I couldn’t write this chapter without addressing the scourge of grant writing—jargon. A few years ago, consultant Tony Proscio wrote a much-discussed booklet, In Other Words, about the use of jargon in the foundation world. He took particular exception to terms such as at-risk for its vagueness (at risk of what?); capacity for its overuse, especially when not referring to something measurable; proactive when preparatory or preemptive would be more precise; and many other buzzwords.

Proscio’s booklet points out how using buzzwords reduces clarity. Describing your project in your own words is always best. Some people advise throwing the funder’s jargon back at them in your proposal. I think this just shows a lack of imagination and a superficial understanding at best. The more you can get beyond buzzwords and to the heart of what the funder wants to support, the more successful you’ll be.

If a funder’s guidelines state that their interests lie in “pedagogical initiatives designed to stimulate systemic change” it’s fine for you to write that your project “seeks to develop new teaching methods that will transform the way teachers relate to their students.” The funder will see that you understood their jargon-filled interest statement but have a mind of your own.

Even though you’ll want to avoid funder buzzwords whenever possible, it’s even more important to avoid your charity’s internal jargon. Nonprofits become mired in program names and acronyms along with technical language peculiar to each of them. Don’t use any of this in your proposals. I know you’ll probably be stuck with whatever name your charity calls a program, but after first stating that name, you can thereafter refer to it in simpler terms.

Acronyms can be off-putting to someone trying to understand your organization. Even if your charity uses acronyms, try to stay away from them in your grant proposals. If you need a shorthand term for a long program title, use one or two words from the title rather than the acronym, and the reader will understand what you mean. For example, “Ecology Education for Tomorrow’s Leaders” could easily be referred to as “Ecology Education” and is more understandable than “EETL.” Never sacrifice clarity for insiders’ lingo.

Your teacher-training course might be known within your charity as Training Talented Teachers to Teach Better or T4B (ugh), but you don’t have to use the cute acronym, and you could also refer to it simply as “our teacher training program.”