Glossary

The working vocabulary of grant writing, defined plainly. Terms are alphabetized; the chapter where each is treated most fully is noted in parentheses. When a term has a funder-specific meaning (NIH, NSF, federal), that's noted too. This glossary is for quick reference — the concepts behind the terms live in the chapters.

A note on usage. Define jargon for your reader the way this book defines it for you — on first use, plainly. A reviewer who has to decode your vocabulary is a reviewer you're losing (Chapter 2).

A

Allocable cost. A cost that benefits the specific project it's charged to, in proportion to the benefit. One of the three federal cost standards — necessary/reasonable, allocable — every budget line must meet (Chapter 12).

Allowable cost. A cost permitted under the funder's rules (for federal awards, 2 CFR 200). Some costs are never allowable regardless of how reasonable they seem (Chapters 12, 19).

Approach. The section (also called the project narrative or research approach) that lays out how you will do the work — methods, activities, timeline. Usually the longest section and, for many funders, the most heavily weighted; it answers the reviewer's question, "Can you actually do this?" (Chapter 9).

Artist statement. An artist's written articulation of their vision and work. For a funding panel — often non-specialists — it must be reviewable: clear, concrete, jargon-free, so a reader can see what the artist sees (Chapter 30).

Assets-based framing. Describing a community or field in terms of its strengths and capacities alongside the real (often externally imposed) barriers — not reducing people to deficits. Both more ethical and more persuasive than a "savior narrative" (Chapters 25, 31).

Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) / Authorized Official. The person empowered to submit proposals and bind the organization to commitments. Individual investigators almost never submit federal proposals themselves; the AOR does (Chapters 4, 15).

B

Basis of estimate. The shown reasoning behind a budget figure — how you arrived at the number. Every budget line should have one; "show your work" (Chapter 12).

Binary gate. A pass/fail requirement — eligibility, registration, format, deadline — checked before any scoring. Failing one means your proposal is never scored, no matter how strong. No partial credit (Chapters 15, 19).

Biosketch. A funder-formatted summary of a researcher's qualifications (e.g., the NIH biosketch), including a personal statement arguing fit for this project. Curated and project-relevant, not a full CV (Chapters 13, 16).

Boilerplate. Reusable proposal text (organizational descriptions, standard methods) adapted for each proposal — kept in your toolkit in multiple lengths, dated and sourced, and never pasted in unchanged (Chapter 32).

Broader Impacts. One of NSF's two co-equal review criteria: the benefit of the work to society. Must be addressed explicitly and specifically, labeled as such — not an afterthought (Chapters 2, 17).

Budget justification (budget narrative). The narrative defending each budget line as necessary, reasonable, and allocable, with a basis of estimate. The budget says what; the justification says why (Chapter 12).

Budget–narrative match. The principle that every activity in the narrative is funded in the budget, and every budget line is explained — and all totals agree. The single most-watched signal of a coherent proposal (Chapters 5, 11).

C

Capacity (organizational). Targeted evidence that the team and organization can do this project — track record, key personnel, environment, and the administrative ability to manage the grant (Chapter 13).

CDBG (Community Development Block Grant). A major federal program that flows to states and localities, which allocate it (often through resident participation) to benefit low- and moderate-income communities (Chapter 31).

Concept paper / concept note. A short (often one-page) summary of problem, approach, budget, and significance — used to check fit, recruit partners, and seed the aims page; in international and some foundation contexts, a stage-1 document that, if invited, becomes a full proposal (Chapters 4, 21).

Contingency pay. Payment to a grant writer as a percentage of grants won. Considered unethical by the profession (the GPA code) — grant writers are paid for their work, not for outcomes they don't control (Chapter 35).

Cost-sharing / match. A required or offered contribution to project costs from non-funder sources — cash or in-kind. Common in arts, education, and some federal programs (Chapters 11, 29, 30).

Cultivation. Building a relationship with a funder over time — research, first contact, site visit — so you are known before you ask. Central to foundation fundraising (Chapters 2, 18).

D

Desk rejection (return without review). Rejection for a compliance failure — ineligibility, missing components, format violations, lateness — before substantive review. Entirely preventable (Chapters 15, 17).

Development. A nonprofit's fundraising function (individual giving, grants, events, earned revenue). Investing in development capacity is often the highest-leverage move a nonprofit can make (Chapter 28).

Direct vs. indirect (F&A) costs. Direct costs are attributable to a specific project (personnel, supplies, travel); indirect — facilities & administrative — costs are real but diffuse overhead (administration, facilities), recovered at a rate applied to a base (Chapters 11, 12).

Discretionary, formula, and block grants. Discretionary grants are competitive (you write a scored proposal); formula grants are allocated by law (often to states); block grants are broad and state-flexible. Formula and block funds are frequently the source of local pass-through subgrants (Chapter 19).

Dissemination. How the results of funded work spread to those who can use them — publications, knowledge translation, open access, open data. Increasingly required (Chapter 14).

Diversified funding. Drawing on multiple funders and funding types so no single loss is catastrophic — the foundation of both sustainability and stability (Chapters 14, 28, 33).

E

Early-Stage Investigator (ESI). An NIH status for researchers within a defined window after their first independent appointment, often qualifying them for a more forgiving R01 payline (Chapter 16).

Eligibility. Whether you or your organization may apply at all — by type, status, geography, or stage. The first thing to verify about any funder; ineligibility is an absolute bar (Chapter 3).

Evaluation plan. The section proving the project will produce, and measure, results — built on a logic model, with indicators, targets, data sources, and methods (Chapter 10).

Executive summary. The one-page pitch in foundation and government proposals — need, project, organization, outcomes, request — and the most-read component. (In research proposals, the analogous component is the specific aims page or abstract.) (Chapters 5, 7.)

F

Form 990-PF. A private foundation's public tax filing, listing the actual grants it paid — the most reliable evidence of what a foundation truly funds, at what size and in what geography (Chapters 3, 18).

Fiscal sponsorship. An arrangement in which an established 501(c)(3) serves as the legal and financial home for a project or individual (such as an artist), so they can receive grants requiring nonprofit status (Chapters 28, 30).

Funding mechanism (activity code). The specific type of grant a funder offers (e.g., NIH R01, R21, F31, K-series). Chosen to match your stage and evidence, not your ambition (Chapter 16).

Funder pipeline (prospect pipeline). A living record of funding opportunities by stage — researched, preparing, submitted, under review, funded, stewarding — reviewed regularly. A pipeline, not a single proposal, produces reliable funding (Chapters 3, 33).

G–H

Gap (the). The specific missing knowledge, practice, or capacity your project fills — named precisely. The hinge of a specific aims page and a needs section (Chapters 6, 8).

General operating support (unrestricted funding). Funding the recipient may use flexibly (salaries, rent, infrastructure) rather than for a specified project. The most valuable and least common grant money; usually unlocked by trust (Chapters 1, 18, 28).

Grant. An award of financial support to carry out a defined project or purpose, not repaid, given in exchange for delivering on stated goals and reporting — a "mission transaction" in which the funder advances its own mission through your work (Chapter 1).

Grant Professionals Association (GPA). The professional body for grant professionals — community, training, a code of ethics, and the Grant Professional Certified (GPC) credential (Chapter 35).

Hallucination (AI). A confident but false output from a language model — invented citations, statistics, or facts. Because such models predict plausible language rather than truth, every AI-produced fact must be verified (Chapter 24).

Human-in-the-loop. The discipline of having a human verify, judge, and take accountability for every AI output. The safe way to use AI in grant writing (Chapter 24).

I

Indirect costs. See Direct vs. indirect costs. Real costs of doing the work not tied to one project; defended, not apologized for, as genuine infrastructure (Chapter 12).

Intellectual Merit. One of NSF's two co-equal review criteria: the potential to advance knowledge. Paired with Broader Impacts (Chapters 2, 17).

Introduction to resubmission (response to reviewers). The document accompanying a resubmitted application that demonstrates responsiveness to the prior critique — concern by concern, specific and gracious. A demonstration of responsiveness, not a debate to win (Chapters 16, 22).

J–L

Just-in-time. Information (e.g., other support, certifications) a funder requests only after a favorable review, rather than at submission (Chapters 4, 16).

Letter of inquiry (LOI). A short pre-proposal pitch many funders (especially foundations) require; if it succeeds, you are invited to submit a full proposal. Roughly an executive summary in letter form (Chapters 3, 7, 18).

Letter of support vs. letter of commitment. A support letter endorses; a commitment letter binds a partner to a specific contribution. Depended-on contributions need commitment, not just support — and are best drafted by you for the signer (Chapter 13).

Localization (locally led development). The shift of power, money, and leadership to local actors in international development. Decorative "local partner" arrangements are increasingly penalized (Chapter 21).

Logframe (logical framework). The international cousin of the logic model: a results chain (activities → outputs → outcomes → impact) crossed with columns for indicators, means of verification, and assumptions/risks. The accountability spine of an international proposal (Chapter 21).

Logic model. A diagram of how inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impact connect — the connective tissue of a proposal and an X-ray of its coherence (Chapters 5, 10).

M–N

Mission transaction. The framing that a grant is an exchange in which the funder buys progress toward its own mission. The threshold concept of the whole book: you are offering a funder a way to achieve its goals (Chapter 1).

Modular vs. detailed budget. Two NIH budget formats — modular (in $25,000 increments, less itemized, for smaller budgets) vs. detailed (fully itemized). Other funders use their own formats (SF-424A for federal; foundation project budgets) (Chapter 11).

Multiple-PI (MPI). A shared-leadership model in which two or more principal investigators lead a project jointly; one is the contact PI (an administrative-communication role, not a senior one). Requires a scrutinized leadership plan (Chapter 23).

Necessary and reasonable. The standard that a cost is required for the project and is what a prudent person would pay. With allocable, the federal cost test (Chapter 12).

NOFO / FOA / RFP / RFA / NOSI. A funder's published call for proposals (Notice of Funding Opportunity / Funding Opportunity Announcement / Request for Proposals / Request for Applications / Notice of Special Interest). For government funders, it is the binding "law" of the competition — read it twice (Chapters 1, 3, 19).

Non-dilutive funding. Funding (such as an SBIR/STTR grant) that takes no equity in a company — a financing strategy for startups (Chapter 20).

O–P

Outcome vs. output. An output is what you did (people served, workshops held); an outcome is what changed (skills gained, behavior shifted). Funders buy outcomes (Chapter 10).

Pass-through (subrecipient) funding. Federal money that flows through a state or other entity to a local recipient, who inherits the federal rules. A reason to watch state agencies, not only Grants.gov (Chapter 19).

Payline. The funding cutoff on a ranked list of scored applications (e.g., a percentile at NIH). Above the line is funded; below is not — and the line moves (Chapters 1, 16).

Period of performance. The window during which grant funds may be used. The award date starts setup — staffing, approvals, subawards — not the work itself; begin immediately (Chapter 26).

Preliminary data (feasibility evidence). Evidence — a pilot, prior results — that you can do what you propose, placed against the reviewer's specific doubt. In the arts, the work sample plays this role (Chapters 9, 30).

Principal Investigator (PI). The lead person accountable for a grant. Becoming a PI means learning to fund and lead work, not only to do it (Chapters 1, 27).

Program officer. Funder staff who steward a portfolio and advise applicants — your advocate inside the funder. Contact them before writing (Chapters 2, 17, 18).

Progressive project. In this book, the real, submittable proposal you build across the chapters — one component at a time (the project checkpoints).

R

Rebudgeting / prior approval. Moving funds between budget categories (within thresholds) during a grant; significant changes (scope, key personnel, timeline) require the funder's advance permission. Acting without required prior approval is a compliance violation (Chapter 26).

Resubmission (A1). A revised application submitted after a decline (at NIH, the one allowed resubmission, with a required introduction). Most funded competitive grants were rejected at least once; the resubmission is where they are won (Chapters 16, 22).

Review criteria. The dimensions on which a funder scores proposals (e.g., NIH's Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment; NSF's Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts; a government rubric's weighted points). Write explicitly to them (Chapters 16, 17, 19).

Rigor and reproducibility. NIH-required elements addressing the scientific premise, experimental design, and authentication — scored components, not paperwork (Chapter 16).

S

SAM.gov / UEI. The System for Award Management, where organizations register to receive federal funding, and the Unique Entity Identifier it issues. Registration can take weeks — do it early (Chapters 15, 19).

SBIR / STTR. Federal small-business innovation programs (Small Business Innovation Research / Small Business Technology Transfer). Non-dilutive; judged on technical merit and commercial potential. STTR requires a research-institution partner; SBIR is company-led (Chapter 20).

Significance. The section, and the review criterion, establishing that the problem is real, important, and urgent — built on a "so-what chain" (Chapters 8, 16).

SMART objective. A measurable objective — Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound — paired with an indicator, a justified target, a data source, and a method (Chapter 10).

Specific aims page. The one-page NIH centerpiece: hook → gap → goal/objectives → hypothesis and premise → two-to-four aims → payoff. The most important page in the application, and the proposal in miniature (Chapter 6).

Stewardship. Post-award reporting, communication, and delivery that builds the relationship and reduces the funder's risk — the strongest foundation for the next grant (Chapters 18, 26).

Study section (review panel). The group of expert reviewers that scores applications; at NIH, the Center for Scientific Review assigns each application to a study section and an institute, with two to three primary reviewers per application (Chapters 2, 16).

Summary statement. The reviewers' written critiques and scores after review — the most valuable feedback you receive and the raw material for a resubmission (Chapters 16, 22).

Supplement-not-supplant. The rule that certain (often federal education) funds must add to, not replace, existing funding (Chapter 29).

Sustainability. How a project's impact endures after the grant ends — through diversified funding, earned revenue, institutional absorption, community ownership, or systems change. Matched honestly to the project (Chapter 14).

T–Z

Theory of change. The narrative that defends why your activities will produce your intended outcomes — the reasoning beneath the logic model (Chapters 5, 10).

Threshold concept. An idea that, once understood, transforms how you see the whole subject. Each chapter of this book names one (Chapter 1's is the mission transaction).

Triage. The practice (notably at NIH) of scoring but not discussing the lower-ranked portion of applications, to focus the panel's time. A triaged application still receives written critiques (Chapters 1, 16).

Two-page test. The check that a stranger reading only your executive summary can state what you'll do, why, who you are, the results, and the ask — and want to fund it (Chapter 7).

Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200). The federal regulations governing federal awards — allowable costs, procurement, audit, and reporting. The compliance backbone for federal grantees (Chapters 19, 26).

Win rate. The fraction of submitted proposals that are funded (often roughly one in five). Knowing yours lets you size your pipeline so rejection is normal, not catastrophic (Chapters 33, 35).

Work sample. Samples of an artist's past work submitted with an arts proposal — often the most heavily weighted component, functioning as the arts equivalent of preliminary data ("show, don't tell") (Chapter 30).

Build your own. As you specialize, your funders will have their own vocabulary. Add their terms to your toolkit's glossary (Chapter 32), define them for your readers, and keep this list growing. A grant writer who commands the vocabulary of their funders writes with authority.