Further Reading — Chapter 25: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Grant Writing

The politics, terminology, and formal requirements around DEI shift and are contested, and they vary by funder and jurisdiction. Treat this chapter as durable craft and always verify your specific funder's current requirements — what is required, permitted, or discouraged changes, and the right framing depends on the funder and moment. The durable principles (share power, design for equity, avoid the savior narrative, write honestly) hold beneath the shifting requirements.

Funder Requirements (verify the current version)

NIH inclusion policies (inclusion of women, minorities, and across the lifespan) — grants.nih.gov. The concrete, long-standing inclusion requirements and their scientific-justification framing (Sections 25.1, and Chapter 16). The current version governs.
NSF Broader Impacts and broadening-participation resources — nsf.gov. Equity expressed as who participates in and benefits from science (Sections 25.1, and Chapter 17).
Your target foundations' DEI statements and application questions. Many foundations articulate equity commitments and ask about your approach; read the specific funder's current language (Section 25.1, and Chapter 18).
Government and international equity/inclusion requirements (e.g., gender equality and social inclusion in international funding, Chapter 21). Verify the current, jurisdiction-specific expectations.

On Equity, Power, and Authentic Practice

Literature on equity vs. equality and on health/education/social disparities. The conceptual foundation for designing targeted, barrier-aware, outcome-focused work (Section 25.2).
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) frameworks and guides. The formalized power-sharing approach — community as genuine partner throughout — that operationalizes authentic equity in research (Section 25.4).
Writing on "nothing about us without us" and participatory design. The principle and practice of genuinely involving affected people in decisions about work that concerns them (Section 25.4).
Asset-based community development (ABCD) literature. The asset-based, agency-centered framing that counters the deficit/savior narrative (Section 25.5).

On Positionality, Cultural Humility, and the Savior Narrative

Writing on cultural humility (vs. cultural competence) and positionality. The stance of approaching communities as a respectful learner and honestly acknowledging your own position and power (Section 25.5).
Critiques of the "savior" narrative in philanthropy, development, and social services. Why deficit-and-rescue framing harms communities and undermines credibility — and what respectful, agency-centered framing looks like instead (Section 25.5).
Community and lived-experience leadership resources. Practical guidance on centering and resourcing the leadership of people with lived experience of the problem (Sections 25.4, 25.6).

On Writing and Measuring Equity

Chapter 8 of this book (Needs Assessment). Asset-based framing of need — naming real barriers without stripping the community of agency (Section 25.5).
Chapter 10 of this book (The Evaluation Plan). Equitable, disaggregated outcome measurement — assessing whether the most-barriered groups actually benefited, not just the average (Section 25.2).
Chapters 11–12 of this book (Budget; Budget Justification). Resourcing community compensation so power-sharing is real, not extractive (Section 25.6).
Chapter 24 of this book (Grant Writing with AI). The authenticity-and-accountability discipline — claim only what's true, don't perform what you don't practice — applied to equity (Sections 25.3, 25.6).

Connections Within This Book

Chapter 17 (NSF Grants). Broadening participation as an equity practice; genuine vs. token plans.
Chapter 21 (International Funding). Localization and local leadership as authentic equity across borders — the same power-sharing threshold.
Chapter 16 (NIH Grants). Inclusion as both an equity and a rigor requirement.
Chapter 28 (Grant Writing for Nonprofits). Where RYCC's and Lighthouse's community-centered worlds are developed further.

A note on a contested, shifting topic

Because DEI's politics and requirements change — sometimes sharply, and differently across funders and jurisdictions — treat any specific guidance (including recent policy statements and secondary commentary) as potentially out of date, and verify against the current source for your funder. What endures regardless of the politics: work that genuinely serves and includes the affected population, removes real barriers, and shares power is valuable and defensible, and can be described in whatever vocabulary fits the funder. Build your practice on the durable substance — serve people well, share power, tell the truth — and you'll adapt honestly to however the requirements and language evolve.