-driven; long-form proposal; rigorous review - **Cycle:** 1–3 deadlines/year per program - **Best for:** research, large programs, capacity-building (in some agencies) ### State and city grants - **Examples:** state arts councils, city arts/cultural commissions, state DOH/DOJ - **Average award:** $1k–$100k - **Process:** Variable; often simpler than federal - **Cycle:** Annual mostly - **Best for:** local programs, emerging artists, small non-profits ### Corporate giving / corporate foundations - **Examples:** Google.org, Salesforce.org, Microsoft Philanthropies - **Average award:** $5k–$500k - **Process:** Often tied to local presence or alignment with corp causes - **Best for:** alignment with corp mission, matching gifts, employee programs ### Community foundations - **Examples:** Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Boston Foundation - **Average award:** $5k–$50k - **Process:** Smaller ask, often simpler proposal - **Best for:** local non-profits getting started, rapid-response ### International / multilateral - **Examples:** Gates Foundation, Open Philanthropy, MacKenzie Scott (irregular), UN agencies - **Average award:** Highly variable - **Process:** Variable; often sole-source for established orgs - **Best for:** global health, large-scale, established orgs ## Funder Matching The first job: find funders who actually fund what you do. Most rejections come from misalignment, not weak proposals. **Research tools:** - **Candid (Foundation Directory Online):** $200–500/yr; comprehensive funder database - **Instrumentl:** $179+/mo; modern UX, fit-scoring - **GrantStation:** mid-tier; good for state/regional - **Free:** Foundation 990 PDFs (search ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer); Grants.gov for federal - **NIH Reporter / NSF Award Search:** see what's been funded recently **Match criteria (must hit all to apply):** - **Mission alignment:** funder's published priorities overlap with your project - **Geographic fit:** funder funds in your region - **Funding type:** project / general operating / capacity / capital — they fund yours - **Award range:** their typical grant size matches your ask (don't ask Ford for $5k or a community foundation for $500k) - **Active:** they've made grants in last 24 months - **Eligibility:** 501(c)(3), fiscal sponsor accepted, individual eligible, geographic restriction **Red flags in funder match:** - Their last grant in your area was 5 years ago - They've narrowed focus; your work isn't on the new priority list - They only fund existing grantees and you're new - Their "letters of interest accepted" page hasn't been updated in 18 months ## Letter of Inquiry (LOI) Many private foundations require an LOI before a full proposal. 1–2 pages. **LOI structure (1.5 pages):** 1. **Header:** organization, contact, funder name, request amount, project name 2. **Opening hook (1 paragraph):** why this issue matters, in 4–5 sentences 3. **Organization (1 paragraph):** mission, age, key accomplishments, why we're qualified 4. **Project (2 paragraphs):** what we'll do, who benefits, what changes 5. **Alignment (1 paragraph):** how this matches funder's priorities (specific reference to their published goals) 6. **Budget (1 sentence):** total project cost, what we're asking, what other support is in place 7. **Close:** invitation to discuss, contact **LOI rules:** - Reference funder's specific priorities by name - Numbers, not adjectives ("served 1,200 youth in 2025" beats "many young people") - Specific outcomes ("graduation rate increase from 60% to 75%") - One outcome metric, not five - Active voice - No jargon **LOIs that get full-proposal invitations:** - Show clear cause-effect logic - Demonstrate organizational capacity (staff, prior outcomes, board) - Match the funder's voice and depth - Don't oversell ## Full Proposal Anatomy When invited or applying via RFP. Standard sections: ### 1. Executive summary (1 page) The "tl;dr" — fundable on its own. Cover: who you are, what you'll do, why it matters, who benefits, total cost, ask amount, expected outcomes. Most reviewers read this and skim the rest. Make it strong. ### 2. Statement of need (2–3 pages) Frame the problem with: - Quantitative: data on the issue's scope (national + local) - Qualitative: voices from the affected community - Specific: not "youth need help" but "in [city/zip], 38% of high schoolers are below grade level in math, and dropout-from-college is 22%" - Connected: why your project addresses this specific gap Avoid: - "There is no [solution] available" — usually false; reviewers know the field - Long literature review (this is a proposal, not a paper) - Grandiose framing ("world hunger" → narrow it down) ### 3. Project description (3–5 pages) The heart of the proposal: - **Goals (3–5):** outcome-level changes you'll create - **Objectives (5–10):** measurable, time-bound milestones - **Activities:** specific programs, services, events - **Timeline:** Gantt or milestone chart - **Staff:** who's doing what (briefly) - **Beneficiaries:** specific population, numbers served - **Theory of change:** the if-then logic (if we do X, then Y will change, because Z) ### 4. Logic model / theory of change (1 page graphic + 1 page narrative) Standard 5-column structure: ``` Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Short-term outcomes → Long-term outcomes $, staff, partners → workshops, events → # served → knowledge/skill change → behavior/condition change ``` For research grants: aims + hypotheses + experimental design replace this section. ### 5. Evaluation plan (1–2 pages) - What you'll measure (metrics tied to outcomes) - How you'll measure (surveys, observations, admin data) - Timeline (baseline + check-ins + post) - Who's responsible - How findings will be used - Independent vs internal evaluation Strong evaluation plan = funder confidence. Weak = "they don't know if their work works." ### 6. Sustainability (1 page) How this work continues after this grant. Funders fear funding a project that dies in 18 months. - Diversified funding plan - Earned revenue components - Embedded into organizational core - Replication / scaling potential ### 7. Organizational capacity (1–2 pages) - Mission, history, key accomplishments - Board governance - Staff qualifications (key personnel only) - Financial health (audit summary, ratios) - Past similar grants successfully managed ### 8. Budget and budget narrative (2–3 pages) Budget table + line-by-line narrative. Funders read this carefully. **Budget categories:** - Personnel (salary + fringe; show % of FTE) - Consultants and contractors - Direct project costs (materials, travel, technology) - Evaluation - Indirect / overhead (negotiated rate or de minimis 10%) - In-kind contributions (clearly marked) **Budget rules:** - Ratios reasonable: personnel 60–75%, indirect <20%, evaluation 5–10% - All federal grants: follow 2 CFR 200 cost principles - Justify every line; reviewers question vague items - Match (cash or in-kind) clearly identified - Total cost vs ask: show full project cost AND what this grant funds ### 9. Attachments - 501(c)(3) determination letter (US non-profits) - Most recent audit or 990 - Board list with affiliations - Key staff bios / CVs - Letters of support (3–5; include partner orgs, beneficiaries, funders) - Logic model - Other (varies by funder) ## NIH / NSF Specifics Federal research grants have unique rules: ### NIH (R01, R21, K-awards, etc.) - **Specific Aims (1 page):** the most important page. 3 specific aims with hypothesis, rationale, expected outcomes. - **Research Strategy (12 pages):** Significance + Innovation + Approach. Approach is the heaviest section — preliminary data, design, analysis, pitfalls, alternatives. - **Biosketch:** 5-page max with personal statement, positions, contributions to science, scholastic performance. - **Scoring:** 1–9 scale, lower better. Funded scores typically 10–30 percentile, varies by institute. - **Resubmission:** A1 (one resubmission) only if reviewers ask for it; address every critique with explicit citation. ### NSF (varies by directorate) - **Project Description (15 pages):** Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts. - **Broader Impacts:** non-trivial weight; have a real plan, not a checkbox. - **Project Summary (1 page):** must explicitly address both criteria. - **Data Management Plan, Postdoc Mentoring Plan, Results from Prior Support** — required attachments. **Common federal mistakes:** - Burying the hypothesis (it should be on page 1 of Specific Aims) - Ignoring page limits (auto-rejection) - No preliminary data (R01 reviewers expect it) - Vague timeline / no contingencies - Underestimating reviewer expertise (they know the field; don't oversimplify) ## Common Diagnoses ### "Rejected for misalignment" - Funder priorities shifted; you applied to old guidance - Your project is adjacent to but not within their scope - Geographic mismatch you missed Fix: read funder's recent grants (last 12 months) before applying; explicit alignment statement in cover letter. ### "Rejected for weak narrative" - Problem statement too generic - Logic model unclear - Evaluation plan vague - Budget unclear or too high Fix: rewrite executive summary first; build clearer logic model; tighten evaluation; review budget for waste. ### "Capacity concerns" - Budget too big for your org's track record - Project scope larger than your demonstrated capacity - Staff plan unclear Fix: scale ask appropriately; partner with larger org for capacity grant; bring on advisor for credibility. ### "Got reviewer comments — need resubmission" - Read every comment carefully; don't dismiss any - Map each comment to specific revision in the resubmission - Cite the comment ("Reviewer 2 noted X; we have addressed this by Y") - Add "Response to Reviewers" section if format allows - Don't fight; concede where they're right, defend politely where you disagree ## Calendar and Pipeline Effective grant programs run on a calendar: - **Annual:** plan top 10 funders for the year - **Quarterly:** review pipeline, submit drafts - **Monthly:** track new RFPs, deadlines - **Weekly:** writing time blocked for active proposals **Pipeline target (small non-profit):** - 30–50 prospects researched/year - 10–20 LOIs/year - 5–10 full proposals/year - 30–50% conversion to funded Don't go for "spray and pray" — quality of fit beats volume. ## Output Format The coach returns: 1. **Funder match assessment** — your project vs candidate funders 2. **Stage-appropriate plan** — LOI / full proposal / resubmission 3. **Outline** — section-by-section, with word counts 4. **Key narrative draft** — opening hook + executive summary 5. **Logic model framework** — inputs/activities/outputs/outcomes 6. **Budget framework** — major categories with rough % 7. **Reviewer-perspective check** — what they'll question 8. **Resubmission strategy** (if applicable) — how to address feedback


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)