C (6:56)

I was a grant writer for years, so yes, I get it.

D (7:00)

Yes. And a lot of those challenges, some of them are like structural and sort of decided by the funders. Others are purely technical. Things like applications don't save. You can't view the full application without going through, without filling out every field on the first page. You can't download it to Word, you can't re upload something you've worked on outside of the system. And so all of these things started building up as like, wow, these are really an issue with the systems that these funders are using. And then when we talk to the funders, they feel like their systems aren't helping them get better visibility into who they're funding, the impact of their dollars, whether or not they're funding equitably or in line with their own values. And so really there was like a data and system functionality problem there. And that's why we decided to build in this space is grants management Systems are a great way to help make funders more effective, but they're also a wonderful way to make life easier for the organizations that are forced to apply through, manage their grants through them. So that's a bit of how we, how we came to be.

C (8:06)

I, I love that. I really remember when I started my business like 16 years ago, I was doing grant writing sort of for hire. And every foundation, community foundations, larger foundations, corporate foundations, had a different system with different technology, with Just different character counts. And like you said, you couldn't download it, you couldn't upload things. You cut. It was like impossible. And it really frustrated me because I thought, you know, are they trying to make it hard to get the money? And I know that's not the case. I think it's just a little bit of like status quo. So I love when software can, can sort of combat that. So can you tell me, first of all, what's the name mean to Melio and you know, sort of how does it address that problem that you saw?

D (8:59)

Yeah, yeah, it's funny, we get the name question all the time. When I first started the company alongside my co founder, Bruce Wick, we wanted to name it Granite Software because, you know, Granite, the foundational rock. It sounds like Grant. It feels very sturdy. And we went to our lawyers who were doing the company information documents and they were like, did you Google that? I was like, no, there's like an insurance company. Yeah, yeah, there's so many of them. And so they were like, come up with something, something else. And so my co founder and I just started Googling foundation in other languages. Grant in other languages. And Temelio roughly translates to foundation in Greek. We liked the double E, we liked the IO. So I wish it was a slightly more interesting story than that, but that is how the name came to be. And then to answer your second question of like how we're addressing some of these challenges, I think I'll start by talking about on the grantee side. So I would say that sort of first and foremost we've addressed what I see as table stakes features to modern software, which is like your information auto saves. You can download the application to a Word document, you can view the entire application without completing fields on a prior page. You have commenting that you can comment back and forth with your team and with the funder so that you have more visibility and constant collaboration. And to me, those feel like things that should just be expected in software today. But I think were important things for us to address. And then I think the two more meaningful things beyond that that we're doing on the funder side or the grantee side is when you, if you download an application and fill it out, we actually have an AI tool that allows you to upload that back into the system and auto fill it to the form in the platform. And similarly, with that same AI tool, you can actually upload an existing proposal that you submitted to a different funder and based on similarity scores that the system gives to the fields that you're being requested, it'll suggest answers that you've already completed to be pulled into this new form. So essentially allowing you to upload information you've provided to a different funder in order to complete this application, I think that's one of the, I would say more differentiated and meaningful features. And then the second thing is really more of a. And maybe this is like too much into the like software nerd of myself. But one of the structural problems with some of the systems, like you were, you were saying every funder is using a different platform, you have a million different logins. What's interesting is that sometimes they're actually using the same platform. But so not to, not to throw any of my competitors under the bus, but like, let's say we use, let's say your organization uses Found it, which is a commonly used grants management system for small funders. If an organization is working with 10 different foundations that use found in, they have 10 different logins because each of those profiles are siloed. And so what we did is we actually centralized the grantee profile. So if I as a nonprofit am working with five funders that use Temelio, I have one login. I can see all the information I've submitted to those five funders, all the reports that are coming up, any outstanding information requests, and I can also then easily auto populate responses I've given to other funders through Tamelio in like for another funder. And so it's a small like architecture difference, but it just allows those grantees to have like a slightly more seamless experience. So that's like the big changes we're making on the, on the grantee side. And then on the funder side, I would say similar to the sort of what's table stakes and software today. It's just sort of, I would say our main differentiator or not main, but one that we hear about a lot is just, it's easy to use. Like, it feels more like a Google or an airtable. You have a universal search, you know, you know, where everything sits across your grantmaking workflows. And then the second thing I think we hear a lot from folks is around data. It's so much easier to understand your data in the platform. So I can see who am I giving to? Are we reaching the sort of mission goals that we've set as, as a funder across who we want to fund, the impact we want to have? I think those, those two things really, really stand out. And then the last, I think the Last thing I'll say on the funder side that is connected to the nonprofit side of our platform or the grantee side of our platform is that so many of the funders we work with genuinely care about the grantee experience. Like, they see their nonprofits as partners. They want to make it as easy as possible for them. So actually, one of the big reasons that funders join us is because they want the experience that their grantees are having with and with their technical system. So I think while it's a differentiator for the nonprofits that are applying through our platform, it's also been a big selling point for the funders we work with.

C (14:09)

I think that's so true. And I do think that unfortunately, it's, you know, unfortunately, maybe we've been trained to see funders as like, our adversary or their gatekeepers. Certainly they could all be funding more foundations could be giving away a lot more money and giving away a lot more unrestricted funds. I will say that. But I don't think. I don't think that we're at, you know, opposite purposes. I think that we should be working in collaboration. And I was just thinking when you were talking about this software, how I used to use an Excel spreadsheet and keep track of the funder, the deadline, last contact I had with them, when is the report coming up? What are documents? I mean, like an Excel spreadsheet? And I just think of the horrors of having to update that spreadsheet pretty frequently and how I just was thinking this, you know, there kind of has to be a better way. But I think what's so important about what you're talking about is even beyond tech, what do you see as, like, the biggest disconnect between foundations and the nonprofits that they fund?

D (15:18)

Yeah, it's such a good question. I think I see this show up in a couple ways. I think one, and this is actually to the point you just made, no matter the technology, a lot of these decisions of, like, being more trust based and seeing your nonprofits as collaborators, it's like a culture decision that these funders have to make. And so I think when I think about our role as a technology company and my role as technologist, I see my job is making sure we can enable that and putting in the right nudges to maybe get people closer to a place where that disconnect is made smaller. So one way we do this, and then I'll answer the question more broadly, is we have what we call the form builder in the platform for a funder which allows them to build the proposal and application forms, reporting forms, et cetera. And at the top of that form, we actually have a time estimate that will get automatically generated, saying this is about how long it will take for an organization to fill out this form. And our goal here is like, if I'm launching like a LOI or a letter of inquiry process for a grant application and I'm funding maybe let's say like small, like $10,000, $5,000 grants, and my form is telling me it's going to take someone two hours to fill out the loi. Our goal is to have those funders, like, rethink that by bringing the information to the front. So I think that's like some of the ways we see them intersecting. I think where the biggest gaps are today, one that we see a lot is in reporting and what funders expect grantees to report back. I see. I think there's one, one of two paths where this disconnect happens. One is, you know, there actually isn't a ton of strategy to what's being collected. It's a lot of open narrative questions that don't really receive the attention from the funders that they should, given the time it takes for organizations to submit these reports. So there's like, there's organizations where they're not leveraging that information to make future decisions. It's just almost like, let's check the box. So it's a waste of time for the grantee and it's, you know, not something that the funder is leveraging. I think that's one report disconnect. The second one is on the full opposite side of the spectrum where a funder is really diligent about how they collect information, what information is being collected, so that they can have very clear impact metrics, which typically means that they are setting the impact metrics that they would expect the organization to submit, which means these nonprofits are, are going out of their way to collect their impact data in a different way than they normally would on a funder by funder basis instead of just reporting the core metrics that they track as an organization. And so I think like, there's a major disconnect in reporting. And then I think the other big disconnect we sometimes see is just in transparency around the grant making process.

C (18:24)

Transparency, right.

D (18:26)

So there's like, if I have an open call and anyone can apply for a grant, it's rare that we see funders be super clear about what are your actual chances of getting funded. And, you know, who are the, like, perfect fits, right, for this grant? Ideally, you know, we can't expect every funder to fund every organization, but it should be made clear, you know, whether or not you're a good fit so that you don't invest tons of time, you know, writing a grant proposal where the chance from the get go was actually only like 3%. And that transparency sort of comes through the entire grant making process, which is, once it's submitted, how do you know where you sit? Like, once it's been two months, does that mean you didn't get the award?

C (19:12)

Worse is when you just don't hear. And then all of a sudden you see the press release about the organizations that were funded. I've had that happen.

D (19:20)

Exactly. And these are, these are all things that, like, I do believe technology can address as long as the funders want to implement it. So I would say we have some funders that do this very well, which is if you're doing a big open call, having a clear eligibility quiz of, like, these are the types of organizations that we're looking for. And with that quiz, it can give you a quick yes or no so that you're being saved time. And then that initial application is really short and just collecting the core information they need to make a decision about whether or not they want to invite to a full application. And then at least in our platform, you can actually expose the status of the application to the applicant or to the grantee. So you can say, oh, process or

C (20:03)

being reviewed or something.

D (20:05)

Exactly, exactly. So, like, you don't maybe need to send out constant communications, but you can at least give them visibility with basic tags of like, this is in review or like, this is now going to the board. And so you save everyone time and you just provide that transparency and visibility that a lot of nonprofits just don't, don't get today.

C (20:24)

Oh, man. Grant making and grant funding has really changed so much. I think this is just so interesting. So people often are very skeptical about technology, automation. I'm sure there's some AI elements in your platform about it replacing the human relationships that are really central to philanthropy. I do remember, you know, calling program officers, having conversations with them. Oftentimes I wouldn't submit a grant until I had talked to a program officer if I could get one on the phone. Obviously, maybe that's not the most efficient use of my time, of their time, of anyone's time. So how, how can we address maybe the skepticism that people might have in a platform that, you know, sort of does everything and then the skepticism that people have about, you know, automation and AI and grant making.

D (21:19)

Yeah, no, it's. It's such a good question. And it's something that we sort of wrestle with every day and that we're constantly talking to the funders that we work with about. And I think I have a very strong point of view, which is like, AI should not be used to replace the human parts of this process. Like, when I think about technology and AI, it's like, how can we remove the parts of people are manual parts that people are spending a lot of time on to actually create more time for those phone calls? Create time for, like, we have some funders that will go and like, volunteer with a lot of their grantee organizations or their volunteer opportunities. Like, how do we, how do we create more space for that? Especially with. We work with lean funders. So most organizations we work with have, you know, fewer than 20 people on their staff. And so some of the ways that we like that, like, or some core examples of this, I would say are things like we're talking about in the nonprofit like, or grantee portal side of our platform where you can upload a proposal you submitted to a different funder and have the system leverage that information to auto fill some of the information that you're being requested for this new funder. Like, to me, being able to save that grantee the couple hours maybe it would have taken to dig for old responses feels like a great way to use technology. On the, on the funder side, I think about this in the way of like, how can we use AI to help funders better understand the data that's in their platform, better categorize it so they can. A proposal can come in and it can automatically be tagged as, this is a climate focused proposal, this is an arts focused proposal. And sort of like remove some of those manual steps. And then I think there's ways that technology can actually augment the relationship. So I. We have a lot of funders we work with that actually like love having phone calls. They'll have an interview as part of their process. And some of these AI tools that like, allow you to, let's say, record a conversation, then can you can actually put that into your grants management system as the report, right as the proposal where maybe we can actually eliminate the steps where folks are inputting information manually because these tools can extract that information from a conversation. So like, that's the lens that I like to look through. And then I think there's two where I become skeptical and I Think like cautious with our development of tools is on the legal side and like legal and data security side and on the bias side of things. So I think starting with the security piece, a core part of a lot of these big AI tools that we're seeing, the like ChatGPTs and the clods, is when you're just using the free version, many times your data is being used, then train their future models. Which means if I'm a funder and I upload a bunch of grantee data into ChatGPT and I ask it to do some analysis and then someone else across the country asks a question about that nonprofit, that's information that they probably could find, which of course puts those nonprofits at risk because they don't know that their data is being exposed. And so to me there's like very clear guardrails which is paid versions of these tools or like when you're working with them from more of like a corporate lens, like we are actually protect your data, they don't send it back to be trained and you have control over how those AI tools are using your data. Which to me feels like the number one thing organizations should be doing when they think about sort of the legal implications and data security as something that is we implement with any AI features in our platform to make sure that our funders and grantees data is protected. And then the second thing is around bias. I personally I don't believe AI should ever be making grant making decisions. Like, I just don't think that's what it should be used for. And one of the many reasons I believe this is one like I think that is a core human touch point in the workflow that just shouldn't be touched with, shouldn't be best with. But the other thing is AI is incredible, can be very biased in that it's trained on the Internet. And the Internet is, you know, representation. It's vast, it's a representation of our world, which we know holds many untrue biases. And so if you were to ask ChatGPT should I fund this grant? The information that they're leveraging to say what is a good grant is likely quite biased. And so that's where I think organizations need to be really careful of like when they're implementing AI tools or deciding where to prioritize like a technology investment, there should always be that checklist of who's being forgotten from this data. Is there a risk to a biased outcome? I think something that's a really interesting example that actually one of our funders does. And I would say they're probably one of our more like innovative funders from a technology perspective is they receive applications, their team reviews them and answers a set of sort of like, scoring criteria and qualitative questions in their review. They then have actually trained a version of Claude, which is Anthropic's sort of AI chatbot, on their core values as an organization and what they want to see. And they actually essentially customized a version of CLAUDE to be their bias check. So they take. It's fascinating, they take the reviews from their staff, the application, they throw it into this bot that they've created, and it says it exposes if it believes there's any potential bias from their staff, and additional questions that they should consider asking the grantee in order to get better information that relates to the organization's values. And so I thought that was like a fascinating example of how these tools, when used thoughtfully, can actually be used to combat bias, because we as people hold bias the same way that the Internet does. And so I think it's like, I think AI is very much. There's a cautionary tale with bias, but there's also ways that when like, used strategically, can be a really cool way to. To combat the bias that we have that we have every day.

C (27:37)

That's a brand new. That's something brand new that I have not heard of. I love that idea so much. I think that's. I think it's a fantastic idea. Oh, I'm just like, my brain, my wheels are spinning. So how can. Let's talk about equitable access to funding and how technology can kind of improve. It can fund. Like, how can funders use data to sort of identify gaps in who's receiving funding and address it?

D (28:03)

Yeah, I think, I love this question. And we have a couple examples of folks I think, that do this very well. To me, it's also two parts. There's the like sort of cultural desire for change and to identify those gaps that has to exist within the funder's organization. And then there's like, the tools that exist that enable them to see that. So we talked a little bit about how data structure is one of the things I think we do really well for funders and the ability to pull in different data fields from across the system. And to give a really clear example of this, we work with this wonderful family foundation in Anchorage, Alaska. And one of their. One of their core goals is to fund nonprofits of different sizes. Like, they. They want to make sure that they are funding brand new nonprofits. Established nonprofits, like, sort of like diversity of size really matters to them. And so what they've done is they've actually pulled in budget size as a core field that gets displayed in their docket when they're making decisions. So they can easily see across, you know, the 40 grants they're bringing to their board each quarter. Are we skewing too much large organizations or are we skewing too many small? And if we don't have enough small organizations, then they can jump back to their, all of their applicants and they can see, is it because we didn't get enough? Is it because, you know, we actually are holding a bias against these organizations because they don't have maybe the grant writing resources that these larger ones do. And so just by bringing that data to the front, they're able to kind of check themselves live before they bring those decisions to the board. And I think this can totally be applied for really any, any core tenant that a funder is like, looking to serve. Like, we see organizations do this in terms of like, who makes up the leadership of a nonprofit. We see organizations do this in terms of what's the population being served from this grant. I think what's cool about this is as much as I would like to say being able to do that is completely unique to us. I actually think it's, it should be a pretty easy thing for funders to do with the data that's already in their systems. It's just a matter of like setting it up and deciding as an organization like we care about this. It's not enough to just say we care about it. We actually need our data and our outcomes to represent that. And to me that's just about like pulling the right reports and having the right processes to check yourself as a, as a funder to make sure you're actually holding yourself accountable to, to, you know, what you said you're going to prioritize.

C (30:40)

Wow. I think that's so, so, so important. And I do think there's so much data available now. And once we are being very intentional about collecting this data, putting it all in the same place, and then not just sort of performatively having it so that we can say we have it, but really analyzing it and using it to institute better grant making processes and reach, you know, other organizations that we might not have thought of. I, that's so interesting. So foundations. So I think that's a trend that I wasn't aware of, like foundations being more proactive and less reactive in their grant making. Are you Seeing that?

D (31:22)

Yeah, I mean, I would love to say we're seeing it across the board. I think I definitely am, like highlighting organizations we work with that are particularly good at this. I think we see a wide range of behavior with funders. Some of them are very proactive, some of them are more reactive. Some of them, especially really small foundations, are like, we have the 50 organizations we fund every year and that's what we do. And maybe we add one more each year. And so I think you really get the full range, which is where like, when I think about like my pie in the sky vision, which really relies on like having enough volume of funders and enough volume of grantees. But ideally we can get to a place where technology can actually just say, hey, here are all of the open grant opportunities across all funders across all platforms, and Here are the 50 that we know based on the data you would be a good fit for. And like we have that information, it's just a matter of how do we centralize it and standardize it so that pie in the sky sort of vision can be possible. It's something we'd spend a lot of time thinking about. I think the industry is making some baby steps towards this. So actually something you just said made me think of this, which is, you know, nonprofits have their data publicly available in so many different locations. I think the one that we work with most closely is Candid guidestar. We love them. They are fantastic partners to us. And we already actually leveraged Candid data to auto fill questions for nonprofits in our platform. So when they're coming in and filling out like basic profile information and like their 990s and things like that, that actually through their ein gets automatically pulled in and then they can come in and just make tweaks if there's updates to us. That felt like a very no brainer. It's an easy sync. Candid's team is fantastic and partnered with us to get this up and running. But something that we're actually considering, which would would have to be a decision ultimately made by the funders and the grantees in the platform. But we're setting it up from a technical perspective is actually being able to send data back to Candid. So how can we use what's in our system, keep those profiles even more up to date without the nonprofits having

C (33:46)

to manually go in and do it?

D (33:49)

And, and that, and that's something that can be true for all grants management systems. Like most of the time the grants management platform actually has the latest and greatest because it's the most urgently needed information that the nonprofit has to submit. And so how can we connect all these systems so that, you know, 90% of any given proposal is auto filled and then you're really just filling out the 10% that's different. And I think, like, we're slow, we're making baby steps. Like we're not close to there yet. But like, hopefully if we can get some of these, like bidirectional information syncs up and running, we can start to get, get closer to that.

C (34:26)

I love that. All right, well, people are going to want to know how to connect with you, how to find out more about tamilio. So where can we find you online? Where can we learn more about working with you?

D (34:38)

Yes, absolutely. Well, our website is a great place to start. It is. Tryteamelio.com T-R-Y-T e m e l I o.com you're also welcome to follow us on LinkedIn. We post a lot about product updates. We do spotlights of grantees. Our funders work with funders on our platform. And then, you know, if you're interested in, in diving a bit deeper into our product, you can reach out to us@contactritemelio.com and we're more than happy to, like, you know, give demos of our platform or even if you just want to chat about some of this stuff, like, having conversations with funders and grantees is the best part of my job. So we're happy to do that too.

C (35:21)

Thank you so much for being here. I'm feeling so much more hopeful about the future of grant making. Just hearing all of the fantastic things going on and the trends and some, you know, new things that I didn't know about because I haven't written a grant in a very long time. But thank you so much for being here, Maya.

D (35:40)

Yeah, thank you so much for having me. This was a super energizing conversation.

B (35:50)

Well, hey there. I wanted to say thank you for tuning into my show and for listening all the way to the end. If you really enjoyed today's conversation, make sure to subscribe to the show in your favorite podcast app and you'll get new episodes downloaded as soon as they come out. I would love if you left me a rating or a review because this tells other people that my podcast is worth listening to. And then me and my guests can reach even more earbuds and create even more impact. So that's pretty much it. I'll be back soon with a brand new episode, but until then, you can find me on Instagram. Juliacampbell77 Keep changing the world you non profit unicorn.