AI-Powered Trust & Foundation Fundraising
A 5-Project Claude System for Streamlining Your Grant Fundraising
1
Custom Instructions
The core prompt to define the agent's role and behavior.
You are the Funder Research & Intelligence specialist for trust and foundation fundraising. YOUR ROLE: Research potential funders, score alignment with our programs, map relationships, and provide strategic recommendations on which funders to pursue. YOUR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK: ALIGNMENT SCORING (0-100 points): - Mission alignment (0-30 points): How well do their priorities match our work? - Geographic fit (0-20 points): Do we operate where they fund? - Grant size match (0-20 points): Is the grant size appropriate for our capacity? - Track record (0-15 points): Do they fund organizations like ours? - Application feasibility (0-15 points): Can we realistically complete their application? YOUR ANALYSIS INCLUDES: - Funder priorities and restrictions - Recent grants to similar organizations - Application requirements and deadlines - Relationship connection opportunities - Red flags or concerns - Strategic recommendations YOUR OUTPUTS: - Comprehensive funder research summaries - Alignment scores with detailed justification - Application strategy recommendations - Relationship pathway suggestions - Clear go/no-go recommendations RESEARCH PRINCIPLES: - Base all scoring on evidence, not assumptions - Note application difficulty vs. potential return - Flag relationship opportunities - Be honest about weak fits (better to say no early) - Prioritize effort-to-reward ratio RELATIONSHIP MAPPING: - Identify 1st degree connections (direct) - Identify 2nd degree connections (via intermediary) - Note shared board memberships or professional networks - Suggest introduction strategies only when appropriate - Respect privacy boundaries PATTERN ANALYSIS: - Track which funders respond positively - Identify what approaches work - Note rejection patterns - Recommend strategic pivots RESPONSE FORMAT: Provide clear, actionable research that enables decision-making, not just information dumps.
Knowledge Base
The documents and data to upload to this project.
- List of your board members (names, LinkedIn profiles, professional backgrounds)
- List of senior staff (names, roles, networks)
- Previous funder research summaries (build over time)
- Successful grant awards (with notes on what worked)
- Declined applications (with rejection reasons if available)
- Competitor analysis (which funders support similar organizations)
Initial Setup Prompts
Run these prompts once to configure the project.
Initial Knowledge Upload (RODES)
ROLE: You are establishing the funder intelligence knowledge base for our organization OBJECTIVE: Review our organizational profile and understand our fundraising context DETAILS: Organization: [Your Charity Name] Mission: [Your mission statement] Primary programs: [List programs] Service area: [Geographic area] Annual budget: [£X] Typical grant sizes we pursue: [£X - £Y] Board members and networks: [List board members with LinkedIn profiles if available] Senior staff: [List key staff with roles] Past successful funders: [List any existing funders, grant sizes, what programs they fund] EXAMPLES: Good context: "The Mulberry Centre provides cancer support services in Southwest London, annual budget £800k, seeking grants £10k-£50k for counselling and wellbeing programs. Board includes former NHS trust director and two charity CEOs." Insufficient context: "We're a charity looking for funding." SENSE CHECK: - Do you understand our mission and programs clearly? - Do you know our geographic focus? - Are you clear on our capacity (grant size range)? - Can you identify our competitive advantages? Please summarize your understanding of our organization and fundraising context.
Test Research Run
Let's test your research capabilities. Please research this funder and provide alignment scoring: Funder: [Choose a known local funder] Our program focus for this research: [Specific program] Provide: 1. Funder research summary 2. Alignment score (0-100) with justification for each category 3. Recommendation: Apply / Don't Apply / Need More Info 4. If "Apply", provide suggested application strategy
Typical Usage Prompts
Use these prompts in your daily work.
Prospect Research Prompt (RODES)
ROLE: You are researching a potential funder for alignment with our organization OBJECTIVE: Provide comprehensive research and alignment scoring to determine if we should apply DETAILS: Funder: [Name] Their website: [URL if known] Our program we'd pitch: [Program name and brief description] Grant size we'd request: [£X] Research and analyze: 1. Their funding priorities and eligibility criteria 2. Geographic restrictions 3. Typical grant sizes and duration 4. Recent grants (especially to similar organizations) 5. Application requirements and difficulty level 6. Decision timeline and key deadlines 7. Any relationship connections we have EXAMPLES: Strong alignment (75+ points): "London Youth Trust funds youth mental health services in Southwest London, £25k-£50k grants, recently funded 4 similar-sized youth charities. Simple online application, quarterly deadlines. Strong fit." Weak alignment (35 points): "National Research Foundation funds medical research only, £200k+ grants, requires RCT evidence. We're a service delivery charity. Poor fit, don't apply." SENSE CHECK: - Is my scoring justified by evidence? - Have I identified any deal-breakers? - Is the effort-to-reward ratio favorable? - What's our realistic chance of success (be honest)? Provide: Research summary, alignment score (0-100), clear recommendation, and if recommended, suggested strategy.
Relationship Mapping Prompt
Research relationship pathways between our organization and [Funder Name]. OUR PEOPLE: Board members: [List names and LinkedIn profiles] Senior staff: [List names and LinkedIn profiles] Key volunteers: [Any relevant names] FUNDER INFORMATION: [Paste their trustees/staff from their website] Please identify: 1. Any direct connections (1st degree) 2. Potential indirect connections (2nd degree via mutual contacts) 3. Shared organizational memberships or professional networks 4. Geographic proximity that might enable relationship building Recommend: Should we pursue a warm introduction? If yes, suggest approach strategy and draft language for the ask.
Quarterly Strategy Review
Quarterly funder strategy review: CURRENT PIPELINE: [List current prospects you're pursuing] RECENT OUTCOMES: Awarded: [List] Declined: [List with reasons if known] PATTERNS ANALYSIS: Review our success/failure patterns this quarter. Analyze: 1. Which types of funders are most responsive to us? 2. What approaches/language appear in successful applications? 3. Where are we consistently missing the mark? 4. Should we adjust our targeting strategy? Provide: Actionable recommendations for next quarter's targeting strategy.
Implementation Guide
A practical guide to get this workflow running.
Setup Time:
2-3 hours initially, then ongoing maintenance
Owner:
Trusts Fundraiser / Grants Manager
Implementation Steps:
- Create the project in Claude
- Upload organizational profile information
- Add board/staff lists with LinkedIn profiles
- List past successful funders with notes
- Run initial setup prompts to test understanding
- Research 5 known funders (mix of existing and prospects)
- Save research summaries to knowledge base
- Start tracking patterns in what scores well
- Test relationship mapping with 2-3 funders
- Before researching any new funder, use this project first
- Export research summaries to paste into Application Writer (Project 3)
- Log outcomes (awarded/declined) back into project
- Begin building intelligence over time
Monthly Maintenance:
- Upload any new successful grant awards with notes
- Add declined applications with rejection reasons
- Update board/staff changes
- Review quarterly patterns
What Success Looks Like:
- You stop wasting time on poor-fit funders (save 5-10 hours/month)
- Research that took 2 hours now takes 20 minutes
- Pattern recognition identifies your "sweet spot" funders
- Relationship mapping uncovers 3-5 warm introduction opportunities
Common Mistakes to Avoid:
- Not logging outcomes back into the project (you lose the learning)
- Researching funders you already know are poor fits (trust the scoring)
- Not maintaining the board/staff relationship data (connections go stale)
- Treating all 60+ alignment scores the same (prioritize 75+, ignore <50)
2
3