Diagrams & Visuals - Lesson 2.3: Proposal Writing
Visual Reference
1. Evidence-Based Proposal Foundation Flow
This diagram shows how all Module 1 & 2 foundation work integrates into proposal development. Each lesson from 1.1-2.2 directly strengthens specific proposal components, creating genuine competitive advantage that generic proposals cannot match.
graph TB
subgraph Module1["MODULE 1: FOUNDATION BUILDING"]
A1["Problem Tree Analysis<br/>(Evidence-based problem<br/>understanding)"]
A2["Stakeholder Mapping<br/>(Authentic partnerships<br/>documented)"]
A3["Affinity Analysis<br/>(Community priorities<br/>synthesized)"]
A4["Theory of Change<br/>(Community-validated<br/>change logic)"]
end
subgraph Module2["MODULE 2: OPERATIONALIZATION"]
B1["Logical Framework<br/>(Systematic measurement<br/>structure)"]
B2["Activity Design<br/>(Detailed implementation<br/>plans)"]
end
subgraph Proposal["COMPELLING PROPOSAL COMPONENTS"]
C1["Problem Statement<br/>(Evidence-based,<br/>community-grounded)"]
C2["Solution Approach<br/>(Theory of Change-based<br/>logic)"]
C3["Implementation Plan<br/>(Detailed, culturally<br/>appropriate)"]
C4["Partnership Documentation<br/>(Authentic collaboration<br/>evidence)"]
C5["M&E Framework<br/>(Community-informed<br/>indicators)"]
C6["Budget Justification<br/>(Cost-effective,<br/>community leverage)"]
end
D["Competitive Proposal<br/>Ready for Submission"]
A1 --> C1
A1 --> C2
A2 --> C3
A2 --> C4
A3 --> C1
A3 --> C2
A4 --> C2
A4 --> C5
B1 --> C5
B1 --> C6
B2 --> C3
B2 --> C6
C1 --> D
C2 --> D
C3 --> D
C4 --> D
C5 --> D
C6 --> D
style Module1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style A1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A4 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Module2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style B1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style B2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Proposal fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style C1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C2 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C3 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C4 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C5 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C6 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style D fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Foundation Integration
→ Explore evidence-based storytelling strategies
2. Generic vs Evidence-Based Problem Description Transformation
This transformation diagram illustrates the stark contrast between weak, assumption-based problem descriptions and strong, evidence-supported descriptions enabled by systematic foundation work. The difference determines funder confidence.
graph TB
subgraph Generic["❌ GENERIC APPROACH"]
G1["Vague Problem<br/>Statement"]
G2["Assumption-based<br/>Claims"]
G3["No Community<br/>Voice"]
G4["Weak Evidence<br/>Base"]
G5["Unconvincing to<br/>Funders"]
end
subgraph Transform["🔄 SYSTEMATIC FOUNDATION"]
T1["Problem Tree Analysis<br/>(E) Evidence-based findings"]
T2["45 Stakeholders<br/>Across 8 groups"]
T3["Quantified Evidence<br/>73% employer gap data"]
T4["Community Validation<br/>Sessions"]
T5["Source Documentation<br/>MCP research + field data"]
end
subgraph Evidence["✅ EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH"]
E1["Specific Problem<br/>Statement"]
E2["Evidence-supported<br/>Claims"]
E3["Community Voice<br/>Integrated"]
E4["Strong Evidence<br/>Base"]
E5["Compelling to<br/>Funders"]
end
G1 -.Transform via.-> T1
G2 -.Transform via.-> T2
G2 -.Transform via.-> T3
G3 -.Transform via.-> T4
G4 -.Transform via.-> T5
T1 --> E1
T2 --> E2
T3 --> E2
T4 --> E3
T5 --> E4
E1 --> E5
E2 --> E5
E3 --> E5
E4 --> E5
style Generic fill:#FEE2E2,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style G1 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style G2 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style G3 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style G4 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style G5 fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Transform fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style T1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style T2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style T3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style T4 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style T5 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Evidence fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style E1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style E2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style E3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style E4 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style E5 fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:2px
The Generic Proposal Trap
→ Learn transformation strategies
3. Complete Proposal Structure with Community Voice Integration
This comprehensive diagram shows standard proposal structure with explicit community voice integration points at each section. Strong proposals balance professional requirements with authentic community priorities, validated through systematic engagement.
graph TB
A["Executive Summary<br/>Problem + Approach + Impact<br/>+ Investment Required"]
B["Problem Statement Section"]
B1["Context Setting<br/>(Problem Tree background)"]
B2["Evidence Presentation<br/>(Systematic analysis results)"]
B3["Community Voice<br/>(Stakeholder insights, quotes)"]
B4["Root Cause Analysis<br/>(Problem Tree findings)"]
B5["Impact Documentation<br/>(Effects if problem persists)"]
C["Solution & Approach Section"]
C1["Theory of Change Overview<br/>(Logical pathway)"]
C2["Community Asset Integration<br/>(Building on strengths)"]
C3["Cultural Appropriateness<br/>(Respectful implementation)"]
C4["Partnership Strategy<br/>(Collaborative approach)"]
C5["Innovation & Evidence<br/>(Why this approach works)"]
D["Implementation Plan Section"]
D1["Activity Detail<br/>(From Activity Design work)"]
D2["Timeline & Milestones<br/>(Realistic, community-informed)"]
D3["Quality Assurance<br/>(Community & professional standards)"]
D4["Risk Management<br/>(ToC assumptions)"]
D5["Adaptive Management<br/>(Feedback systems)"]
E["M&E & Learning Section"]
E1["Community-Centered Measurement<br/>(Indicators from Logframe)"]
E2["Participatory Monitoring<br/>(Stakeholder engagement)"]
E3["Learning Documentation<br/>(Knowledge capture)"]
E4["Accountability & Transparency<br/>(To community & funders)"]
F["Sustainability Section"]
F1["Community Ownership Development<br/>(Capacity transfer strategy)"]
F2["System Strengthening<br/>(Enhancing local systems)"]
F3["Resource Mobilization<br/>(Community fundraising capacity)"]
G["Budget & Justification Section"]
G1["Cost-Effectiveness<br/>(Community leverage)"]
G2["Implementation Readiness<br/>(Planning investment value)"]
G3["Sustainability Investment<br/>(Capacity building costs)"]
H["Complete Proposal Package<br/>Ready for Submission"]
A --> B
B --> B1 --> B2 --> B3 --> B4 --> B5
B5 --> C
C --> C1 --> C2 --> C3 --> C4 --> C5
C5 --> D
D --> D1 --> D2 --> D3 --> D4 --> D5
D5 --> E
E --> E1 --> E2 --> E3 --> E4
E4 --> F
F --> F1 --> F2 --> F3
F3 --> G
G --> G1 --> G2 --> G3
G3 --> H
style A fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style B fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style B1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style B2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style B3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style B4 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style B5 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style C fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style C1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style C2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style C3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style C4 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style C5 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style D fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style D1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style D2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style D3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style D4 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style D5 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style E fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style E1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style E2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style E3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style E4 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style F fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style F1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style F2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style F3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style G fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style G1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style G2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style G3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style H fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Structure with Integration
→ Explore detailed section guidance
4. Partnership Documentation Framework
This four-phase framework shows how to document community partnerships for proposals, moving beyond generic letters to demonstrate specific commitments, shared ownership, and ongoing accountability. Lesson 1.2 stakeholder engagement enables this level of documentation.
graph TB
subgraph Engagement["PHASE 1: Stakeholder Engagement"]
A1["Primary Stakeholders<br/>(Directly affected)"]
A2["Secondary Stakeholders<br/>(Expertise/Power)"]
A3["Community Leaders<br/>(Influence/Trust)"]
end
subgraph Documentation["PHASE 2: Partnership Documentation"]
B1["Engagement History<br/>(Dates, processes)"]
B2["Partnership Roles<br/>(Specific commitments)"]
B3["Resource Contributions<br/>(Cash, in-kind, human)"]
B4["Shared Accountability<br/>(Joint M&E commitments)"]
B5["Sustainability Role<br/>(Beyond project period)"]
end
subgraph Evidence["PHASE 3: Evidence Collection"]
C1["Meeting Minutes<br/>(Specific agreements)"]
C2["Commitment Letters<br/>(Resource details)"]
C3["Joint Planning Sessions<br/>(Collaborative design)"]
C4["Validation Sessions<br/>(Partnership expectations)"]
C5["Representative Quotes<br/>(Understanding & commitment)"]
end
subgraph Proposal["PHASE 4: Proposal Integration"]
D1["Partnership Commitment<br/>Documentation Section"]
D2["Community Consultation<br/>Summary Section"]
D3["Shared Ownership<br/>Narrative"]
D4["Cost-Sharing<br/>Documentation"]
end
A1 --> B1
A2 --> B2
A3 --> B3
B1 --> C1
B2 --> C2
B3 --> C3
B4 --> C4
B5 --> C5
C1 --> D1
C2 --> D1
C3 --> D2
C4 --> D2
C5 --> D3
B3 --> D4
D1 --> E["Compelling Partnership<br/>Evidence in Proposal"]
D2 --> E
D3 --> E
D4 --> E
style Engagement fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style A1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Documentation fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style B1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style B2 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style B3 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style B4 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style B5 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Evidence fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style C1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style C2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style C3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style C4 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style C5 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Proposal fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style D1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style D2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style D3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style D4 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style E fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Beyond Generic Letters
→ Learn partnership documentation strategies
5. Cost-Effectiveness Documentation Flow
This flow demonstrates how to quantify and document resource efficiency through community partnership. Asset-based approaches (Lesson 2.2) create measurable cost-effectiveness that strengthens budget justification and demonstrates strategic resource utilization.
graph TB
subgraph Analysis["RESOURCE EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS"]
A1["Community Asset<br/>Leverage"]
A2["Partner Service<br/>Provision"]
A3["Volunteer Time<br/>Value"]
A4["Risk Mitigation<br/>Through Ownership"]
end
subgraph Calculation["QUANTIFICATION PROCESS"]
B1["Volunteer Hours<br/>× Local Wage Rate<br/>= $[value]"]
B2["Facility Usage<br/>× Market Rental Rate<br/>= $[value]"]
B3["Partner Services<br/>× Consulting Rate<br/>= $[value]"]
B4["Risk Reduction<br/>× Failure Rate Decrease<br/>= $[value]"]
end
subgraph Documentation["COST-EFFECTIVENESS DOCUMENTATION"]
C1["Total Community<br/>Investment: $[amount]"]
C2["Funder Request:<br/>$[amount]"]
C3["Leverage Ratio:<br/>[X]% multiplier"]
C4["Cost per Beneficiary<br/>vs Sector Average"]
end
subgraph Value["VALUE PROPOSITION"]
D1["Every $1 invested<br/>leverages $[X] in<br/>community resources"]
D2["[Y]% cost reduction vs<br/>sector benchmarks"]
D3["[Z]% sustainability<br/>achievement by Year 3"]
D4["Risk mitigation value:<br/>$[amount] protected"]
end
A1 --> B1
A2 --> B3
A3 --> B1
A4 --> B4
B1 --> C1
B2 --> C1
B3 --> C1
B4 --> C4
C1 --> C3
C2 --> C3
C3 --> D1
C4 --> D2
C1 --> D3
B4 --> D4
D1 --> E["Compelling Cost-Effectiveness<br/>Narrative in Proposal"]
D2 --> E
D3 --> E
D4 --> E
style Analysis fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style A1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style A4 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Calculation fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style B1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style B2 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style B3 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style B4 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Documentation fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style C1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style C2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style C3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style C4 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Value fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style D1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style D2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style D3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style D4 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style E fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Quantifying Community Partnership Value
→ Explore cost-effectiveness strategies
6. Proposal Quality Assessment Checklist Flow
This systematic decision tree provides quality assurance before submission, checking four critical dimensions: evidence foundation integration, community voice and partnership, professional quality standards, and competitive differentiation. Most proposals require 2-3 revision cycles.
graph TB
Start["Proposal Draft<br/>Complete"]
Q1{"Evidence Foundation<br/>Integration?"}
Q1A["✓ Problem Tree draws<br/>directly from research"]
Q1B["✓ Stakeholder engagement<br/>documented with numbers"]
Q1C["✓ Community priorities<br/>guide outcomes"]
Q1D["✓ ToC logic provides<br/>clear narrative"]
Q2{"Community Voice &<br/>Partnership?"}
Q2A["✓ Community language<br/>& quotes integrated"]
Q2B["✓ Partnership goes beyond<br/>generic letters"]
Q2C["✓ Community assets<br/>highlighted, not deficits"]
Q2D["✓ Local ownership central<br/>to sustainability"]
Q3{"Professional Quality<br/>Standards?"}
Q3A["✓ Structure meets<br/>funder requirements"]
Q3B["✓ Evidence demonstrates<br/>analytical rigor"]
Q3C["✓ Implementation plan<br/>shows readiness"]
Q3D["✓ Budget demonstrates<br/>cost-effectiveness"]
Q4{"Competitive<br/>Differentiation?"}
Q4A["✓ Depth exceeds typical<br/>consultation"]
Q4B["✓ Implementation readiness<br/>exceeds standard prep"]
Q4C["✓ Partnership shows<br/>authentic collaboration"]
Q4D["✓ Innovation reflects<br/>community contributions"]
Fix["Fix Gaps<br/>Before Submission"]
Submit["Ready for<br/>Submission"]
Start --> Q1
Q1 -->|All Yes| Q1A & Q1B & Q1C & Q1D
Q1 -->|Any No| Fix
Q1A & Q1B & Q1C & Q1D --> Q2
Q2 -->|All Yes| Q2A & Q2B & Q2C & Q2D
Q2 -->|Any No| Fix
Q2A & Q2B & Q2C & Q2D --> Q3
Q3 -->|All Yes| Q3A & Q3B & Q3C & Q3D
Q3 -->|Any No| Fix
Q3A & Q3B & Q3C & Q3D --> Q4
Q4 -->|All Yes| Q4A & Q4B & Q4C & Q4D
Q4 -->|Any No| Fix
Q4A & Q4B & Q4C & Q4D --> Submit
Fix -.Revise.-> Start
style Start fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Q1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style Q1A fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q1B fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q1C fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q1D fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q2 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style Q2A fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q2B fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q2C fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q2D fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q3 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style Q3A fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q3B fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q3C fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q3D fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q4 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style Q4A fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q4B fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q4C fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Q4D fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Fix fill:#FCA5A5,stroke:#E12729,color:#2A2A2A
style Submit fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Iterative Quality Assurance
→ Use comprehensive quality checklist
7. Multi-Year Funding Strategy Timeline
This progressive timeline shows how to structure multi-year funding requests with decreasing dependency and increasing community ownership. Year 1 focuses on demonstration, Years 2-3 on system strengthening, Years 3-5 on full community ownership and replication support.
graph TB
subgraph Year1["YEAR 1: Foundation & Demonstration"]
Y1A["Objectives:<br/>Implement pilot,<br/>validate approach"]
Y1B["Funding Focus:<br/>Implementation activities,<br/>capacity building"]
Y1C["Community Ownership:<br/>[X]% activities<br/>community-managed"]
Y1D["Expected Outcomes:<br/>Short-term outcomes<br/>from ToC"]
end
subgraph Year2["YEAR 2-3: Scale & System Strengthening"]
Y2A["Objectives:<br/>Expand successful approaches,<br/>strengthen systems"]
Y2B["Funding Focus:<br/>System strengthening,<br/>policy advocacy"]
Y2C["Community Ownership:<br/>[Y]% activities<br/>community-managed"]
Y2D["Expected Outcomes:<br/>Medium-term outcomes<br/>from ToC"]
end
subgraph Year3["YEAR 3-5: Community Ownership & Replication"]
Y3A["Objectives:<br/>Complete ownership transfer,<br/>support replication"]
Y3B["Funding Focus:<br/>Knowledge sharing,<br/>replication support"]
Y3C["Community Ownership:<br/>[Z]% activities<br/>fully community-managed"]
Y3D["Expected Outcomes:<br/>Long-term outcomes<br/>approaching impact"]
end
subgraph Sustainability["SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS"]
S1["Community fundraising<br/>capacity: $[amount]<br/>annual potential"]
S2["Resource sharing<br/>networks: [N]<br/>organizations"]
S3["Policy integration:<br/>[N] institutional<br/>changes"]
S4["Replication:<br/>[N] communities<br/>interested"]
end
Y1A --> Y1B --> Y1C --> Y1D
Y1D --> Y2A
Y2A --> Y2B --> Y2C --> Y2D
Y2D --> Y3A
Y3A --> Y3B --> Y3C --> Y3D
Y3D --> S1
Y3D --> S2
Y3D --> S3
Y3D --> S4
S1 & S2 & S3 & S4 --> Final["Sustainable Impact<br/>Beyond Project Period"]
style Year1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Y1A fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Y1B fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Y1C fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Y1D fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Year2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Y2A fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Y2B fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Y2C fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Y2D fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Year3 fill:#BBF7D0,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Y3A fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Y3B fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Y3C fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Y3D fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Sustainability fill:#A3E4C9,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style S1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style S2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style S3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style S4 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Final fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Progressive Ownership Transfer
→ Learn multi-year planning strategies
8. Funder Adaptation Decision Tree
This decision tree guides adaptation of your core proposal for different funder types while maintaining essential elements. Foundation/private funders emphasize community partnership, government/institutional funders emphasize systematic methodology, corporate funders emphasize efficiency and results. Adapt emphasis, maintain foundation.
graph TB
Start["Complete Proposal<br/>Foundation"]
Decision{"Target Funder<br/>Type?"}
subgraph Foundation["FOUNDATION/PRIVATE FUNDER EMPHASIS"]
F1["Emphasize:<br/>Community partnership<br/>& grassroots authenticity"]
F2["Emphasize:<br/>Innovation & local<br/>solution development"]
F3["Emphasize:<br/>Sustainability through<br/>community ownership"]
F4["Language:<br/>Community-driven,<br/>asset-based, locally-owned"]
end
subgraph Government["GOVERNMENT/INSTITUTIONAL FUNDER EMPHASIS"]
G1["Emphasize:<br/>Evidence-based approach<br/>& systematic methodology"]
G2["Emphasize:<br/>Professional quality<br/>& implementation readiness"]
G3["Emphasize:<br/>Measurable outcomes<br/>& accountability systems"]
G4["Language:<br/>Evidence-based, systematic,<br/>measurable, accountable"]
end
subgraph Corporate["CORPORATE/PRIVATE SECTOR EMPHASIS"]
C1["Emphasize:<br/>Efficiency &<br/>results achievement"]
C2["Emphasize:<br/>Innovation &<br/>problem-solving approach"]
C3["Emphasize:<br/>Partnership leverage<br/>& resource maximization"]
C4["Language:<br/>Efficient, results-driven,<br/>innovative, scalable"]
end
subgraph Core["MAINTAIN CORE ELEMENTS (All Types)"]
M1["✓ Systematic foundation<br/>work evidence"]
M2["✓ Community partnership<br/>documentation"]
M3["✓ Implementation<br/>readiness demonstration"]
M4["✓ Sustainability planning<br/>through local ownership"]
end
Decision -->|Foundation/Private| F1 --> F2 --> F3 --> F4
Decision -->|Government/Institutional| G1 --> G2 --> G3 --> G4
Decision -->|Corporate/Private Sector| C1 --> C2 --> C3 --> C4
F4 --> M1
G4 --> M1
C4 --> M1
M1 --> M2 --> M3 --> M4
M4 --> Final["Adapted Proposal<br/>Maintaining Community<br/>Voice & Priorities"]
style Start fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style Decision fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:3px
style Foundation fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style F1 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style F2 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style F3 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style F4 fill:#D9F99D,stroke:#72B043,color:#2A2A2A
style Government fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style G1 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style G2 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style G3 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style G4 fill:#FED7AA,stroke:#F37324,color:#2A2A2A
style Corporate fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style C1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C2 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C3 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style C4 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F8CC1B,color:#2A2A2A
style Core fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A,stroke-width:2px
style M1 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style M2 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style M3 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style M4 fill:#86EFAC,stroke:#007F4E,color:#2A2A2A
style Final fill:#007F4E,stroke:#00b369,color:#fff,stroke-width:3px
Adapt Emphasis, Maintain Foundation
→ See funder-specific examples
Usage Guidance
These 8 diagrams serve different purposes in proposal development:
Foundation Integration (2)
- Diagram 1: Evidence-Based Proposal Foundation
- Diagram 2: Generic vs Evidence-Based Transformation
Structure & Documentation (3)
- Diagram 3: Complete Proposal Structure
- Diagram 4: Partnership Documentation
- Diagram 5: Cost-Effectiveness Documentation
Quality & Strategy (3)
- Diagram 6: Quality Assessment Checklist
- Diagram 7: Multi-Year Funding Strategy
- Diagram 8: Funder Adaptation Decision Tree
How to Use This Page
- For Learning: Review all 8 diagrams sequentially to understand complete proposal development process
- For Implementation: Use specific diagrams as templates (e.g., Diagram 3 for proposal structure, Diagram 6 for quality assurance)
- For Funder Communication: Use diagrams to explain methodology depth and systematic approach
- For Team Training: Use visual diagrams to communicate proposal development process to staff and partners