Quiz — Chapter 3: Finding the Right Funder
Question 1. Why does the chapter call alignment "the cheapest predictor of funding"?
Answer
Because a few hours of research can confirm or disconfirm a genuine fit, saving the weeks it would take to write a full proposal that misalignment would doom. Research is cheap; a wasted proposal is expensive. So research precedes writing, and its most valuable output is sometimes "don't write this."Question 2. Name the right primary tool for each: (a) finding every grant the NIH has funded on your topic; (b) finding federal grant opportunities across all agencies; (c) seeing the actual grants a private foundation made last year.
Answer
(a) NIH RePORTER; (b) Grants.gov; (c) the foundation's Form 990-PF (via Candid, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, or the IRS).Question 3. Why does the chapter tell you to weight a funder's grant history more heavily than its mission statement?
Answer
Because the grant list records decisions actually made under real constraints (revealed preference), while a mission statement is broad and aspirational. When they disagree, the grant list predicts future behavior better. Believe what a funder funds over what it says.Question 4. What are the two readings of a funding announcement, and give one example of what each surfaces?
Answer
The compliance reading surfaces hard requirements (eligibility, deadline, page limits, required sections, review-criteria weights). The subtext reading surfaces intent (recurring emphases like "community-led," "special interest" areas, and how the criteria are weighted — which tells you where to spend effort).Question 5. A rubric weights Approach 40%, Significance 30%, Capacity 15%, Budget 10%, Evaluation 5%. Your draft spends most of its length on capacity and budget. What does the rubric tell you?
Answer
Rebalance toward Approach and Significance, which together are 70% of the score and should dominate length and effort. Capacity and budget are over-weighted in your draft relative to their points. Mirror the rubric's proportions and make each criterion easy to find.Question 6. Define "shoehorning" and explain why it usually backfires with reviewers.
Answer
Shoehorning is straining a peripheral or wishful connection between your project and a funder's priorities into a central claim of fit. It backfires because a shoehorned proposal reads as unfocused — trying to be two things and convincing as neither — and reviewers see through it. The scorecard guards against it by forcing honest, evidenced scoring per dimension.Question 7. Using rough numbers, explain why writing 5 strong-fit proposals can beat writing 20 weak-fit ones.
Answer
Weak-fit proposals have very low success rates (a few percent), so many of them yield little expected funding despite great total effort; strong-fit proposals at 25–35% yield more than one expected win from less total writing. Fit multiplies the return on every hour, so concentrating effort on strong fits raises total funding.Question 8. What is a funder pipeline, and name three of its stages.
Answer
A living record of funding opportunities at every stage, so you always know your next action and never lose a deadline. Stages (any three): prospects, researched/scored, cultivating, in development, submitted/under review, decided.Question 9. Give two signals that should trigger walking away from a funder, and explain the sunk-cost trap.
Answer
Signals (any two): an eligibility "no"; a grant-history mismatch (never funded anything like you); a geography/size mismatch; a fit you'd have to fake; a program officer's honest "not a fit." The sunk-cost trap is applying *because* you already spent hours researching — but those hours are gone regardless; the only question is whether the next 20+ writing hours have a real chance.Question 10. What is the difference between a warm and a cold funder, and how should it affect prioritization?
Answer
A warm funder is one where a relationship already exists (a program officer you've spoken to, a board contact, a prior well-stewarded grant); a cold funder is approached as a stranger. Given equal alignment scores, prioritize the warm funder — your odds are materially better — and treat each cold strong-fit as a cultivation project before applying.Question 11. Why does the chapter recommend pulling a foundation's 990 even after reading its website?
Answer
Because the website states aspirational priorities, while the 990 lists the grants actually made — revealing the funder's true behavior, typical grant sizes, and the kinds of organizations it funds. Comparing the two confirms (or punctures) an apparent fit and prevents you from trusting a topic match the funder's actions contradict.Question 12. True or false: The goal of funder research is to assemble the longest possible list of funders who might give you money. Explain.