Approach · investigate before declaring

Follow the information. Ask another question.

Build a case the organization can stand behind: specific to the opportunity, traceable to the evidence, and honest about uncertainty.

Program knowledge

Activities, participants, partnerships, and staff experience

Community evidence

Need, place, population, policy, and research—with limits stated

Funder requirements

Priorities, eligibility, prompts, rubric, attachments, and submission rules

Financial information

Program costs, assumptions, match, restrictions, and finance review

A funding case the reviewer can trace

Need, program design, capacity, budget, and intended outcomes answer the application’s questions together.

The working habit

What can the records tell us?

I keep documented facts distinguishable from interpretation. I also keep open questions visible until program, development, or finance staff can answer them.

This diagram explains a working relationship. It does not imply that one source can answer every proposal question.

Four connected passes

How do I build the case?

The sequence is not rigid. A source can change the question; an interview can reveal a missing record; a draft can expose a gap between activity and intended result.

Investigate

What does the program actually do?

I learn how the work happens, for whom, through which people and partnerships, and what has changed over time.

Questions beneath the summary

What is delivered? What has staff learned? Which part depends on another organization? What does the budget make possible? Which statements are observation, and which are documented results?

Evaluate

What does each source support?

I check population, geography, time period, definitions, provenance, and limits before using a figure or finding.

Questions beneath the number

Does community data describe program participants? Is a record current? Is the measure an output or an outcome? Does published research describe the model the organization actually uses?

Write

Can an outside reader follow the reasoning?

I select the evidence that answers the funder’s question and make the relationship among need, activities, budget, capacity, and intended change visible.

Questions beneath the sentence

Does it answer the prompt? Is the subject specific? Can the claim be traced? Is uncertainty qualified? Does polished language hide an unsupported leap?

Coordinate

Who can resolve and approve each piece?

I put information requests, draft review, budget review, approvals, and submission responsibility on the calendar.

Questions before submission

Who confirms the facts? Who owns the budget? Have program leaders reviewed what the organization promises? Who has portal access and authority to submit?

Illustrative example · fictional placeholders

What changes when a statement becomes specific?

This example demonstrates the questions a revision can answer. It does not describe a real organization, program, statistic, or outcome.

Vague starting statement

“Our program helps local families build stability through support and resources.”

What is missing? The program, participants, activity, place, evidence, timeframe, and meaning of “stability.”

→

More specific working version

“[Program name] provides [defined activity] to [participants] in [place]. During [time period], staff will document [participation measure] and examine [intended change] using [identified record or method].”

What improved? Each bracket marks a fact the organization must supply, verify, or decide. The intended change remains an aim until evidence supports a result.

Evidence in context

Which source answers which question?

Different sources do different jobs in a proposal.

Community research helps establish the setting and need. Program records show whom the organization serves, what staff deliver, and any outcomes actually measured. Staff knowledge explains operations and change; financial records connect the proposed activities to real costs. Together, those sources can support a case for funding without asking a regional statistic to describe program participants or a service count to prove an outcome.

Community data

Describes the setting around a program. It does not automatically describe people participating in it.

Program records

Show services, participation, or documented results. Definitions and reporting periods still matter.

Published research

Explains a model or context. The proposal must still show how the organization puts it into practice.

Staff knowledge

Explains history, operations, and change. Important assertions should be precise and attributable.

Partner knowledge

Clarifies a shared role or referral path. Names alone do not explain what a partnership contributes.

Financial records

Ground the described work in real costs, periods, and assumptions that finance staff can confirm.

Tools & authorship

Who remains responsible for the work?

I have used AI to support parts of my research and drafting process since 2024.

I may use it to compare long documents, organize questions, or test a draft. I verify sources, figures, citations, and compliance requirements, evaluate the analysis, and take responsibility for the final work.

I do not treat generated text as complete. Every piece of AI-produced text I have placed in front of someone else at work has been edited. Even the one-paragraph emails.
Vetted information goes into a case for support, with the origin of each data point cited.
Program staff and authorized reviewers confirm organizational facts and commitments.
AI does not replace judgment about evidence, audience, or what the organization should promise. It is actually terrible at that.
I take full responsibility for the review drafts I provide to you, and I will name the source of any piece of information. You review and approve the final application.