Grant Writing Fundamentals

What's the secret to securing funding from foundations? This question, in various forms, has been asked of me a lot since I my post about the fundraising component of Mongabay's strategic plan (https://bit.ly/3NVeRd2) a few days ago. To be clear, I don't claim to be an expert in this field. However, I can certainly share insights from my decade-long experience of elevating Mongabay's foundation support from zero to about $5M last year. The right messaging When I initially began seeking funding from foundations, I received no response about 90% of the time. When I did receive a response, it was almost invariably, "no thanks". Despite my belief that my initial outreach was targeted (e.g. foundations that supported areas aligning with Mongabay’s work like journalism and conservation), I soon recognized a need to revise my targeting and messaging. Program officers at philanthropic foundations are usually in the business of giving away money effectively. That last word is important: You might be surprised how many times I’ve been told that it’s hard to give away money effectively. In that initial outreach, I put too much emphasis on what Mongabay is doing rather than how its work could help program officers better accomplish their foundation’s objectives. So I tailored my message to explain the value proposition of Mongabay’s independent journalism. This was a nuanced argument because to many, journalism can feel like a peripheral intervention when compared with establishing a protected area, for example. Know your strengths My job was to explain how objective journalism – distinct from PR and communications – could act as a catalyst in several ways, including informing key decision makers, increasing awareness, and functioning as a due diligence tool. Understand your audience Adapting my message and ensuring it reached the right person required research to understand a foundation’s strategy and objectives, as well as the individuals responsible for granting funds to organizations. Program officers are typically inundated with requests – keeping your message short and clear may help it break through. Build relationships In the fundraising world, it's often said that "People give to people, not causes." This might be less true with institutional foundations, but relationship-building is still critical. Seek intros My success rates with cold outreach have been low – the most common response to my foundation inquiries remains a lack of response. Don't hesitate to ask current donors for appropriate introductions to other funders. Measure impact One reason, I believe, for Mongabay's high renewal rate from foundations is our commitment to gathering evidence of the impact of our work. Providing an example of impact can be a great way to follow up with a donor. _ While everything I’ve shared here is very basic, I confess I've overlooked these points myself at times. Foundations aren't easy, but they can provide a strong base of support.

You’ve heard the advice, “Use stories in your presentations because people respond to stories!” Great advice. BUT… Your story won’t grab your audience’s attention and communicate your message unless it has these 6 elements. In fact, it could even have the opposite effect! Every story you use as the foundation of your high-stakes presentations needs to have: 1. A logical structure. A story needs a beginning, middle, and end with clear turning points between each section. Don't just jump between ideas randomly. Map your presentation flow on paper first so you can physically move sections around. The most persuasive structure builds toward your most important point. 2. An Emotional structure. In the middle of your story, create a rise of conflict where tension builds. This might be when your audience realizes their current approach isn't working or market conditions are changing rapidly. Plan moments where this tension rises before providing a cathartic resolve. Your audience will stay engaged through this emotional journey from tension to resolution. 3. A clear goal. The protagonist in your story must have something they're seeking–an objective that drives the narrative forward. In your presentation, position your audience as the hero pursuing something important. Whether it's reconciliation of different viewpoints or finding the solution to a pressing problem, make sure this goal is crystal clear. 4. Meaningful conflict. Every story needs the hero to face obstacles. This conflict might be with themselves, with others, with technology, or even with nature.  When preparing your presentation, identify what's standing in the way of progress. Is it internal resistance? Market challenges? Technical limitations? Acknowledging these conflicts shows you understand the real situation. 5. A resolution. Every narrative needs to resolve the conflict, though resolution doesn't always mean a happy ending. It could end positively (comedy), negatively (tragedy), or be inconclusive, requiring your audience to take action to determine the outcome. For business presentations, this inconclusive ending can be particularly effective as it prompts decision and action. 6. A lesson worth learning. While rarely stated explicitly (except in fairy tales), every story teaches something. Your presentation should leave your audience with a clear takeaway about what approaches to emulate or avoid. The quality of your story often determines the quality of your high-stakes presentations. Take time to really think through the stories you’re using. Hand-selecting the best ones will help you leave a lasting impact on your audience. #Presentation #StorytellingInBusiness #PresentationSkills

If your nonprofit can’t explain its Theory of Change in one breath… you probably don’t have one. Let me say this louder for the good people at the back: Theory of Change is not just a donor requirement. It’s your organisation’s compass. Your “why → what → how → impact” map. And without it? You’re basically throwing programs at a problem and hoping something sticks. Let’s break it down with a simple, practical example: Problem: Girls in rural communities drop out of school by age 13. Goal: Keep them in school through secondary education. Here’s a basic Theory of Change: - If we provide scholarships - And train local mentors - And run community awareness campaigns - Then parents will be more supportive, girls will stay in school, and completion rates will improve. Theory of Change isn’t just what you’re doing- it’s the logic behind your work. Why does it matter? Because: - It helps your team stay focused (no more random activities “just because”) - It makes it easier to evaluate what’s working - It gives funders confidence that you’re not just passionate, you’re also strategic - It helps onboard staff faster - It shows your beneficiaries that you’re not guessing If your organisation is growing, struggling with clarity, or applying for funding, you need a Theory of Change that makes sense to humans, not just M&E consultants. I help nonprofits clarify this (without the jargon or the headache). Let me know if your team is due for a Theory of Change reset or if you want to build one that doesn’t collect dust after the proposal is approved. Laura Temituoyo Ede Making strategy make sense – One logic model at a time

👻 👻 👻 #Ghost #Clauses etc..... The U.S. Department of State has #retained over 1,000 awards from #USAID—and more are coming online as they’re being reinstated with approval from the Acting Director of Foreign Assistance. Over the next few posts, I’ll focus on what to do with reinstated or continuing awards and the challenges they present due to the change in agency and regulatory frameworks, including accounting for termination/reinstatement costs. #First up: #What to do with #clauses and #policies that no longer exist? Yes, the AIDAR clauses and ADS that were incorporated into your contract or award remain binding and enforceable, even if they no longer exist today. A contract is governed by the regulations and clauses #in #effect at the time of award, unless and until the Contracting Officer modifies it (usually through a bilateral modification). Key Points 1️⃣ Clauses Stay in Effect as Written Even if an AIDAR clause or ADS chapter disappears, your contract doesn’t change automatically. You remain bound by what was incorporated, just as with FAR or 2 CFR 200 clauses that evolve over time. Your contract terms are effectively grandfathered in. 2️⃣ Obsolete References and Compliance Challenges If a clause requires compliance with a system, office, or position that no longer exists, you can’t just ignore it. Make a good-faith effort to comply with the intent of the clause. 3️⃣ Best Practice When Compliance Is Impossible Document why literal compliance is no longer possible. Seek clarification from your CO on how to comply under current structures. If needed, request a bilateral modification to update or remove the outdated requirement. 4️⃣ Risk of Non-Compliance Continue to comply “as if the clause/ADS still exists” until you have written direction from your CO. Acting unilaterally risks audit findings and compliance trouble. Bottom line: Outdated clauses are still alive in your contract until the CO says otherwise. Compliance means documenting, clarifying, and getting it in writing. 📌 Don’t assume silence equals permission. 😏 Because in government contracting, even dead clauses have afterlives, and they haunt audits like ghosts with clipboards. 👻

RFP responses can be a real challenge. They’re often slow and inconsistent due to scattered knowledge and manual processes. This was the case for a global consultancy that wanted to speed up how it brought its offerings to market. Sales teams struggled to access past proposals, relevant case studies, and client-specific context. This customer was an early Glean Agent adopter, and we’re thankful for their feedback along the journey. To address this challenge, they deployed a suite of Glean agents. The goal was to unify content discovery and streamline proposal workflows, pulling from their company knowledge bases, CRM systems, and external research to support end-to-end RFP generation. This was paired with a methodical approach to enablement and adoption. Some examples of agents they built: • A Client Need Triage agent that maps client requirements to standard service offerings • A Research agent to pull together industry and company-specific insights • A Historian agent to surface past engagements and account activity right from the CRM • A Proposal Helper agent to accelerate proposal creation with standardized, offering-aligned drafts This foundation delivered real business value: • Proposal development time dropped from 4 weeks to just a few hours. That’s a 97% productivity gain. • A heuristic metric of deflecting over $150K if a single point enablement Saas solution was chosen. By embedding agents directly into the sales workflow, the consultancy improved both speed and precision in proposal development. Now, they’re looking to apply the same agent-driven approach to other parts of the business, like managed services and engineering, to bring that same efficiency and intelligence everywhere.

When I first embarked on my PhD journey, constructing a theoretical research framework felt like scaling Mount Everest in flipflops. Today, I want to break it down into manageable steps, so you can transform your research from a chaotic jumble to a coherent narrative. Let's dive into the process: 1️⃣ Identify Your Research Question Your research question is your North Star. It guides your entire study, so clarity is crucial. Ask yourself: What problem am I really trying to solve? 💡 For instance, in psychology, you might ask, How does social media usage impact adolescent self-esteem? 2️⃣ Dive Into the Literature This is more than just reading; it's detective work. Look for patterns, contradictions, and gaps. Creating a literature map can help visualize connections between different studies. 💡 Perhaps many studies link social media use to decreased selfesteem, but some suggest the opposite in certain contexts. 3️⃣ Choose a Theoretical Lens Your theoretical lens is like the glasses you view your research through. Your choice will shape your approach. 💡 Are you examining social media through social comparison theory or uses and gratifications theory? 4️⃣ Build a Conceptual Model Think of this as a 'mind map' for your research. Draw boxes for key concepts and arrows to show relationships. 💡For example, you might have boxes for Social Media Usage, SelfEsteem, and Peer Comparison, with arrows showing their interactions. 5️⃣ Define Your Constructs Precision is key. Clear definitions prevent confusion later. 💡 What do you mean by selfesteem in your study? Is it global self-worth or specific domains like academic or social self-esteem? 6️⃣ Establish Relationships Connect the dots between your concepts. Make these relationships explicit in your framework. 💡 You might hypothesize that increased social media usage leads to more peer comparison, affecting self-esteem. 7️⃣ Validate Your Framework Don't work in isolation. Share your framework with peers, mentors, and researchers in related fields for feedback. Be open to constructive criticism—it's your framework's immune system! 👉 Ongoing step: Iterate and Refine Your framework isn't set in stone. As you gather data and delve deeper, be ready to adjust. Incorporate new insights to strengthen your framework. Your theoretical framework isn't just a box to tick off. It's the backbone of your study, the lens through which you'll interpret your findings, and your unique contribution to your field. What challenges have you faced in developing your framework? #research #researcher #academia #phd #postdoc

Before becoming an Executive, I was an INVISIBLE contributor for the first 10 years of my career. (you probably are too) I was: Dreaming of recognition but → keeping my head down and hoping someone would notice Dreaming of promotions but → waiting for my turn instead of advocating for myself Dreaming of leadership roles but → staying quiet in meetings to avoid rocking the boat Dreaming of making an impact but → underselling my achievements to appear humble Turning point? I got snubbed for promotions not once, not twice but THREE times. Staying quiet was getting me a first-class seat at my DESK. After the third snub, I realized: I can't stay quiet and expect someone to notice me. I will always care more about my career than anyone else. I can't expect someone to articulate our value for me. I worked on: Actively sharing my accomplishments: "Our team's productivity increased 30% last quarter due to the new process I implemented." Clearly communicating my career goals: "I expressed my interest in leading the upcoming project to my manager, highlighting my relevant skills." Volunteering for high-visibility projects: "I took charge of presenting our department's quarterly results to the executive team." Quantifying and presenting my contributions: "I created a dashboard showing how my initiatives saved the company $500K annually." I eventually became an executive once I put these into practice. You don't need to change jobs every time you hit a roadblock. Or throw money at the problem with another degree or certificate. Learning to articulate your value can make all the difference. To master value articulation: Keep a detailed record of your achievements Align your work with company objectives and highlight this connection Practice describing your impact in concise, compelling ways Seek opportunities to present your work to leadership Regularly update your manager on your progress and aspirations Remember: "Your work speaks for itself, but only if you give it a voice." #aLITTLEadvice

“Increase funding.” It shows up in almost every nonprofit strategic plan I’ve ever read. But here’s the problem. As soon as implementation starts, the go-to move is to build something new. And no one asked, 𝘊an we support this with the team and resources we currently have? That’s where the 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿 (image) comes in. It helps you map what you or your team is already carrying across programs, fundraising, admin, and operations. So you can see, clearly: • Where the load is already full • Where there’s room to grow • And whether a new initiative is even realistic    Because the issue isn’t a lack of ideas. It’s the reflex to build new instead of optimizing what’s already delivering. That’s the same advice I gave a client about her revenue strategy. Instead of launching a new spring fundraiser, we did this: → Reviewed her development team’s Capacity Calendar → Noticed limited bandwidth across the year → Focused on re-engaging lapsed monthly donors, something they were already set up to do Here's the approach we followed: -> Look at what’s already producing results -> Find the opportunities to go deeper -> Resist the urge to start something new The result? Renewed momentum, increased giving, and no heroic efforts required. This approach not only strengthens your current efforts but also reduces the risk of spreading your team too thin chasing new opportunities. Why? Because new efforts come with hidden costs in staff time, systems, and attention. And that adds up, fast. For example: "New Fundraising Event" = big lift, new logistics, more capacity strain. "Deeper Donor Engagement" in an existing monthly giving program = focused, familiar, already working. Before you greenlight something new, ask, Are we making the most of what’s already working? And do we have the capacity to take on more? If you’re not sure, start with your Capacity Calendar and find your points of leverage.

Evaluating LLMs is hard. Evaluating agents is even harder. This is one of the most common challenges I see when teams move from using LLMs in isolation to deploying agents that act over time, use tools, interact with APIs, and coordinate across roles. These systems make a series of decisions, not just a single prediction. As a result, success or failure depends on more than whether the final answer is correct. Despite this, many teams still rely on basic task success metrics or manual reviews. Some build internal evaluation dashboards, but most of these efforts are narrowly scoped and miss the bigger picture. Observability tools exist, but they are not enough on their own. Google’s ADK telemetry provides traces of tool use and reasoning chains. LangSmith gives structured logging for LangChain-based workflows. Frameworks like CrewAI, AutoGen, and OpenAgents expose role-specific actions and memory updates. These are helpful for debugging, but they do not tell you how well the agent performed across dimensions like coordination, learning, or adaptability. Two recent research directions offer much-needed structure. One proposes breaking down agent evaluation into behavioral components like plan quality, adaptability, and inter-agent coordination. Another argues for longitudinal tracking, focusing on how agents evolve over time, whether they drift or stabilize, and whether they generalize or forget. If you are evaluating agents today, here are the most important criteria to measure: • 𝗧𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀: Did the agent complete the task, and was the outcome verifiable? • 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Was the initial strategy reasonable and efficient? • 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Did the agent handle tool failures, retry intelligently, or escalate when needed? • 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲: Was memory referenced meaningfully, or ignored? • 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀): Did agents delegate, share information, and avoid redundancy? • 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲: Did behavior remain consistent across runs or drift unpredictably? For adaptive agents or those in production, this becomes even more critical. Evaluation systems should be time-aware, tracking changes in behavior, error rates, and success patterns over time. Static accuracy alone will not explain why an agent performs well one day and fails the next. Structured evaluation is not just about dashboards. It is the foundation for improving agent design. Without clear signals, you cannot diagnose whether failure came from the LLM, the plan, the tool, or the orchestration logic. If your agents are planning, adapting, or coordinating across steps or roles, now is the time to move past simple correctness checks and build a robust, multi-dimensional evaluation framework. It is the only way to scale intelligent behavior with confidence.

Fundraising is brutal, and the worst part is that 90% of funds will ghost you. But it doesn’t have to be this way; some funds break the norm. During our pre-seed round for Chezie, I encountered a few standout funds that genuinely care about founders, and they made all the difference for me: 1. Alumni Ventures: Andrea Funsten passed but didn’t leave me hanging—they gave a detailed reason for why they weren’t investing, which is rare. 2. Harlem Capital: I’ve mentioned them before, and it’s worth repeating. They shared their due diligence documents with me, which provided insights that helped me in ways that went beyond the immediate investment. 3. 2045 Ventures: Carmen Palafox moved fast with her investment in Chezie. It took three weeks to complete from start to finish, and she even followed up when my response got lost in the shuffle. That kind of effort and action makes a founder feel supported. 4. Newtype Ventures: They passed because we were too early, but they weren’t done helping. Griffin Olesky introduced me to multiple other investors who better fit our stage. My point is that raising capital doesn’t have to feel like a one-way street. When funds genuinely invest in founders—even without writing a check—it builds trust, relationships, and momentum. Here’s to more investors who move with integrity and conviction. At some point, VCs will realize two things: - Founders talk, so every person you ghost is another founder who won’t speak positively about their experience with you - Fundraising is about relationships; treat founders well, and they’ll pass deal flow to you I wish more funds operated like the ones I’ve shared above. Founders, have you had positive experiences with any other funds? Shout them out in the comments.