A reviewer may read dozens of proposals.
They may have limited time, a detailed scoring rubric, and specific instructions about what they are expected to evaluate.
Your job is not to make them search for your answers.
Your job is to make the answers easy to find.
Start with the rubric.
If the funder scores need, program design, organizational capacity, evaluation, and budget, those are the categories your proposal should clearly address.
Do not assume the reviewer will connect the dots for you.
Use headings that reflect the application questions. Answer each part directly. Put the strongest evidence where it supports the relevant criterion. If the funder asks how you will measure success, provide the measures, not just a general statement about impact.
Reviewer-friendly writing is usually:
Clear rather than clever
Specific rather than broad
Organized rather than repetitive
Evidence-based rather than exaggerated
Direct rather than buried in background
It also means respecting the reviewer’s time.
Avoid forcing someone to interpret a long paragraph to determine your goal, population, timeline, or expected outcome.
Make the scoring path obvious.
That does not mean writing mechanically.
Your proposal should still communicate urgency, purpose, and the human significance of the work.
But the story needs structure.
Before submitting, read the proposal with the rubric beside you and ask:
“Could a reviewer quickly identify the evidence for every scored criterion?”
If the answer is no, the proposal is making the reviewer work too hard.
And when reviewers are comparing strong applications, clarity can make a meaningful difference.
Until next time,
Write Epic Grants