Exercises — Chapter 2: Thinking Like a Funder

Part C builds directly on your real project. Selected answers appear in the appendix.

Part A — Recall and Understand

2.1. In your own words, explain the difference between a funder having "spare cash to give away" and a funder having "a mission to advance." Why does the distinction matter?

2.2. Name the three primary "rooms" described in this chapter and, for each, state the single most important thing it implies about how you should write.

2.3. Define reviewer fatigue and list three concrete writing implications that follow from it.

2.4. Put the reviewer's questions in the order they are typically asked: budget, significance, fit, capacity, approach. Which one, answered "no," ends the review immediately?

2.5. What are three things a program officer can tell you that you could not learn from a funder's website?

2.6. Explain the "two fears" that shape a reviewer's score, and how a strong proposal soothes both.

Part B — Apply

2.7. Decode the priority. A funder states it supports "innovative, sustainable approaches to reducing food waste in the restaurant industry." Underline the substantive words and, for each, state (a) what a proposal must demonstrate and (b) one kind of project that would be a poor fit.

2.8. Name the room. For each, identify the most likely review setting and one adjustment you would make: (a) an R01 to study a disease mechanism; (b) a \$25,000 request to a local family foundation; (c) a state human-services grant scored against a published rubric; (d) a request to a tech company's community-giving program.

2.9. Reframe applicant→funder-centered. Rewrite this opening for a youth-mental-health funder: "We have built an app that uses journaling prompts to help teens manage anxiety, and we'd like funding to expand it." Lead with the funder's problem and its significance; put the app at move three.

2.10. Find the buried point. Rewrite this so a skimming reviewer gets the point from the first sentence: "There are many barriers to rural healthcare. Distance is one. Provider shortages are another. Our telehealth program touches on several of these issues."

Part C — Analyze and Create (your real project)

2.11. Decode your funder. Take the kind of funder you expect to approach (or a specific one if you have it) and apply the "Decode the priority statement" template to its mission/priority language. Write what each phrase implies your proposal must show — and flag any phrase you cannot honestly satisfy.

2.12. Your funder-centered opening. Using the four-move template (funder's problem → significance → your project as vehicle → payoff to funder), draft a short opening paragraph for your project. Compare it to the rough version you wrote in Chapter 1 — what changed?

2.13. Plan a program-officer conversation. Identify a real program officer or contact for a likely funder. Draft (a) your one-paragraph project framing and (b) the four or five specific questions you would ask. Then write the first-contact email using the template.

2.14. Skim-test your draft. Take any page you have written for your project (or your funder-centered opening). Read only its first sentences, headings, and bold text. Can a stranger state what you'll do, why it matters to the funder, and why you can do it? If not, revise to lift the key points to the surface.

Part M — Mixed Review (from Chapter 1)

2.15. (From Ch 1) List the six common reasons proposals fail. Which two does "thinking like a funder" most directly prevent, and why?

2.16. (From Ch 1) Restate the "mission transaction" idea, then explain how this chapter's claim — that your audience is the individual reviewer — sharpens it into a writing technique.

Reflection

2.17. Learning check-in. Does the idea of phoning a program officer make you uncomfortable? Write one sentence naming the discomfort, and one sentence reframing it using this chapter's argument that the call serves the funder too.