{"skill":{"slug":"grant-writing-coach","displayName":"Grant Writing Coach","summary":"Coach non-profits, researchers, and artists to write, structure, and improve grant proposals and match projects with appropriate funders across major funding...","description":"---\nname: grant-writing-coach\ndescription: 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\".\nmetadata:\n  tags: [\"grants\", \"non-profit\", \"fundraising\", \"foundations\", \"research-funding\", \"writing\", \"proposals\"]\n---\n\n# Grant Writing Coach\n\nCoach 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.\n\n## Usage\n\n**Basic invocation:**\n> Help me find funders for [project / topic]\n> Write a Letter of Inquiry for [foundation / project]\n> Why are my proposals getting rejected?\n> Build a logic model for my program\n> Structure my grant budget\n\n**With context:**\n> Small non-profit, 3 staff, $400k annual budget, want to start grant pipeline.\n> Postdoc applying for first R01, mentor's lab is well-funded but I need own grants.\n> Visual artist applying for state arts council fellowship, $25k category.\n> Mid-size org ($2M budget), 60% individual donations, 20% earned, 20% grants — want grants to 35%.\n> Just got rejected by Robert Wood Johnson — debrief and apply to next round.\n\nThe coach starts by understanding the project, the funder ecosystem, and the writer's stage, then walks through the appropriate proposal type.\n\n## Path Selection\n\nDifferent funder ecosystems, different rules:\n\n### Private foundations (US)\n\n- **Examples:** Ford, Hewlett, MacArthur, Robert Wood Johnson, Open Society\n- **Average award:** $25k–$2M\n- **Process:** Often start with LOI; full proposal by invitation\n- **Cycle:** Quarterly to annual, varies wildly\n- **Best for:** mission-aligned projects, established or emerging non-profits, fellowship grants\n\n### Federal grants (US)\n\n- **Examples:** NIH, NSF, NEA, NEH, USDA, EPA, ED\n- **Average award:** $25k–$5M+\n- **Process:** RFP-driven; long-form proposal; rigorous review\n- **Cycle:** 1–3 deadlines/year per program\n- **Best for:** research, large programs, capacity-building (in some agencies)\n\n### State and city grants\n\n- **Examples:** state arts councils, city arts/cultural commissions, state DOH/DOJ\n- **Average award:** $1k–$100k\n- **Process:** Variable; often simpler than federal\n- **Cycle:** Annual mostly\n- **Best for:** local programs, emerging artists, small non-profits\n\n### Corporate giving / corporate foundations\n\n- **Examples:** Google.org, Salesforce.org, Microsoft Philanthropies\n- **Average award:** $5k–$500k\n- **Process:** Often tied to local presence or alignment with corp causes\n- **Best for:** alignment with corp mission, matching gifts, employee programs\n\n### Community foundations\n\n- **Examples:** Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Boston Foundation\n- **Average award:** $5k–$50k\n- **Process:** Smaller ask, often simpler proposal\n- **Best for:** local non-profits getting started, rapid-response\n\n### International / multilateral\n\n- **Examples:** Gates Foundation, Open Philanthropy, MacKenzie Scott (irregular), UN agencies\n- **Average award:** Highly variable\n- **Process:** Variable; often sole-source for established orgs\n- **Best for:** global health, large-scale, established orgs\n\n## Funder Matching\n\nThe first job: find funders who actually fund what you do. Most rejections come from misalignment, not weak proposals.\n\n**Research tools:**\n\n- **Candid (Foundation Directory Online):** $200–500/yr; comprehensive funder database\n- **Instrumentl:** $179+/mo; modern UX, fit-scoring\n- **GrantStation:** mid-tier; good for state/regional\n- **Free:** Foundation 990 PDFs (search ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer); Grants.gov for federal\n- **NIH Reporter / NSF Award Search:** see what's been funded recently\n\n**Match criteria (must hit all to apply):**\n\n- **Mission alignment:** funder's published priorities overlap with your project\n- **Geographic fit:** funder funds in your region\n- **Funding type:** project / general operating / capacity / capital — they fund yours\n- **Award range:** their typical grant size matches your ask (don't ask Ford for $5k or a community foundation for $500k)\n- **Active:** they've made grants in last 24 months\n- **Eligibility:** 501(c)(3), fiscal sponsor accepted, individual eligible, geographic restriction\n\n**Red flags in funder match:**\n\n- Their last grant in your area was 5 years ago\n- They've narrowed focus; your work isn't on the new priority list\n- They only fund existing grantees and you're new\n- Their \"letters of interest accepted\" page hasn't been updated in 18 months\n\n## Letter of Inquiry (LOI)\n\nMany private foundations require an LOI before a full proposal. 1–2 pages.\n\n**LOI structure (1.5 pages):**\n\n1. **Header:** organization, contact, funder name, request amount, project name\n2. **Opening hook (1 paragraph):** why this issue matters, in 4–5 sentences\n3. **Organization (1 paragraph):** mission, age, key accomplishments, why we're qualified\n4. **Project (2 paragraphs):** what we'll do, who benefits, what changes\n5. **Alignment (1 paragraph):** how this matches funder's priorities (specific reference to their published goals)\n6. **Budget (1 sentence):** total project cost, what we're asking, what other support is in place\n7. **Close:** invitation to discuss, contact\n\n**LOI rules:**\n\n- Reference funder's specific priorities by name\n- Numbers, not adjectives (\"served 1,200 youth in 2025\" beats \"many young people\")\n- Specific outcomes (\"graduation rate increase from 60% to 75%\")\n- One outcome metric, not five\n- Active voice\n- No jargon\n\n**LOIs that get full-proposal invitations:**\n\n- Show clear cause-effect logic\n- Demonstrate organizational capacity (staff, prior outcomes, board)\n- Match the funder's voice and depth\n- Don't oversell\n\n## Full Proposal Anatomy\n\nWhen invited or applying via RFP. Standard sections:\n\n### 1. Executive summary (1 page)\n\nThe \"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.\n\n### 2. Statement of need (2–3 pages)\n\nFrame the problem with:\n\n- Quantitative: data on the issue's scope (national + local)\n- Qualitative: voices from the affected community\n- 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%\"\n- Connected: why your project addresses this specific gap\n\nAvoid:\n\n- \"There is no [solution] available\" — usually false; reviewers know the field\n- Long literature review (this is a proposal, not a paper)\n- Grandiose framing (\"world hunger\" → narrow it down)\n\n### 3. Project description (3–5 pages)\n\nThe heart of the proposal:\n\n- **Goals (3–5):** outcome-level changes you'll create\n- **Objectives (5–10):** measurable, time-bound milestones\n- **Activities:** specific programs, services, events\n- **Timeline:** Gantt or milestone chart\n- **Staff:** who's doing what (briefly)\n- **Beneficiaries:** specific population, numbers served\n- **Theory of change:** the if-then logic (if we do X, then Y will change, because Z)\n\n### 4. Logic model / theory of change (1 page graphic + 1 page narrative)\n\nStandard 5-column structure:\n\n```\nInputs → Activities → Outputs → Short-term outcomes → Long-term outcomes\n$, staff, partners → workshops, events → # served → knowledge/skill change → behavior/condition change\n```\n\nFor research grants: aims + hypotheses + experimental design replace this section.\n\n### 5. Evaluation plan (1–2 pages)\n\n- What you'll measure (metrics tied to outcomes)\n- How you'll measure (surveys, observations, admin data)\n- Timeline (baseline + check-ins + post)\n- Who's responsible\n- How findings will be used\n- Independent vs internal evaluation\n\nStrong evaluation plan = funder confidence. Weak = \"they don't know if their work works.\"\n\n### 6. Sustainability (1 page)\n\nHow this work continues after this grant. Funders fear funding a project that dies in 18 months.\n\n- Diversified funding plan\n- Earned revenue components\n- Embedded into organizational core\n- Replication / scaling potential\n\n### 7. Organizational capacity (1–2 pages)\n\n- Mission, history, key accomplishments\n- Board governance\n- Staff qualifications (key personnel only)\n- Financial health (audit summary, ratios)\n- Past similar grants successfully managed\n\n### 8. Budget and budget narrative (2–3 pages)\n\nBudget table + line-by-line narrative. Funders read this carefully.\n\n**Budget categories:**\n\n- Personnel (salary + fringe; show % of FTE)\n- Consultants and contractors\n- Direct project costs (materials, travel, technology)\n- Evaluation\n- Indirect / overhead (negotiated rate or de minimis 10%)\n- In-kind contributions (clearly marked)\n\n**Budget rules:**\n\n- Ratios reasonable: personnel 60–75%, indirect <20%, evaluation 5–10%\n- All federal grants: follow 2 CFR 200 cost principles\n- Justify every line; reviewers question vague items\n- Match (cash or in-kind) clearly identified\n- Total cost vs ask: show full project cost AND what this grant funds\n\n### 9. Attachments\n\n- 501(c)(3) determination letter (US non-profits)\n- Most recent audit or 990\n- Board list with affiliations\n- Key staff bios / CVs\n- Letters of support (3–5; include partner orgs, beneficiaries, funders)\n- Logic model\n- Other (varies by funder)\n\n## NIH / NSF Specifics\n\nFederal research grants have unique rules:\n\n### NIH (R01, R21, K-awards, etc.)\n\n- **Specific Aims (1 page):** the most important page. 3 specific aims with hypothesis, rationale, expected outcomes.\n- **Research Strategy (12 pages):** Significance + Innovation + Approach. Approach is the heaviest section — preliminary data, design, analysis, pitfalls, alternatives.\n- **Biosketch:** 5-page max with personal statement, positions, contributions to science, scholastic performance.\n- **Scoring:** 1–9 scale, lower better. Funded scores typically 10–30 percentile, varies by institute.\n- **Resubmission:** A1 (one resubmission) only if reviewers ask for it; address every critique with explicit citation.\n\n### NSF (varies by directorate)\n\n- **Project Description (15 pages):** Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts.\n- **Broader Impacts:** non-trivial weight; have a real plan, not a checkbox.\n- **Project Summary (1 page):** must explicitly address both criteria.\n- **Data Management Plan, Postdoc Mentoring Plan, Results from Prior Support** — required attachments.\n\n**Common federal mistakes:**\n\n- Burying the hypothesis (it should be on page 1 of Specific Aims)\n- Ignoring page limits (auto-rejection)\n- No preliminary data (R01 reviewers expect it)\n- Vague timeline / no contingencies\n- Underestimating reviewer expertise (they know the field; don't oversimplify)\n\n## Common Diagnoses\n\n### \"Rejected for misalignment\"\n\n- Funder priorities shifted; you applied to old guidance\n- Your project is adjacent to but not within their scope\n- Geographic mismatch you missed\n\nFix: read funder's recent grants (last 12 months) before applying; explicit alignment statement in cover letter.\n\n### \"Rejected for weak narrative\"\n\n- Problem statement too generic\n- Logic model unclear\n- Evaluation plan vague\n- Budget unclear or too high\n\nFix: rewrite executive summary first; build clearer logic model; tighten evaluation; review budget for waste.\n\n### \"Capacity concerns\"\n\n- Budget too big for your org's track record\n- Project scope larger than your demonstrated capacity\n- Staff plan unclear\n\nFix: scale ask appropriately; partner with larger org for capacity grant; bring on advisor for credibility.\n\n### \"Got reviewer comments — need resubmission\"\n\n- Read every comment carefully; don't dismiss any\n- Map each comment to specific revision in the resubmission\n- Cite the comment (\"Reviewer 2 noted X; we have addressed this by Y\")\n- Add \"Response to Reviewers\" section if format allows\n- Don't fight; concede where they're right, defend politely where you disagree\n\n## Calendar and Pipeline\n\nEffective grant programs run on a calendar:\n\n- **Annual:** plan top 10 funders for the year\n- **Quarterly:** review pipeline, submit drafts\n- **Monthly:** track new RFPs, deadlines\n- **Weekly:** writing time blocked for active proposals\n\n**Pipeline target (small non-profit):**\n\n- 30–50 prospects researched/year\n- 10–20 LOIs/year\n- 5–10 full proposals/year\n- 30–50% conversion to funded\n\nDon't go for \"spray and pray\" — quality of fit beats volume.\n\n## Output Format\n\nThe coach returns:\n\n1. **Funder match assessment** — your project vs candidate funders\n2. **Stage-appropriate plan** — LOI / full proposal / resubmission\n3. **Outline** — section-by-section, with word counts\n4. **Key narrative draft** — opening hook + executive summary\n5. **Logic model framework** — inputs/activities/outputs/outcomes\n6. **Budget framework** — major categories with rough %\n7. **Reviewer-perspective check** — what they'll question\n8. **Resubmission strategy** (if applicable) — how to address feedback\n","tags":{"latest":"1.0.0"},"stats":{"comments":0,"downloads":357,"installsAllTime":0,"installsCurrent":0,"stars":0,"versions":1},"createdAt":1777679677225,"updatedAt":1778492826217},"latestVersion":{"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":1777679677225,"changelog":"Initial release of Grant Writing Coach.\n\n- Guides non-profits, researchers, artists, and founders through the grant writing process for foundation, government, and corporate funding.\n- Diagnoses common reasons for grant rejection and helps rewrite proposals, structure budgets, and build logic models.\n- Provides tailored advice based on proposal type: project, general operating, capital, and capacity-building.\n- Outlines differences between US private foundations, federal grants (NIH/NSF/NEA), state/city grants, corporate giving, and international funders.\n- Offers practical tools for funder matching, writing Letters of Inquiry, and preparing full proposals.","license":"MIT-0"},"metadata":null,"owner":{"handle":"charlie-morrison","userId":"s17cttbdxry5kkyafjw983mq8s83p4y3","displayName":"charlie-morrison","image":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/271589886?v=4"},"moderation":null}