Appendix A: Templates and Worksheets

These are the ready-to-use templates and worksheets the book refers to — the full forms behind the toolkit of Chapter 32. Copy them, adapt them to your funder and project, and build them into your personal toolkit (Chapter 32). Every template is a starting structure to adapt, never a fill-in-the-blank shortcut — the thinking and the funder-specific judgment still come from you. Bracketed cues like [your specific problem] mark where your content goes.

How to use this appendix. Each template distills a chapter (or several). Use the cross-references to return to the chapter for the full guidance. Adapt every template to your specific funder's format and requirements (Part III) and to your project's reality. Keep your adapted versions in your toolkit, and improve them with every proposal (Chapter 32).

A.1 Funder-Research Worksheet (Chapters 2–3)

Run every prospective funder through this before you write — alignment is the cheapest predictor of funding (Chapter 3).

Identification - Funder name: [ ] - Type: [ federal / foundation / corporate / government / international ] - Specific program / mechanism: [ ] - Contact (program officer): [ name, how to reach ]

Alignment check (rate each 0–3; total and decide) - Mission fit — does my work advance their stated mission? [ 0–3 ] - Program fit — does my project match a specific program/mechanism? [ 0–3 ] - Eligibility — am I/my organization eligible? [ pass / fail ] - Geography — do they fund my location? [ 0–3 ] - Size — does my ask fit their typical grant range (check the 990-PF or award data)? [ 0–3 ] - Stage — do they fund work at my stage? [ 0–3 ] - History — do they actually fund work/organizations like mine (verify via past grants)? [ 0–3 ]

Decode their priorities (Chapter 2) - What is this funder really trying to accomplish? [ ] - What does their language reveal about what they value? [ ] - What will the reviewer/panel/board actually care about? [ ]

The announcement (Chapter 3 — read it twice) - Compliance reading (eligibility, deadlines, format, required components): [ ] - Subtext reading (weighting, priorities, the one thing this proposal must prove): [ ]

Relationship & decision - Relationship status: [ warm / cold ]; next cultivation step: [ ] - Decision: [ pursue / reject (reason) / cultivate first ] - If pursue, the one sentence this proposal must prove: [ ]

A.2 Specific Aims / LOI Template (Chapters 6–7)

The one-page pitch — the most-read part of your proposal.

• Hook (opening): [ the important problem, framed to grab the reviewer ]
• Gap: [ the specific missing knowledge / practice / capacity your project fills ]
• Goal & objectives: [ overall goal; then the specific, measurable objectives ]
• Central hypothesis / premise (research) or approach (programs): [ the testable claim + the preliminary evidence/rationale that makes it credible ]
• The aims / components (2–4): [ each aim, independent of the others, each delivering part of the goal ]
• Payoff: [ what changes if you succeed — make the reviewer feel the cost of not funding ]

A.3 Needs / Significance Template (Chapter 8)

• The problem: [ the specific problem, stated clearly ]
• The so-what chain: [ magnitude → consequence/cost → who's affected → why it matters ] (every link evidenced; pair national + local data)
• The gap: [ what existing efforts leave unaddressed — credit them, then name the specific gap ]
• Asset-based framing (Chapters 25, 31): [ the community's/field's strengths alongside the real, often externally-imposed, barriers — never deficit-only ]
• Necessity: [ why this project is needed now ]

A.4 Approach / Narrative Template (Chapter 9)

• Overview & design: [ the overall approach and why it fits ]
• By aim / activity: [ for each: the specific methods/activities, who/how/when/where ] — with strategic detail (deep on the critical/risky, summary on the routine)
• Preliminary data / feasibility: [ evidence, placed against the reviewer's specific doubt ]
• Pitfalls & alternatives: [ your 2–3 real risks + contingencies — disclosed weakness beats discovered weakness ]
• Timeline & milestones: [ a realistic schedule ]

A.5 Evaluation & Logic Model Template (Chapter 10)

Logic model (the spine; every element connects):

• Outcomes vs. outputs: [ what you did vs. what changed — funders buy outcomes ]
• Indicators & targets: [ for each objective: a measurable indicator, a justified target, a data source, a method ]
• Design: [ process vs. outcome; formative vs. summative; internal vs. external evaluator ]
• (Research) analysis plan: [ endpoints, statistical plan, sample-size/power justification ]

A.6 Budget Worksheet (Chapters 11–12)

Build from real numbers; reconcile budget = justification = narrative (Chapter 12).

Each line: necessary, reasonable, allocable, with a basis of estimate. Include escalation (2–4%/yr) for multi-year. Match the funder's format (NIH modular/detailed; NSF form; foundation project budget; government SF-424A / 2 CFR 200).

A.7 Capacity & Sustainability Worksheet (Chapters 13–14)

• Capacity: [ targeted evidence the team/organization can do THIS project — track record, key personnel, environment, grant-management capacity ]
• Letters: [ support vs. commitment — binding commitment for depended-on contributions ]
• Sustainability: [ how impact endures — diversified funding / earned revenue / institutional absorption / community ownership / systems change ], matched honestly to the project
• Dissemination: [ how the work spreads — active knowledge translation, open access ]

A.8 Backward Timeline Template (Chapter 4)

Work backward from the funder's deadline:

The most preventable failure is starting too late (Chapter 4).

A.9 Pre-Submission Checklist (Chapter 15)

Compliance (binary — any failure can sink it): - ☐ Eligibility confirmed - ☐ All required components present - ☐ Format exactly to spec (fonts, margins, page limits) - ☐ Within page/word limits - ☐ Required forms complete and signed - ☐ Assurances/certifications included - ☐ Registrations active (SAM.gov/UEI/SBIR.gov/agency or funder portal — weeks ahead) - ☐ Deadline and submission method confirmed

Content: - ☐ Every scored criterion explicitly addressed (write to the rubric, Chapter 19) - ☐ Aims/components coherent and all delivered - ☐ Budget = justification = narrative - ☐ Every citation and statistic verified (Chapter 24) - ☐ No leftover draft markers or unfilled bracketed notes - ☐ Funder-specific components present (NIH rigor/inclusion/DMS; NSF Broader Impacts labeled; etc.)

Quality: - ☐ Reads in one voice (Chapter 23) - ☐ Significance and approach unmistakable - ☐ Reviewer can find each criterion's evidence easily - ☐ Concrete and specific, not generic

Process: - ☐ Internal/institutional review and routing done - ☐ Authorized representative ready to submit - ☐ Submitting early (not in the final hour)

A.10 Response-to-Reviewers / Introduction-to-Resubmission Template (Chapter 22)

• Opening (short): Thank the reviewers; state the application is substantially strengthened in response; summarize the main improvements.
• By major concern (the bulk), most important first:
• Concern: [ restate or quote the reviewer's concern fairly ]
• Response: [ what you changed (agree-and-fix) / clarified (and fixed the text) / why you respectfully retained it (defend rarely) ], see [ location in the revised application ]
• Close (short): State you believe the concerns are fully addressed; thank the reviewers again.
• Throughout: Specific, evidence-pointing, collaborative. Agree-and-fix generously; clarify cleanly; defend rarely. A demonstration of responsiveness, not a debate to win.

A.11 Complete-Package Assembly Checklist (Chapter 34)

Components present (per the funder's requirements): ☐ specific aims/executive summary · ☐ needs/significance · ☐ approach/narrative · ☐ evaluation/logic model · ☐ budget · ☐ budget justification · ☐ organizational capacity/key personnel · ☐ sustainability/dissemination · ☐ letters (commitment/support) · ☐ funder-specific components · ☐ required forms · ☐ references

Coherence (Chapter 5): ☐ every component binds to the aims · ☐ budget matches narrative · ☐ evaluation measures the promised outcomes · ☐ capacity supports the approach · ☐ one argument in one voice

Compliance (Chapter 15): ☐ correct order and format · ☐ within limits · ☐ required forms complete · ☐ funder-specific components present · ☐ nothing missing

A.12 Self-Review (Reviewer's-Eye) Worksheet (Chapter 34)

Set the proposal aside a day, then read it as the reviewer, against the funder's actual criteria. For each criterion, score yourself honestly and note the revision:

Ask: Would I fund this — and if not, exactly why? Every place you'd lose points is a place to revise. Then get critical peer/mock-panel review (Chapter 34) and run the three-pass revision (substance → compliance → polish).

A.13 12-Month Funding Pipeline Worksheet (Chapter 33)

For each prospect/proposal:

Review regularly: Is the pipeline continuous (proposals at every stage)? Diversified (multiple funders/types)? Is the volume calibrated to my win rate? Any gaps forming?

A note on these templates. They are scaffolds for your thinking, not substitutes for it (Chapter 32). The content, the specifics, the funder-fit, and the coherence come from you. Adapt each to your specific funder and project, keep your versions in your toolkit, and improve them with every proposal. Return to the cross-referenced chapters for the full guidance behind each template.