Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers

The bookAbout the Grant Writers companion

The second book in the Ten Habits series.

You do not need charisma to get your mission funded. You need habits. This companion section collects the practical tools from the book: templates, checklists, and worksheets for founders, advocacy groups, researchers, and anyone who believes fundraising is meant for other people.

Get the book on LeanPub

These tools are intentionally simple. The goal is to promote clarity, preparation, and courtesy, the same things the habits promote, in forms you can open, adapt, and start using today. Every tool is plain markdown: copy it, download it, or paste it into your own documents.

Fill in onlineInteractive toolkit

Every tool below also works right in your browser: fill it in, then download, copy, or print your work. Nothing you type leaves your device.

Goal Worksheet  ·  Activities Matrix  ·  Fit & Diplomacy Check  ·  First Read Checklist  ·  Team Table of Contents  ·  Project Timeline  ·  Letter of Support  ·  Letter of Intent  ·  Capacity One Pager  ·  Other Support Tracker  ·  Website & Social Hygiene  ·  Community Survey Builder  ·  Study the Prepared  ·  Diplomacy Rewriter

Grant toolkitTool 1: Letter of Support Template and Request Email

Supports Habit 8 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

The request email

Subject: Letter of support request for [FUNDER] application, due [YOUR DEADLINE]

Dear [NAME],

[ORGANIZATION] is applying to [FUNDER] for [ONE SENTENCE: what the project is and what it will accomplish]. The full announcement is here: [LINK].

We are asking for your letter of support because [ONE SENTENCE: their specific connection to the work]. In the project, [THEIR ORGANIZATION] would [SPECIFIC ROLE, or "no active role is required; your letter would speak to the need for this work in our shared community"].

To make this easy, I have attached a draft letter with placeholders you are welcome to use, edit, or replace entirely. Our specific aims are attached so you can see exactly what you would be supporting.

We would need the signed letter on your letterhead by [DATE, several days before your real deadline]. I am happy to answer any questions by phone or email.

With thanks, [NAME]

The letter template

[LETTERHEAD] [DATE]

Dear [FUNDER / REVIEW COMMITTEE]:

I am writing on behalf of [SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION] to express our strong support for [APPLICANT ORGANIZATION]'s proposal, [PROJECT TITLE].

[SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION] is [ONE OR TWO SENTENCES: who they are and their standing in the community or field]. We have [RELATIONSHIP: worked with the applicant since YEAR / served the same community / collaborated on X].

This project addresses a need we see directly: [ONE OR TWO SENTENCES, ideally with a fact or number from their vantage point].

In support of this project, our organization will [SPECIFIC COMMITMENT: refer participants, share data, provide meeting space, serve on the advisory board, promote enrollment to our members].

[APPLICANT ORGANIZATION] has the [capacity / community trust / track record] to deliver this work, and we are pleased to support this application.

Sincerely, [NAME, TITLE, ORGANIZATION]

Reminder from Habit 8: never send this request before your aims exist. The letter can only be specific if the request is.

Grant toolkitTool 2: Funding Announcement First Read Checklist

Supports Habit 5 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Read the entire announcement first. Then complete this checklist with page numbers.

Eligibility

• Who may apply (organization type, geography, size): page ___
• Who may lead (PI or leadership requirements, required expertise, required publications): page ___
• Anything that disqualifies us as written: ___

Responsiveness (rejected before review)

• Required topics, aims, populations, or approaches: page ___
• Required documents and attachments: page ___
• Formatting rules (page limits, fonts, margins, file types): page ___
• The exact sentence describing rejection before review, copied here: ___

Review rubric

• Scoring criteria and point values: page ___
• Reviewer questions, copied into our outline: ___

Money and restrictions

• Award amount and budget caps: page ___
• Match or cost sharing requirements: page ___
• Subaward, contractor, or vendor limits (percentage caps): page ___
• Allowed and disallowed costs: page ___

Clocks

• Letter of intent due (and is it required or gatekeeping?): ___
• Applicant call or webinar date (attend regardless): ___
• Registration lead times (portal accounts, SAM.gov, agency IDs): ___
• Internal deadlines (our grants office, partners' grants offices): ___
• Final deadline, and our own deadline set before it: ___

People

• Program officer or contact listed: ___
• Our question for them, if any: ___

The verdict (Habits 1 and 2)

• Which of our programs does this fund? ___
• Is the type of work funded the type of work we do? ___
• Apply / decline, and why, in one sentence: ___

Grant toolkitTool 3: Team Table of Contents Template

Supports Habit 8 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Send this with the announcement link in every project email.

[FUNDER] [PROGRAM NAME], deadline [DATE] Full announcement (always work from this, not from memory): [LINK]

If you are working on...	Read...	Starts on page
The budget	Budget instructions and allowable costs	___
The program narrative	Program description requirements and review criteria	___
Our capacity section	Organizational capability instructions	___
Biosketches	Format requirements	___
Letters of support	What letters must contain	___
Formatting and assembly	Page limits, fonts, file naming, submission order	___

Key dates for our team: [INTERNAL DEADLINES] Where drafts live: [SHARED FOLDER LINK] Questions: [YOUR NAME AND CONTACT]

Grant toolkitTool 4: Organizational Capacity One Pager Template

Supports Habit 6 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Maintain continuously; refresh quarterly. This becomes your capacity section, your website impact page, and your elevator answers.

[ORGANIZATION NAME] by the numbers, as of [DATE]

• Founded: ___ (years operating: ___)
• People served last year: ___ (and over our history: ___)
• Programs currently operating: ___ (list them, one line each, with last year's numbers)
• Staff: ___ | Volunteers: ___ | Board members: ___ (listed publicly at [LINK])
• Advisory groups (medical, scientific, community): ___
• Members / community size: ___ (US: ___ | International: ___)
• Newsletter subscribers: ___ | Survey responses last year: ___ | Largest event attendance: ___
• Current funding: ___ active grants totaling ___ (see Other Support Tracker)
• Filings current through: ___ (Form 990 on file and public)
• Three accomplishments from the last twelve months, one sentence each with a number:

Grant toolkitTool 5: Activities Matrix Template

Supports Habits 1 and 7 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

List every program bucket from the Habit 1 exercise down the left. Fill across. Blank cells show you what to define before proposing.

Program / bucket	Core activities	Audiences served	Skills and staff required	How we measure it	Timescale	Potential funder types
(e.g., Workforce development)	Job coaching, interview prep, training referrals	Shelter residents	Case manager, employer partners	Placements, retention at 6 months	Per participant: 12 to 18 months	Workforce, family stability, community foundations

Grant toolkitTool 6: Goal Worksheet, the Three Questions

Supports Habit 7 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Take one dream through the sheet. Repeat per goal.

1. The dream, as you would say it out loud: ___
2. How many? (people, events, placements, enrollments): ___
3. What counts? (the definition of success, tight enough that a stranger could verify it): ___
4. By when? (and, if durability is the point, sustained for how long?): ___
5. The finished goal, one sentence combining 2 through 4: ___
6. Container check: can this be demonstrated, not just begun, within the grant period, after realistic startup time? ___
7. Evidence check (Habit 3): where does the "how many" number come from? ___
8. Sustainability sentence: what remains after the funding ends? ___

Worked example: "I want to help residents find work" becomes "Train five clients, with all five in permanent full time employment within one year of starting the program, sustained for at least six additional months."

SMART reference panel

The three questions above are the working method; SMART is the name funders and reviewers use for the result. If an announcement asks for SMART goals, check your finished goal against the five letters:

• Specific: it names exactly what will happen, not a direction. "Reduce plastic waste in the local river by 20 percent within one year," not "improve the local environment."
• Measurable: it contains the number (question 2) and the definition a stranger could verify (question 3).
• Achievable: the number traces to evidence about your real capacity and community (Habit 3), not to hope.
• Relevant: it advances your mission (Habit 1) and matches what the announcement funds (Habits 2 and 5).
• Time-bound: it carries the deadline (question 4), and the deadline fits inside the grant period (Habit 7's container rule).

Goals versus objectives

Many announcements ask for both, and they are different altitudes of the same plan. A goal is the change you seek; objectives are the measurable steps that produce it. Funders read objectives as the promises they will hold you to, so each objective should pass the three questions on its own.

Example pair:

• Goal: decrease childhood obesity rates in the community by 15 percent over five years through nutrition education and physical activity programs.
• Supporting objective: deliver a 12 week nutrition education program to 200 elementary school children in year one, with a 5 percent increase in knowledge of healthy eating habits measured by pre and post program surveys.

Notice the pattern: the goal may need the full five years, but each objective is demonstrable within a reporting period, which is what keeps your annual reports to the funder full of kept promises.

Grant toolkitTool 7: Annual Community Survey Starter Question Bank

Supports Habits 3 and 4 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Keep a consistent core so results compare year over year; add topical questions as needed. Adapt language to your community.

Who you are (consistent every year)

1. What is your relationship to [CONDITION / COMMUNITY]? (person with lived experience / parent or caregiver / family member / professional / other)
2. Where do you live? (US state or country)
3. How long have you been part of our community?

What you need (the two questions of Habit 4, asked directly)

1. What are the three biggest challenges facing you or your family right now?
2. Which of the following possible programs would you actually use? (list candidates, include "none of these")
3. What do you wish existed that no organization currently provides?

What exists (gap evidence)

1. Have you been offered [KEY SERVICE, e.g., genetic testing / care coordination / financial counseling]? (yes / no / not sure)
2. If yes, through whom? If no, what got in the way?

Engagement (your enrollment arithmetic, Habit 3)

1. Which of our programs or events did you participate in this year?
2. Would you consider joining [a registry / a study / a volunteer role]? (definitely / maybe / no)

Open door

1. What should we know that we did not ask?

Report the response count publicly every year; it becomes a capacity number.

Grant toolkitTool 8: Grant Project Management Timeline

Supports Habit 8 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Standard version (60 to 90 day window)

When	What
Day 1	Read the announcement cover to cover with notes. Complete the First Read Checklist. Decide: apply or decline.
Days 1 to 3	Build this plan. Set up the shared folder, announcement link, and Team Table of Contents. Start every dependency on other people: letter of support requests (with drafts and aims), subaward budget requests, partner grants office timelines, portal registrations. Ask your own grants office for their internal deadline.
Week 1	Outline the narrative against the review rubric. Assign sections. Confirm all registrations are progressing.
Weeks 2 to 4	Draft narrative and budget in parallel. Collect biosketches (Habit 6 folder). Check in on every external dependency weekly.
Two to three weeks out	Full internal draft. Compliance check against the checklist (AI-assisted is fine; your reading is the source of truth).
Ten days out	All letters and subaward documents in hand (their deadline, not yours). Internal review complete.
One week out	Final assembly. Portal upload test.
Three or more days out	Submit. Never on the final day.

Compressed version (30 day window)

Same order, no slack: Day 1 is reading, the plan, and every external request, all before sunset. Weekly check-ins become twice weekly. The internal draft lands at day 18 to 20, letters at day 23, submission at day 27.

Grant toolkitTool 9: Other Support and Person Years Tracker

Supports Habit 6 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

One row per active or pending award. Update whenever anything changes; ten minutes a quarter.

Grant / funder	Role	Period	Total amount	Status (active / pending)	Team member	Effort (% and person months)
(example) CDC risk factor grant	PI	2025-2028	$750,000	Active	J. Rivera	30% / 3.6 PM

Quarterly check: sum each person's effort across all active awards. No one may exceed 100 percent, and federal applications will ask you to prove it.

Grant toolkitTool 10: The Diplomacy Table

Supports Habit 9 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Post this where proposals get written.

Bringing the funder into your drama	Letting the facts speak
Names the other organization	Never names them (name recognition is free marketing for them)
Assigns motives ("they pursued industry partnerships instead")	States a documented gap ("our 2025 survey found only 20 percent of members have been offered genetic testing")
Asks the funder to pick a side	Leaves the funder free to fund you, or both, or a coalition
Proves you have a conflict	Proves the community has a need
"Competitor Organization has failed to deliver on its promises to our community."	"Despite multiple efforts in this field, this gap in access persists. Our program addresses it."

Before submitting, search your draft for every organization name that is not yours or the funder's, and justify each one or delete it.

Grant toolkitTool 11: Website and Social Media Hygiene Checklist

Supports Habit 6 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Do this quarterly, as a stranger with a checkbook.

• Most recent website update is less than three months old, or the site is deliberately minimal and says where our active life happens
• No stale content (old events pages, news frozen years ago): updated or deleted, not abandoned
• Board members listed and current
• Medical, scientific, or professional advisors listed, if applicable
• Contact information works (send yourself the contact form)
• Mission and programs described match what our applications say
• Impact numbers present and current (from the Capacity One Pager)
• Links to our active social media are prominent, and those accounts are actually active
• Newsletter signup works; most recent issue is recent
• Nothing on our accounts, or prominently attached to our leaders, that we would wince to see a program officer read
• Searched ourselves on ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer and the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search: filings current, information consistent

Grant toolkitTool 12: The "Study the Prepared" Exercise

Supports Habits 6 and 10 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Choose three or four organizations you admire, at least one outside your field. For each, spend twenty minutes as a stranger:

1. Read the website. Can you find their capacity numbers in under five minutes?
2. Look them up (ProPublica, IRS, GuideStar profile on Candid). Filings current? Consistent with the website?
3. Join the mailing list. Over the next quarter, notice what they send and how often.
4. Note one thing that convinced you, one thing that worried you, and one thing you are stealing for your own organization.

Then turn the lens around: run Tool 11 on yourself and compare.

A running list of example organizations, funder resources, and sites worth studying is maintained on this site: see Examples.

Grant toolkitTool 13: Where to Find Your Numbers

Supports Habit 3 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

A starter directory of reliable, citable sources, organized by what you are hunting for. The living, linked version is maintained on the companion site. Whatever the source, apply Habit 3's resolution rule: get the numbers at the geographic level your proposal covers, and keep the citation with the number.

Your community and service area (demographics, income, housing)

• United States Census Bureau (census.gov): the foundation for community needs assessments, at national, state, county, and finer levels.
• Data USA (datausa.io): public data from many federal sources, presented as accessible profiles of places, industries, and populations. Often the fastest way to see your service area at a glance.
• Data.gov: the repository of United States government open data across nearly every topic, useful when the number you need is not in the usual places.

Work and the economy

• Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov): employment, unemployment, wages, and industry data, essential for workforce development proposals.

Health

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov): United States public health statistics, disease surveillance, and prevention data.
• National Institutes of Health (nih.gov): research and data across health topics, and the literature your Habit 4 gap analysis will draw on.
• World Health Organization (who.int): global health statistics, for proposals with an international scope.

Education

• National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov): the primary federal source for United States education data, from early childhood through postsecondary.
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics (uis.unesco.org): comparable education, science, and culture statistics across more than 200 countries.

Society, opinion, and international development

• Pew Research Center (pewresearch.org): nonpartisan data on social trends and public opinion, useful for establishing the salience of a problem.
• World Bank Open Data (data.worldbank.org): development indicators worldwide, for international or economic development work.

Your own community (the numbers only you hold)

• Your annual community survey (Tool 7), event attendance, membership counts, engagement history. These are often the most persuasive numbers in an entire application, because no one else can produce them.

Grant toolkitTool 14: Letter of Intent Template

Supports Habit 5 of Ten Habits of Great Grant Writers.

Before you use this

Two documents share the LOI abbreviation, and announcements are not consistent about which they mean. A letter of intent tells a funder you plan to apply to a specific announcement; Habit 5 says to submit one whenever invited, because it helps the funder plan the review and assign reviewers who match your subject, and sometimes it is a required gate. A letter of inquiry is a short pitch to a foundation that has no open announcement, asking whether a full proposal would be welcome. The template below serves both with light adjustments; read the funder's instructions first, and if they specify contents, format, or length, their instructions win. Keep it to one or two pages.

The template

[LETTERHEAD] [DATE]

[NAME] [TITLE] [FUNDING ORGANIZATION] [ADDRESS]

Dear [NAME],

Introduction. I am writing on behalf of [ORGANIZATION], a [nonprofit / research institution / community organization] whose mission is [ONE SENTENCE]. [FOR A LETTER OF INTENT: We intend to apply to (ANNOUNCEMENT NAME AND NUMBER). / FOR A LETTER OF INQUIRY: We are writing to ask whether a full proposal for the project described below would be welcome.]

The need. In [COMMUNITY / FIELD], [ONE OR TWO SENTENCES stating the problem, with your best number and its source: "our 2025 community survey found that only 20 percent of members have been offered genetic testing"].

The project. We propose [PROJECT NAME], which will [WHAT IT WILL DO, in plain language]. Our approach involves [ONE SENTENCE on method], and we expect [THE GOAL FROM TOOL 6, with its number and time]. This work aligns with [FUNDER]'s priorities in [NAME THE PRIORITY, in their words].

The team and capacity. [ONE OR TWO SENTENCES from your Capacity One Pager: years operating, people served, the expertise that qualifies you. FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS WITH REVIEWER ASSIGNMENT IN MIND: name the specialized methods or data involved, so the right reviewers can be matched.]

The request. [FOR A LETTER OF INQUIRY: We anticipate requesting (AMOUNT) over (PERIOD), directed toward (TWO OR THREE BUDGET CATEGORIES). / FOR A LETTER OF INTENT: include amount and key personnel only if the instructions ask.]

Thank you for your consideration. I would be glad to provide any further information, and I can be reached at [CONTACT].

Sincerely, [NAME, TITLE, ORGANIZATION]

Reminders from Habit 5: submit even when optional; check whether the letter is binding (some funders limit your full application to what the letter described); and note the due date on Tool 2's clock list, because it is often weeks before the application deadline.

ReferenceGlossary

This glossary covers the terms you are most likely to meet in funding announcements, funder conversations, and this book. Where the field uses several names for one thing, entries point to the plain term the book uses. Terms taught at length in a chapter carry a habit reference.

Abstract. A short summary of your proposal, often the first and sometimes the only section a busy reviewer reads carefully. Write it last, from your finished goals.

Allowable costs. The categories of spending a funder permits. Listed in the announcement; part of the fine print Habit 5 sends you hunting for.

Applicant call. A call or webinar where the funder answers applicants' questions. Attend even without questions of your own (Habit 5).

Award. The funding granted to a successful applicant, along with everything attached to it: the budget as promised, the reporting, the terms and conditions.

Biosketch. A structured professional biography required in many research applications. Formats change, sometimes mid cycle; keep yours alive continuously (Habit 6) and format it per the current announcement.

Budget justification (narrative budget). The written explanation accompanying your numerical budget, connecting every cost to project activities.

Capacity. Your organization's demonstrated ability to deliver: people served, years operating, staff, systems, track record. Funders buy capacity as much as ideas (Habit 6).

Capacity building. Funding or activities aimed at strengthening the organization itself rather than delivering a program.

Coalition. Organizations in a shared space cooperating, formally or loosely. Funders in crowded fields look for it (Habit 9).

Contractor (vendor). An outside party paid to deliver a defined service, as distinct from a subaward recipient who conducts part of the project itself. Announcements may cap the combined share of both (Habit 5's forty percent lesson).

Cost sharing (matching funds). A requirement that the grantee contribute funds or resources alongside the grantor's. Check for it on the first read; it can quietly disqualify a small organization.

Deliverables. The products, reports, and results you commit to produce. In a grant, promises with dates.

Direct costs. Costs attributable to the project itself: project staff, supplies, participant costs.

Eligibility criteria. Who may apply and who may lead. Read as written, not as hoped (Habit 5).

Evaluation. How you will show that you did what you said you would do. The whole subject, demystified, is Habit 7.

Fiscal sponsor (fiscal agent). An established organization that receives and manages funds on behalf of a group that lacks its own tax exempt status or financial infrastructure.

Funding announcement. The document describing what a funder will support, who may ask, and how applications are judged. This book's plain term for what funders variously call a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO), funding opportunity announcement (FOA), request for applications (RFA), request for proposals (RFP), program announcement, or solicitation. Whatever the name, Habit 5 applies: read all of it, yourself.

Funding cycle. The recurring schedule of announcement, submission, review, and award. Announcements evolve between cycles; every cycle is a new document.

General operating support. Flexible funding for the organization's mission as a whole rather than a specific project. The counterpart to a grant's fixed promises (Habit 7).

Grantee. The recipient of an award. Grantor: the funder making it.

Indirect costs (overhead). General organizational costs, administration, facilities, that support the project without belonging to it. Funders cap these at stated rates; small organizations often under-recover them.

In-kind contribution. A donation of goods, services, or time rather than money. Can sometimes count toward cost sharing.

Institutional Review Board (IRB). The committee that reviews research involving human subjects before it may begin. IRB approval time is part of why year one is never free (Habit 7's container rule).

Letter of inquiry. A short pitch asking a foundation, outside any open announcement, whether a full proposal would be welcome. Shares an abbreviation with the letter of intent; Tool 14 covers both.

Letter of intent (LOI). A brief notice to a funder that you plan to apply to a specific announcement. Submit whenever invited, even if optional; occasionally it is a required gate (Habit 5).

Letter of support. A partner's written commitment to or endorsement of your project. Strong ones are specific, which requires that the signer knows the plan (Habit 8).

Leverage. Sector jargon for using one resource to attract more, as in "leveraging this grant to secure matching donors." You will meet the word constantly; this book leaves it to others.

Logic model. A diagram linking a program's resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes. Required by some funders, out of fashion with others; the question underneath it is always Habit 7's.

Memorandum of understanding (MOU). A signed agreement between organizations describing roles and expectations, often required for formal partnerships.

Milestone. A dated marker of project progress, used in work plans and progress reports.

Needs assessment. The documented process of establishing what a community requires, ideally from the community itself (Habit 4's first question).

Objective. A specific, measurable step toward a goal. Funders read objectives as the promises they will hold you to; see Tool 6 for the distinction and the three questions.

Other support. Your existing and pending funding, which many applications require you to report, often as effort per award. Track it continuously (Habit 6).

Outcome. The change your project produces in the world. Output: the countable products and activities along the way. Two hundred people trained is an output; five people in sustained employment is an outcome. Funders care most about outcomes.

Peer review. Evaluation of applications by people with relevant expertise, working from the announcement's criteria. Your letter of intent helps match the right reviewers to your proposal (Habit 5).

Person years (person months). The unit federal funders use to report effort: one person year is one person's full time for one year. The bookkeeping behind the rule that no one may be committed beyond one hundred percent (Habit 6).

Pilot project. A small, short version of a program run to learn whether the full version will work. Pilot results are among the strongest evidence a proposal can cite.

Principal investigator (PI). The person responsible for a research project's conduct and administration. Announcements increasingly attach eligibility requirements to the PI specifically (Habit 5).

Program officer. The funder's staff member responsible for a program: answering applicant questions, shepherding review, working with grantees. A person you are allowed to contact, and to know (Habits 5 and 10).

Progress report. The periodic account grantees owe funders of activities, spending, and results against promises. Written for the funder to show its own people (Habit 7).

Project narrative. The core prose of your application: the need, the plan, the team, the evaluation. Organize it around the review rubric.

Responsiveness criteria. The announcement's conditions that, unmet, cause rejection before review, no scoring, no second look. Find every one on the first read and put them at the top of your notes (Habit 5).

Review rubric (review criteria). The published standards and point values reviewers must score against. The single most useful section of any announcement; build your outline from it (Habit 5).

SAM.gov and the Unique Entity ID (UEI). SAM.gov is the federal registration system organizations must complete before receiving federal awards, and the UEI is the identifier it issues. The UEI replaced the older DUNS number in 2022; if a guide still says DUNS, it is out of date. Registration can take weeks, so start on day one or earlier (Habit 5).

Seed money. Early funding to start something new, often expected to attract later, larger support.

Site visit. The funder's in-person review of your organization or project, before or during an award. Everything in Habit 6 is what a site visit sees.

SMART. The common name for goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Tool 6 builds them from three plain questions: how many, what counts, by when.

Sponsored programs office (research administration, grants office). The institutional office that reviews, approves, and submits applications on an organization's behalf. Its internal deadline, not the funder's, is your real deadline (Habit 8).

Stakeholder. Anyone with a stake in the work: the people served, partners, funders, staff, the community. Habit 4 asks that the people served be engaged continuously, not performed at application time.

Subaward (subcontract, subrecipient). An arrangement in which a portion of the funded project is carried out by another organization under the lead applicant. Comes with its own budgets, letters, and institutional lead times (Habit 8), and sometimes with announcement caps (Habit 5).

Sustainability. What continues after the funding ends. Reviewers hunt for it; tell them in every proposal (Habit 7).

Target population. The specific people a project is designed to serve, defined tightly enough to count and to enroll realistically (Habit 3).

Technical assistance. Expert help provided to organizations, sometimes by funders to their grantees, sometimes by consultants. See Habit 8 for how to be worth helping.

Terms and conditions. The rules governing an award, in the grant agreement you sign. Read them the way you read the announcement: all of them, yourself.

Unsolicited proposal. A proposal submitted without an open announcement. Some foundations welcome them (usually via a letter of inquiry first); most government funders do not.

Work plan (timeline). The dated breakdown of activities and responsibilities that shows the project fitting inside the grant period, startup time included (Habits 7 and 8).

ReferenceExamples worth studying

A living companion to Tool 12: The "Study the Prepared" Exercise and Tool 13: Where to Find Your Numbers.

Everything here is listed as a positive example: organizations and resources that do something well and are worth twenty minutes of your study time. Inclusion means "learn from this," nothing more, and absence means nothing at all. The list grows as readers and I find new examples; suggestions are welcome.

Organizations that present capacity beautifully

Study how each one answers, within minutes of your arrival: who are you, what do you do, at what scale, and how do I know?

• charity: water (charitywater.org). The gold standard for impact transparency. Notice how every number is presented, how completed projects are documented, and how the annual reports read.
• St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (stjude.org). Watch how mission, science, and family stories are woven together without ever losing the numbers.
• The Michael J. Fox Foundation (michaeljfox.org). A masterclass in explaining a research funding portfolio to a lay audience. Their annual reports show a research organization telling its capacity story in public.
• Feeding America (feedingamerica.org). Study the "by the numbers" presentation of a large operation, and how national statistics and local impact are connected.
• Your local community foundation. Find it through Candid's community foundation locator and study both sides: how it presents itself to donors, and what it asks of grantees.

Newsletters worth subscribing to

The immersion practice of Habit 10, in your inbox.

• Philanthropy News Digest (philanthropynewsdigest.org), from Candid: RFPs and award announcements across the sector, free.
• The Chronicle of Philanthropy (philanthropy.com): the news layer of the fundraising world.
• Nonprofit Quarterly (nonprofitquarterly.org) and Stanford Social Innovation Review (ssir.org): the thinking layer, where sector-shaping ideas surface before they show up in funding announcements.
• Grants.gov updates (grants.gov): new federal opportunities, delivered as they post.
• Two or three organizations you admire. The monthly newsletters of well-run nonprofits are themselves the lesson; pick a few from the capacity list above and read how they narrate their own work, twelve times a year.

Funders whose worlds are worth watching

Whether or not you ever apply, these funders publish enough about their thinking that watching them teaches you how funders think.

• Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Rare As One (chanzuckerberg.com): a program built specifically around participant led rare disease organizations, with public materials about what organizational maturity looks like to a funder.
• Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (pcori.org): read funded project pages and applicant resources to see what a large research funder tells its applicants, and notice how much is given away for free.
• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (rwjf.org): study how a major health foundation states its priorities and frames calls for proposals.
• Candid's Foundation Directory (candid.org): the searchable version of "watch who funds what," free at many public libraries.

Free learning that is actually good

• Candid Learning (learning.candid.org): free courses and guides on proposal writing and fundraising fundamentals.
• Grants 101 at Grants.gov: the federal grant lifecycle, explained by the people who run it.
• NIH's applicant resources (grants.nih.gov): even if you never seek NIH funding, no funder explains its own review process more thoroughly, and the mindset transfers.

From the book's own toolkit

• The statistics directory in Tool 13
• The lookup tools every funder uses on you: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer and the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search

Links verified July 2026. If something has moved, or you know an example that belongs here, let me know through Boyce Data Science.

Keep goingRelated across EpilepsyLive

Where to go next, across the Learn shelf and the rest of the site.