Do's

1.  Do share context. As soon as possible within the approved format, it is important to include context that will help explain the requested project. What are the important societal issues that this project will address, and what is their history? Why is the recommended grantee the right organization to take on this project? What is the grantee's history? Without this context, the recommendation will exist in a vacuum, unconnected to important traditions or social needs. You must meticulously research and document this context.

2.  Do define the opportunity. Once you have established a context, the next need is to define why this recommendation presents the foundation with an opportunity. What change will it bring about? What will be lost to society if the project is not funded? Why support it now? Why support it in the fashion requested? If a funding document fails to define exactly why the project it describes is too good to pass up, readers can infer only two possible explanations: (1) that the funding document simply is poorly written, or (2) that the funding document is accurately written, and the project is not too good to pass up. Neither inference bodes well for the fate of the proposal.

3.  Do anticipate and answer questions. Members of the committee or board are bound to have questions. The funding document should, to the extent possible, anticipate and answer those questions. This is not to say that you must moonlight as a “famous psychic” for the National Enquirer; it is to say that some questions will be obvious, and the funding document should answer them. For example, if the recommended grantee organization is new, you might anticipate questions about its programmatic capacity. If the grant request is large relative to the grantee's current budget, you might anticipate questions about the organization's fiscal soundness or its ability to administer the grant. Ignoring such issues in the hope that no one will notice them rarely works. It is far better to meet the issues head-on and provide answers before the questions are raised.

4.  Do make careful use of abbrevs. It is always good to keep the funding document as brief as possible while still conveying the essential information. One very helpful way of doing this is to employ abbreviations and acronyms, especially in place of lengthy names. There are, however, several cautions to remember when employing these handy tools of the writer's trade. The first is to always spell out an organization's full name when it is initially mentioned, followed in parenthesis by the abbreviation; for example, the Salvation Army (SA). Doing this eliminates any ambiguity as to what the abbreviation refers to or actually means. The second caution is to use abbreviations sparingly, ideally for no more than three separate organizations in a single funding document. If you use more, the funding document will soon be swimming in a confusing alphabet soup. Third, reserve the abbreviations for those organizations that are mentioned repeatedly in the document. It makes little sense to go to the trouble of abbreviating an organization that will never again be mentioned in the document, and doing so could lead readers to wonder why it was never mentioned again.

5.  Do define terms the first time they are mentioned. In the course of reading proposals, writing Q&Cs, and conducting site visits, you become the expert on a given proposal. After you have worked on the project for months, it becomes all too easy to assume that “everyone knows” about the terms describing the ideas in the proposal. Because members of the internal committee or board will have less familiarity with these terms than you do, and because they may well be lay people, it is very important to define terms that are not used in everyday discourse. These definitions should be concise: one line, if possible. The only thing that is deadlier than an undefined term is a definition sprawling over a paragraph or more of text. There is also an iron rule of definitions, and that is to define the term the first time it is used in the document. Program officers are sometimes tempted, for reasons of narrative flow, to postpone the definition to the second or third time that the term is used. Resist this temptation at all costs. Readers are puzzled when first encountering an undefined term, then usually become annoyed when it is defined subsequently. Defining it the first time prevents puzzlement and annoyance.

6.  Do use data judiciously. Despite Benjamin Disraeli's assertion that there are three types of lies: “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” data have their place in every funding document. It is hard to conceive of making a truly defensible case without using statistical and anecdotal data to support the positions taken. Data, however, make a better relish than an entree; nothing is less palatable than endless strings of numbers. Facts and figures should be used to prove points and should not be allowed to become the points themselves. Data presented should be as complete as possible and be drawn from sources known for their soundness and fairness. The importance of consistency and accuracy can hardly be overstressed: figures that vary or contradict each other, or percentages the sum of which is more than 100, will invariably be spotted and questioned by readers. Finally, take care to avoid citing “tie your own noose” statistics. For example, if 20 percent of the young people receiving an intervention in a pilot program experienced a successful outcome, and you proudly cite that fact in the funding document, it also means that 80 percent did not experience success, and that fact is sure to be raised by members of the committee or board. Statistics should be brief, to the point, and highly supportive of the argument you are making.

7.  Do end with a bang, not a whimper. The narrative portion of the funding document is your opportunity to make the case for funding the project. The narrative should begin by explaining context and opportunity, and it needs to end in that way, too. The last paragraph should not merely repeat the earlier narrative, but it should find a shorter and punchier way to reinforce the points you have made. Often a carefully chosen quote from an authority will serve the purpose nicely. In any case, the worst thing you can do is end a funding document with a housekeeping item or a run-on sentence dripping with jargon. The final words should inspire, not tire, your readers.