Exercises — Chapter 3: Finding the Right Funder

Part C builds your real project's funder list. Selected answers in the appendix.

Part A — Recall and Understand

3.1. Explain why this chapter describes a list of fifty "possible" funders as a trap rather than an asset.

3.2. Name the three outputs of good funder research, in order of value. Why are two of them forms of not applying?

3.3. Match each funding river to its primary research tool(s): federal/government; research; foundations.

3.4. What are the two readings you should give every funding announcement, and what does each extract?

3.5. List the dimensions of the alignment scorecard. Which one is a gate, and which one should be weighted most heavily — and why?

3.6. State the 80/20 rule as it applies to funder research, and explain the two temptations it guards against.

3.7. Define a warm versus a cold funder, and explain why warmth can outweigh an identical alignment score.

Part B — Apply

3.8. Decode an announcement. Take the composite RFP excerpt in Section 3.3 (or a real one you find). Build List A (compliance) and List B (subtext), then write the one-sentence "to win this, my proposal must prove ___."

3.9. Score a fit. A national health foundation funds "innovative approaches to chronic disease," gives \$100K–\$500K grants, has funded only academic medical centers (per its 990), and serves nationally. You are a 6-person community clinic seeking \$40K. Score the alignment dimensions and give a verdict with reasons.

3.10. Spot the shoehorn. Identify the strained fit in each and suggest the honest move: (a) an adult-literacy nonprofit applying to a youth-sports funder because "many of our learners are young parents"; (b) a chemistry lab framing its work as "public health" for a health funder; (c) a theater calling its season "workforce development."

3.11. Believe the 990. A funder's mission statement and its actual grant list disagree about what it funds. Which do you believe, and why? What does this tell you to do before trusting any mission statement?

Part C — Analyze and Create (your real project)

3.12. Prospect. Using the first-pass prospecting routine, find five candidate funders for your project across the relevant rivers. Record each in a tracker with a one-line note.

3.13. Score them. Run each of your five through the alignment scorecard (check eligibility first; pull each foundation's 990 grant list). Mark confident rejections with a reason.

3.14. Choose and justify. Select your primary target funder. In 2–3 sentences, explain why it is the strongest fit, citing specific evidence (priority language, a comparable past grant, size range, geography).

3.15. Build your tracker. Create the funder tracker (one row per funder, with alignment score, ask, deadline + internal deadline, stage, warmth, and next action). Add all five funders and a next action with a date for each live one.

3.16. Plan a cultivation move. For your chosen funder, note whether it is warm or cold, and write one concrete action to warm the relationship before or alongside applying.

Part M — Mixed Review

3.17. (From Ch 2) How does "decoding a priority statement" (Ch 2) get used twice in this chapter — in reading announcements and in scoring alignment?

3.18. (From Ch 1) Restate the six common reasons proposals fail. Which one does excellent funder research most directly prevent?

Reflection

3.19. Learning check-in. When you found funders for Exercise 3.12, did you feel the "collector" pull (add to the apply pile) or the "triager" discipline (interrogate the fit)? Name which, and one way you will practice the triager's instinct.