agentic-team-templates 0.19.1 → 0.20.0

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/CLAUDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,577 @@
+# Grant Writing Development Guide
+
+Principal-level guidelines for securing funding through strategic grant writing, proposal development, budget justification, compliance management, and post-award stewardship.
+
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+This guide applies to:
+
+- Funding opportunity identification and research
+- Proposal narrative development
+- Logic models and theories of change
+- Budget creation and justification
+- Federal and foundation compliance
+- Review criteria alignment
+- Letters of support coordination
+- Post-award management and reporting
+
+### Key Principles
+
+1. **Funder Alignment First** - Only pursue opportunities that match your organization's mission and capacity
+2. **Evidence-Based Narratives** - Every claim must be supported by data, research, or documented need
+3. **Review Criteria Obsession** - Write to the rubric, not around it
+4. **Budget as Narrative** - Every dollar tells a story about program impact
+5. **Compliance is Non-Negotiable** - Regulations exist for a reason; build them into your process from day one
+
+### Core Frameworks
+
+| Framework | Purpose |
+|-----------|---------|
+| Logic Model | Map inputs to outcomes visually |
+| Theory of Change | Articulate causal pathway to impact |
+| SMART Goals | Define measurable, achievable objectives |
+| Needs Assessment | Document and quantify the problem |
+| Evaluation Plan | Design measurement strategy |
+| Sustainability Plan | Demonstrate long-term viability |
+
+---
+
+## Funding Opportunity Identification
+
+### Research Strategy
+
+```
+Funding Landscape Analysis
+├── Federal Grants
+│   ├── Grants.gov (primary database)
+│   ├── Federal Register notices
+│   ├── Agency-specific portals (NIH Reporter, NSF Award Search)
+│   └── Sam.gov (entity registration)
+├── State and Local Grants
+│   ├── State grant portals
+│   ├── Municipal RFPs
+│   └── Regional planning commissions
+├── Foundation Grants
+│   ├── Foundation Directory Online
+│   ├── Candid/GuideStar
+│   ├── 990 Finder (tax return analysis)
+│   └── Funder websites and annual reports
+└── Corporate Grants
+    ├── Corporate giving programs
+    ├── CSR reports
+    └── Industry-specific programs
+```
+
+### Funder Alignment Assessment
+
+```markdown
+## Funder Alignment Scorecard
+
+| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Notes |
+|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| Mission alignment | | |
+| Geographic focus match | | |
+| Population served match | | |
+| Funding range appropriate | | |
+| Eligible applicant type | | |
+| Timeline feasibility | | |
+| Capacity to meet requirements | | |
+| Past relationship with funder | | |
+
+**Total Score: __ / 40**
+- 32-40: Strong fit - prioritize
+- 24-31: Good fit - pursue if capacity allows
+- 16-23: Marginal fit - consider carefully
+- Below 16: Poor fit - do not pursue
+```
+
+### Funding Calendar Template
+
+| Opportunity | Funder | Deadline | Amount | Status | Lead |
+|-------------|--------|----------|--------|--------|------|
+| [Grant Name] | [Funder] | [Date] | [Range] | [Researching/Writing/Submitted] | [Name] |
+
+---
+
+## Proposal Narrative Structure
+
+### Standard Federal Proposal Components
+
+```
+Proposal Package
+├── Cover Page / SF-424
+├── Abstract / Project Summary (1 page)
+├── Table of Contents
+├── Project Narrative
+│   ├── Statement of Need (15-20% of narrative)
+│   ├── Goals and Objectives (10-15%)
+│   ├── Methods / Project Design (25-30%)
+│   ├── Evaluation Plan (15-20%)
+│   ├── Organizational Capacity (10-15%)
+│   └── Sustainability Plan (5-10%)
+├── Budget and Budget Justification
+├── Logic Model / Theory of Change
+├── Letters of Support / MOUs
+├── Appendices
+│   ├── Organizational chart
+│   ├── Resumes of key personnel
+│   ├── Data tables
+│   └── Citations
+└── Certifications and Assurances
+```
+
+### Statement of Need
+
+The need statement establishes why the project matters. It must be data-driven and specific.
+
+```markdown
+## Need Statement Structure
+
+### Geographic and Demographic Context
+- Define the service area with specificity
+- Cite census data, community surveys, or agency reports
+- Identify the target population with demographic detail
+
+### Problem Documentation
+- Present 3-5 data points that quantify the problem
+- Use recent data (within 3-5 years)
+- Compare local data to state/national benchmarks
+- Include qualitative evidence (community voice, stakeholder input)
+
+### Gap Analysis
+- What services currently exist?
+- Where do current services fall short?
+- What is the unmet need?
+- What happens if nothing changes?
+
+### Connection to Project
+- How does this project address the documented gaps?
+- Why is this approach appropriate for this community?
+```
+
+**Good Need Statement:**
+```
+In Westfield County, 34% of children ages 0-5 live in households
+below 200% of the federal poverty level (ACS 2023), compared to
+22% statewide. Despite this elevated need, the county has only
+two licensed childcare centers serving 120 children, leaving an
+estimated 450 children without access to quality early education
+(County Needs Assessment, 2024). Families report average wait
+times of 14 months for childcare placement (Parent Survey, n=187).
+```
+
+**Bad Need Statement:**
+```
+Many children in our area need help. There aren't enough programs
+to serve them. We believe our program will make a difference.
+```
+
+### Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes
+
+```
+Goal (Broad, aspirational)
+├── Objective 1 (SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound)
+│   ├── Activity 1.1
+│   ├── Activity 1.2
+│   └── Expected Outcome 1
+├── Objective 2
+│   ├── Activity 2.1
+│   ├── Activity 2.2
+│   └── Expected Outcome 2
+└── Objective 3
+    ├── Activity 3.1
+    └── Expected Outcome 3
+```
+
+**Good Objective:**
+```
+By September 30, 2027, 80% of participating youth (n=150) will
+demonstrate a 20% improvement in math proficiency as measured
+by pre/post standardized assessments.
+```
+
+**Bad Objective:**
+```
+Youth will improve their academic performance.
+```
+
+### Logic Model Template
+
+```
+┌──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
+│  Inputs  │Activities│ Outputs  │ Short-   │  Long-   │
+│          │          │          │  Term    │  Term    │
+│          │          │          │ Outcomes │ Outcomes │
+├──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
+│ Staff    │ Training │ # trained│ Knowledge│ Systemic │
+│ Funding  │ Sessions │ # served │ gains    │ change   │
+│ Partners │ Outreach │ # events │ Behavior │ Community│
+│ Space    │ Services │ # hours  │ change   │ impact   │
+│ Curricula│ Assessment│# assessed│ Skill    │ Policy   │
+│          │          │          │ gains    │ change   │
+└──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┘
+     ↓           ↓          ↓          ↓          ↓
+  Resources   What you   Evidence   Changes    Lasting
+  you need    do with    of work    in people  community
+              them       done       /systems   impact
+```
+
+### Theory of Change
+
+```markdown
+## Theory of Change Template
+
+### If-Then Chain
+If we [invest these resources] and [implement these activities],
+then we will produce [these outputs],
+which will lead to [these short-term outcomes],
+which will contribute to [these long-term outcomes],
+because [underlying assumptions/evidence base].
+
+### Assumptions
+1. [Assumption about target population]
+2. [Assumption about intervention effectiveness]
+3. [Assumption about external conditions]
+
+### Evidence Base
+- [Research citation supporting approach]
+- [Evaluation finding from similar program]
+- [Best practice standard]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Budget Development
+
+### Federal Budget Categories (SF-424A)
+
+| Category | Description | Common Items |
+|----------|-------------|--------------|
+| Personnel | Salaries and wages | Project director, coordinators, specialists |
+| Fringe Benefits | Employee benefits | FICA, health insurance, retirement |
+| Travel | Project-related travel | Conferences, site visits, mileage |
+| Equipment | Items over $5,000 | Specialized equipment only |
+| Supplies | Consumable items | Office supplies, curriculum materials |
+| Contractual | Subcontracts, consultants | Evaluators, trainers, IT services |
+| Construction | Building/renovation | Rare in most grants |
+| Other | Miscellaneous costs | Rent, utilities, printing, postage |
+| Indirect Costs | Overhead rate | Negotiated IDC rate or de minimis 10% |
+
+### Budget Justification Narrative
+
+Every line item needs justification following this pattern:
+
+```markdown
+## Budget Justification: [Category]
+
+### Personnel
+**Project Director (1.0 FTE) - $75,000**
+The Project Director will oversee all program activities, supervise
+staff, manage partner relationships, ensure compliance with grant
+requirements, and lead evaluation efforts. Salary is based on the
+organization's established pay scale for this position level and
+is consistent with Bureau of Labor Statistics median salary for
+comparable positions in this region ($72,000-$78,000).
+
+### Fringe Benefits
+**Fringe Rate: 28% of Salaries - $21,000**
+Fringe benefits include FICA (7.65%), health insurance (14.5%),
+retirement contribution (3%), workers' compensation (1.85%), and
+unemployment insurance (1%). Rate is based on the organization's
+current actual fringe benefit costs as documented in the most
+recent audit.
+```
+
+### Multi-Year Budget Template
+
+| Line Item | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total |
+|-----------|--------|--------|--------|-------|
+| Personnel | $X | $X (+3% COLA) | $X (+3% COLA) | $X |
+| Fringe | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| Travel | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| Supplies | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| Contractual | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| Other | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| **Direct Costs** | **$X** | **$X** | **$X** | **$X** |
+| Indirect (10%) | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| **Total** | **$X** | **$X** | **$X** | **$X** |
+
+### Cost Share / Match Requirements
+
+```markdown
+## Match Documentation
+
+### Cash Match
+| Source | Amount | Status | Documentation |
+|--------|--------|--------|---------------|
+| Organization general funds | $X | Committed | Board resolution |
+| Partner contribution | $X | Committed | MOU |
+
+### In-Kind Match
+| Source | Description | Valuation Method | Amount |
+|--------|-------------|------------------|--------|
+| Volunteer hours | 500 hrs x $29.95/hr | Independent Sector rate | $14,975 |
+| Donated space | 2,000 sq ft x $12/sq ft | Fair market value appraisal | $24,000 |
+
+### Total Match: $X (X% of federal request)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Compliance Requirements
+
+### Federal Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200)
+
+Key compliance areas:
+
+| Area | Requirement | Documentation |
+|------|-------------|---------------|
+| Financial Management | Adequate accounting systems | Audit reports, policies |
+| Procurement | Competitive bidding above thresholds | Procurement records |
+| Property Management | Track equipment purchased with funds | Inventory records |
+| Time and Effort | Document personnel time on grant | Timesheets, certifications |
+| Subrecipient Monitoring | Oversee sub-awards | Monitoring plans, reports |
+| Record Retention | Maintain records 3+ years post-closeout | Filing system |
+
+### Human Subjects Research
+
+If the project involves research with human participants:
+
+```
+IRB Decision Tree
+├── Is this research? (systematic investigation to develop generalizable knowledge)
+│   ├── Yes → IRB review required
+│   │   ├── Exempt (minimal risk, standard educational practices)
+│   │   ├── Expedited (minimal risk, specific categories)
+│   │   └── Full Board (greater than minimal risk)
+│   └── No → Program evaluation only
+│       └── Document determination
+```
+
+### Reporting Requirements
+
+| Report Type | Frequency | Typical Content |
+|-------------|-----------|-----------------|
+| Progress/Performance Report | Quarterly or Semi-Annual | Activities, outputs, outcomes, challenges |
+| Financial Report (SF-425) | Quarterly or Semi-Annual | Expenditures by category, match documentation |
+| Annual Report | Yearly | Comprehensive progress, data analysis |
+| Final Report | End of grant | Cumulative results, lessons learned, sustainability |
+
+---
+
+## Post-Award Management
+
+### Award Setup Checklist
+
+- [ ] Review Notice of Award terms and conditions
+- [ ] Set up grant-specific accounting codes
+- [ ] Establish time and effort reporting
+- [ ] Create project timeline with milestones
+- [ ] Onboard or reassign staff
+- [ ] Notify partners and subrecipients
+- [ ] Set up data collection systems
+- [ ] Schedule reporting deadlines in calendar
+- [ ] Conduct kickoff meeting
+
+### Financial Tracking
+
+```
+Monthly Financial Review
+├── Budget vs. Actual comparison by category
+├── Burn rate analysis (spending pace)
+├── Projection to end of period
+├── Identify underspending or overspending
+├── Document budget modification needs
+└── Reconcile with institutional accounting
+```
+
+### Budget Modification Rules
+
+| Modification Type | Threshold | Approval Required |
+|-------------------|-----------|-------------------|
+| Line item reallocation | < 10% of total | Usually internal |
+| Line item reallocation | > 10% of total | Prior approval from funder |
+| Scope change | Any | Prior approval required |
+| No-cost extension | N/A | Written request, usually 90 days before end |
+| Budget period change | Any | Prior approval required |
+| Key personnel change | Any | Prior approval required |
+
+### No-Cost Extension Request Template
+
+```markdown
+## No-Cost Extension Request
+
+**Grant Number:** [Number]
+**Current End Date:** [Date]
+**Requested End Date:** [Date]
+
+### Justification
+[Explain why additional time is needed]
+
+### Remaining Funds
+[Amount remaining and how it will be spent]
+
+### Activities to Complete
+1. [Activity] - Expected completion: [Date]
+2. [Activity] - Expected completion: [Date]
+
+### Impact on Project Goals
+[Explain how extension ensures objectives are met]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Letters of Support
+
+### Effective Letters of Support
+
+```markdown
+## Letter of Support Template
+
+[Organization Letterhead]
+[Date]
+
+[Funding Agency]
+[Address]
+
+Dear [Program Officer/Review Committee]:
+
+[Paragraph 1: Identify the writer, their organization, and their
+relationship to the applicant]
+
+[Paragraph 2: Describe specific commitment - what the partner will
+contribute (staff time, space, referrals, data, expertise)]
+
+[Paragraph 3: Explain why this project matters to the partner's
+constituency and the community]
+
+[Paragraph 4: Affirm enthusiasm and specific role]
+
+Sincerely,
+[Signature]
+[Name, Title]
+[Organization]
+[Contact Information]
+```
+
+**Good Letter:** Specific commitments with measurable contributions
+**Bad Letter:** Generic praise without concrete commitments
+
+---
+
+## Writing for Review Criteria
+
+### Aligning Narrative to Rubric
+
+```markdown
+## Review Criteria Mapping
+
+| Criterion | Weight | Page Limit | Key Phrases from RFP | Our Response Strategy |
+|-----------|--------|------------|---------------------|----------------------|
+| Need | 20 pts | 3 pages | "documented need," "data-driven" | Lead with 5 local data points |
+| Design | 30 pts | 5 pages | "evidence-based," "logic model" | Cite 3 research studies |
+| Capacity | 20 pts | 3 pages | "qualified staff," "track record" | Highlight 5 years of similar work |
+| Evaluation | 15 pts | 2 pages | "measurable outcomes," "data collection" | Include evaluation matrix |
+| Budget | 15 pts | 2 pages | "reasonable," "cost-effective" | Benchmark all costs |
+```
+
+### Reviewer Psychology
+
+Reviewers are typically:
+- Reading multiple proposals in a short time
+- Looking for reasons to score high OR low
+- Following the rubric systematically
+- Noting whether the applicant answered what was asked
+
+### Writing Tips for High Scores
+
+1. **Mirror the language of the RFP** - Use their exact terms
+2. **Use headers that match review criteria** - Make it easy to find content
+3. **Lead paragraphs with the key point** - Do not bury important information
+4. **Quantify everything possible** - Numbers are more convincing than adjectives
+5. **One idea per paragraph** - Dense writing loses reviewers
+6. **Bold key metrics and outcomes** - Help skimmers find critical data
+7. **Address weaknesses proactively** - Acknowledge limitations and mitigations
+
+---
+
+## Sustainability Planning
+
+### Sustainability Framework
+
+```
+Sustainability Strategy
+├── Financial Sustainability
+│   ├── Diversified funding (no single source > 40%)
+│   ├── Earned revenue strategies
+│   ├── Endowment or reserve building
+│   └── Continued grant seeking
+├── Programmatic Sustainability
+│   ├── Embed in organizational operations
+│   ├── Build staff capacity (not just grant-funded staff)
+│   ├── Create replicable processes
+│   └── Document and share best practices
+├── Community Sustainability
+│   ├── Build local ownership
+│   ├── Train community members
+│   ├── Create advisory structures
+│   └── Establish partnerships
+└── Political Sustainability
+    ├── Engage policymakers
+    ├── Document outcomes for advocacy
+    ├── Build coalition support
+    └── Align with policy priorities
+```
+
+---
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### 1. Proposal Scope Creep
+
+❌ **Wrong**: Promise everything the funder could possibly want
+
+✅ **Right**: Propose what you can actually deliver with the requested resources, with realistic timelines
+
+### 2. Generic Need Statements
+
+❌ **Wrong**: "Poverty is a national problem affecting millions"
+
+✅ **Right**: "In our service area, 42% of families earn below 200% FPL (ACS 2023), and 68% of surveyed parents report inability to access affordable childcare (Community Survey, 2024, n=312)"
+
+### 3. Unsupported Budget Items
+
+❌ **Wrong**: "Consultant - $50,000"
+
+✅ **Right**: "External Evaluator (Dr. Smith, PhD) - 200 hours at $250/hour = $50,000. Rate based on GSA schedule and comparable evaluator rates in the region. See attached CV and scope of work."
+
+### 4. Ignoring the Rubric
+
+❌ **Wrong**: Write what you think is important
+
+✅ **Right**: Map every section of your narrative to specific review criteria and point values
+
+### 5. Last-Minute Submissions
+
+❌ **Wrong**: Submit at 11:58 PM on the deadline
+
+✅ **Right**: Complete draft 2 weeks before deadline; internal review 1 week before; submit 48 hours early
+
+### 6. Forgetting Post-Award Obligations
+
+❌ **Wrong**: Celebrate the award and figure out implementation later
+
+✅ **Right**: Begin implementation planning during the proposal phase; have systems ready before funds arrive
+
+---
+
+## Resources
+
+- [Grants.gov](https://www.grants.gov/) - Federal grant opportunities
+- [2 CFR 200 - Uniform Guidance](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200)
+- [Foundation Directory Online](https://fconline.foundationcenter.org/)
+- [Grant Professionals Association](https://www.grantprofessionals.org/)
+- [The Foundation Center / Candid](https://candid.org/)
+- [Federal Demonstration Partnership](https://thefdp.org/)