Exercises — Chapter 5: The Anatomy of a Proposal

Part C maps your real proposal. Selected answers in the appendix.

Part A — Recall and Understand

5.1. State the threshold concept of this chapter in one sentence. What is the "so what?" test?

5.2. Name six standard proposal components and the reviewer question each answers.

5.3. Explain what it means to say "the aims drive everything." Give two components that the aims constrain and how.

5.4. Write out the logic-model chain and say which proposal component each link maps to.

5.5. Distinguish a logic model from a theory of change.

5.6. Why must you present components in the funder's order and labels even though the underlying anatomy is universal?

Part B — Apply

5.7. Map the labels. For each funder term, name the universal component and the reviewer question it answers: (a) NSF "Intellectual Merit"; (b) foundation "Statement of Need"; (c) NIH "Approach"; (d) federal "GPRA performance measures"; (e) foundation "Organizational Background."

5.8. Find the incoherence. A proposal's aims promise to "increase healthy-food access in food deserts." Its evaluation measures only "participant satisfaction," and its budget includes a large line for a cooking-skills curriculum. Identify two coherence breaks and how to fix them.

5.9. Apply the "so what?" test. For each, decide whether it earns its place in a significance section and rewrite the weak ones: (a) "Obesity is a major public health concern." (b) "In our county, 38% of adults are obese — nearly double the state rate — and no existing program addresses the rural population this project targets." (c) "Many studies have examined this topic over the years."

5.10. Build a mini logic model. For a hypothetical job-training program, fill in inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impact.

Part C — Analyze and Create (your real project)

5.11. Map your proposal. From your chosen funder's instructions, list every required component in the funder's order/labels, and beside each write the universal component and the reviewer question it answers.

5.12. Sketch your logic model. Draw the inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impact chain for your project. Note any link that feels weak — that weakness is a gap to address before drafting.

5.13. One-sentence argument. Write your proposal's single argument in one sentence: "Fund this because [problem matters] and [our approach solves it] and [we can deliver it]." If it wants to be two arguments, note where your project may be unfocused.

5.14. List your attachments. Identify every funder-specific component and attachment your funder requires (e.g., IRS letter, audited financials, data-management plan, biosketches) and who/where you'll get each, with a date.

Part M — Mixed Review

5.15. (From Ch 2) How do the components map onto the reviewer's question sequence? Which component answers the first, most decisive question?

5.16. (From Ch 4) Why does sketching a logic model early connect to Chapter 4's "clarify your thinking before sinking time into prose"?

5.17. (From Ch 3) How does mapping the funder's components rely on the "read the announcement twice" skill?

Reflection

5.18. Learning check-in. Apply the "so what?" test to a paragraph of your own writing (from any context). Did you find something you were proud of that answers no reader's question? What did it feel like to consider cutting it?