Don'ts

1.  Don't ignore the format. If you work for a foundation that has a format for preparing the funding document, take care to actually follow the format. Again, this may seem painfully obvious, but when you are immersed in writing a funding document, it is all too easy to stray from the appointed framework, especially if it does not seem congenial to your expressive style. Even if the resulting document is well written, it is sure to raise the hackles of readers who are expecting to read it in a different format. Freelancing on the framework simply borrows trouble; it is far safer to exercise creativity within the prescribed approach. A worthwhile check, when you have completed the funding document, is to give it a final review expressly to ensure that it adheres to the expected format.

For those foundations without a funding document outline to follow, the field is obviously more open, but probably not wide open. Even in such institutions, there are more than likely informal rules, or at least traditions, associated with how funding documents are written. Often the unwritten rules are just as rigorously enforced as the written ones. Rather than assuming that the absence of a formal outline means that anything goes, you would be far safer to read past funding documents to get a feeling for the style and range of acceptable approaches. Once again, you can exercise creativity, but it makes sense to exercise it within the established—or implicit—rules.

2.  Don't condescend to readers. Although you are the expert, and need always to take care to explain technical terms, it is also important to avoid erring in the other direction by talking down to readers. This is often a subtle distinction, and there is no infallible rule that you can apply in all situations. Some foundations make life easier for you by providing guidelines about what must be defined and when. Absent such guidelines, however, there are a few tests that can be helpful. The first is the “tone test.” Ask a friend not connected with the foundation to read the prose and determine if the tone appears about right. Is it too technical? Too glib? Too know-it-all? Avoid constructions like “as is generally known …” or “everyone agrees that …,” which are guaranteed to annoy readers who do not know or who do not agree. Above all, avoid being dismissive of conventional wisdom unless data can be produced to back up the position. Sacred cows are often dearly loved, so if you are going to kill one, the job needs to be done very carefully and very thoroughly.

3.  Don't filibuster. The grand old tradition of holding the floor for hours to block passage of legislation may be considered appropriate in the U.S. Senate, but it is not a good idea to employ that tradition in funding documents. The logic that two pages are twice as persuasive as one, and that four pages are twice as persuasive as two, simply does not apply. Brief is better. Naturally, it is necessary to write enough to make the case, but if you cannot make the case in short order, chances are that you cannot make it simply by piling up the page count.

4.  Don't write like Joe Friday. The laconic star of the classic television series Dragnet, Sergeant Joe Friday, was fond of reminding witnesses that he wanted just the facts—nothing but the facts. Good advice, this, for detectives, but not so good for program officers. Dry-as-dust writing is highly in vogue in some quarters, prized for its safety and security. (No one is ever offended by the lifeless drone of factual information.) It is also true, however, that no one is ever inspired by such tedious prose, and in philanthropy, the spirit still matters. If you can offer no compelling rationale to fund a project beyond presenting a mountain of statistics capped with a snowy crown of densely packed verbiage, you are unlikely to inspire the members of the committee or the board to believe that this is a peak worth scaling.

5.  Don't write like a romance novelist. If “just the facts” makes for an inadequate funding document, so too does its polar opposite, “just the emotion.” You must give readers a reason to care about the proposed project, something that goes beyond the purely cognitive and fires the spirit. If, however, the cognitive is entirely thrown over in favor of sentimental appeals and stirring calls to action, the readers are likely to conclude that their emotions are being manipulated. If, coupled with this, there is a paucity of data and research results to back up the assertions, the funding document will likely get about as much respect from its readers as Harlequin romances get from the New York Times Book Review.

Lest the rules become overwhelming, it is worth repeating that there is no good reason to lapse into formulaic writing on funding documents. You can follow the rules, write for your audience, and still produce a funding document that includes passion and persuasion, one that moves the heart even as it informs the head.