How it works

Eight questions most
agreements never ask.

The generator walks you through eight steps. Each one covers a part of a partnership that standard templates leave blank, assumed, or buried in legal language your community never wrote.

01
Context and purpose
Why does this partnership exist — and who says so?
You name the purpose of the relationship in your own words. Not a funder's language, not boilerplate lifted from a grant application. You describe the type of work, the territory, and the shared intention before any legal language enters the room. This becomes the foundation every other clause is anchored to.
What standard MOUs leave out
Most templates skip purpose entirely or copy it from a grant description. When disputes arise later, there's no shared definition of what the work was actually for — and the funder's framing wins by default.
02
Parties and power
Who is in this relationship — and where does power actually sit?
You name both parties, their roles, and — critically — who currently controls the funding, the timelines, the data systems, and the decisions. Naming the power imbalance inside the agreement is the first step toward addressing it structurally, not just aspirationally.
What standard MOUs leave out
Standard agreements describe roles as equal by default. They don't ask who holds the money or who controls the infrastructure. That silence doesn't make power imbalances disappear — it just makes them invisible in the document and unaddressed in the partnership.
03
Community and sovereignty
Whose territory, governance, and protocols guide this work?
You name the community or Nation, describe its governance authority, and record the cultural protocols that must shape how the work is done. You name who holds decision-making and consent authority — not as a courtesy mention, but as a structural commitment written into the agreement itself.
What standard MOUs leave out
Western templates treat community involvement as a participation note, not a governance structure. Cultural protocols are rarely mentioned. When they're absent from the agreement, the work proceeds under institutional rules by default — even when it happens entirely inside community territory.
04
Data and knowledge
What's being collected, who owns it, and what can never be done with it?
You identify the types of data and knowledge involved — quantitative data, stories, land knowledge, sacred knowledge — and describe ownership, access rules, storage conditions, and what uses are permanently off the table. You can apply Indigenous Data Sovereignty standards as a named governing framework.
What standard MOUs leave out
Most agreements treat all data as institutional property by default. Community knowledge and oral histories get folded into "research outputs." There's no mechanism for communities to restrict secondary use, require repatriation, or prohibit applications of the data down the line.
05
Return and reciprocity
What does the community actually get back — and when?
You name the specific forms of return — data products, training, funding, policy change — and when they arrive across the project timeline. You name who inside the community receives the return, and how those commitments get verified. Reciprocity becomes a structural obligation, not a statement of intent.
What standard MOUs leave out
Most agreements describe benefits vaguely: "the community will benefit from findings." No timeline, no named recipient, no verification. When the project ends, the institution publishes and the community has no written record of what was promised or whether it arrived.
06
Renewal and audit
When does this agreement come back to the table — and who can call that meeting?
You set the duration, the renewal rhythm, and the body responsible for review. You name the conditions that trigger an unscheduled review — leadership changes, new data types, harms, or community request. The agreement doesn't expire quietly. It returns on a schedule the community controls.
What standard MOUs leave out
Standard agreements often renew automatically or run indefinitely. There's no built-in review process and no mechanism for communities to call a review when conditions change. An agreement signed under one set of circumstances quietly governs a completely different situation years later.
07
Governance, conflict, and harm
What happens when something goes wrong?
You name the primary decision-making body, the path for raising conflicts, the approach to harm and repair, and the community's unconditional right to pause or end the agreement. You describe how incidents are documented and who holds that record. These aren't emergency provisions — they're governance infrastructure that should have been there from the start.
What standard MOUs leave out
Conflict clauses in standard templates default to institutional processes — legal arbitration, escalation through administration, mediation under state law. The community's right to exit is rarely unconditional. Harm and repair language is almost never included. When something goes wrong, the community has no written leverage.
08
Review and export
Your draft — ready for legal review and negotiation.
The generator compiles your answers into a complete, structured MOU draft. Copy it, download it as a .txt or .doc file, or save it as a PDF. The draft is yours to adapt with your community and legal counsel. Most teams complete their first draft in under an hour.
What this changes
You walk into legal review or partner negotiation with a written record of what your community requires — not a blank template from the institution's library. That changes the negotiating position before anyone has read a word.
Ready to build
your first draft?

Most teams complete their first MOU in under an hour. The structure is yours to adapt, share with legal counsel, and take into any negotiation.

Get started → ← Back to home