Module 1: Before You Write
How Donors Decide What to Fund
Many proposals fail not because the project is weak, but because the writer never asked what the funder was trying to achieve. A donor is not a cash machine for good causes. Every funder, whether a government aid agency, a private foundation, a corporate foundation, a multilateral agency or a larger international NGO passing on funds, has its own mission, priorities, rules and people who must justify their decisions. When you understand how they decide, you can design and write a proposal that makes their decision easy.
Types of funders and what drives them
| Funder type | What usually drives decisions |
|---|---|
| Government (bilateral) aid agencies | Their country's development strategy and priority sectors, accountability to their parliament and taxpayers, strong compliance and reporting rules |
| Multilateral agencies and pooled funds | Global or regional programme goals, standard results frameworks, detailed procurement and financial rules |
| Private and family foundations | The founders' or board's mission, a defined strategy, interest in learning and sometimes risk-taking |
| Corporate foundations and CSR programmes | Alignment with the company's values and communities where it operates, visibility, staff engagement |
| International NGOs and intermediaries | Delivering their own donor-funded programmes through local partners, so they need reliable partners who can report well |
What reviewers look for
Funders publish their own scoring criteria, and you should always read them. Across most funders, reviewers ask similar questions:
- Fit: does this project match our priorities, geography, target group and type of grant?
- Need: is the problem real, significant and backed by evidence?
- Logic: will these activities plausibly lead to the promised results?
- Capacity: can this organisation deliver, manage money properly and report on time?
- Value for money: are the costs reasonable for the results expected?
- Measurement: how will we know if it worked?
- Sustainability: what will last after the funding ends?
- Risk: what could go wrong, including harm to people, fraud or reputational damage, and how will it be managed?
Many funders also use the evaluation criteria developed by the OECD Development Assistance Committee: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. If you write with these in mind, your proposal will speak the language many reviewers use.
The decision process
A typical process moves from an eligibility screen, often done by staff checking basic requirements, to technical review and scoring, sometimes by external reviewers, then to a panel or board that makes final decisions within a limited budget, and finally due diligence on the shortlisted organisations. At each stage, someone is reading quickly and looking for reasons to keep or drop your proposal. Clear structure, direct answers to the questions asked and consistent figures help them keep it.
Worked example: two proposals to the same foundation
A hypothetical foundation funds youth employment in East Africa, with a strategy focused on young women aged 18 to 24 in informal settlements and a preference for links to real employers. Two Nairobi organisations apply.
Organisation A submits a well-written proposal for a general life-skills programme for young people of all ages across Nairobi, with a long history of the organisation and a budget mostly for workshops. It does not mention employers or how many participants will find work.
Organisation B proposes a 12-month programme for 200 young women aged 18 to 24 in two informal settlements, with short vocational courses designed with three local employers, mentorship, and a target that a defined share of graduates gain jobs or income within six months, measured by follow-up calls. It quotes the foundation's strategy and explains how its project contributes.
Organisation B is far more likely to be funded, not because its writers are more talented, but because it read the funder's strategy and designed for it.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Sending one generic proposal to many funders. Reviewers notice immediately.
- Bending your mission to chase money. If a call does not fit your work, a forced proposal is weak and risks pulling your organisation off course.
- Writing about your organisation instead of the change. Funders fund results for people, not organisations for their own sake.
- Ignoring the scoring criteria. If the call says 30 percent of marks are for monitoring and evaluation, give that section real attention.
Exercise
Choose one funder relevant to your work and find its published strategy or most recent call for proposals. Write down its mission, priority themes, geographies, target groups and the criteria it uses to assess proposals. Then write three sentences explaining how a project from your organisation would directly contribute to that funder's goals.
Key points
- Each funder has its own mission, priorities and accountability, so design for the specific funder.
- Reviewers look for fit, need, logic, capacity, value for money, measurement, sustainability and risk management.
- Many funders use the OECD-DAC criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.
- Do not send generic proposals or bend your mission to chase funding.