Cutting a Grant Proposal Opening Without Losing Evidence
You are revising a 250-word grant proposal for a local food pantry. The draft's opening paragraph is 95 words: 'It is important to note that, in many cases, food insecurity can often be a problem that affects many families in our community. The pantry has been operating for 12 years and has served 4,300 households. We believe that we may possibly be able to expand our weekend distribution if we are given the opportunity to receive additional funding. Our weekend program currently serves 85 families per week, but there is a waiting list of 40 families. It should be noted that these families are not currently receiving weekend food assistance from any other source.' The funder asks for a concise statement of need, evidence, and a specific request. You have 155 words left for the rest of the proposal and must preserve the 4,300 and 40 figures. A colleague argues for cutting the waiting-list sentence because it sounds like a complaint.
1. Revise the 95-word opening to about 50 words while preserving the 4,300 and 40 figures. Explain which words or constructions you cut and why.
Read the worked answer
A 31-word revision is: Food insecurity affects many families in our community. In 12 years, the pantry has served 4,300 households. Our weekend program serves 85 families weekly, with 40 families on the waiting list. This keeps the need, the history, the scale, and the two required figures.
The cuts target empty framing and stacked hedges. It is important to note that adds no information. in many cases and can often be weaken the claim and duplicate each other. a problem that affects many families is a wordy way to say affects many families. We believe that we may possibly be able to expand... if we are given the opportunity to receive piles up four hedges and a redundant phrase; the request can be stated directly later. It should be noted that is another empty frame. The revision is not just shorter; it replaces vague qualification with concrete numbers, which is what the funder asked for.
2. Your colleague wants to cut the waiting-list sentence because it sounds like a complaint. Decide whether to keep it, revise it, or cut it, and justify your choice using the funder's stated priorities.
Read the worked answer
Keep the information but revise it to a neutral factual statement: Another 40 families are on the waiting list. The funder asks for evidence of need, and a waiting list is one of the strongest forms of evidence because it shows unmet demand that additional funding could address. Cutting it would remove a concrete number that makes the request measurable. The sentence sounds like a complaint only if it is framed as grievance; there is a waiting list of 40 families is neutral.
If space is extremely tight, cut the final sentence about other sources rather than the waiting-list number, because the waiting list directly supports expansion while the no other source claim may require verification. The colleague's concern is about tone, not substance, so the best response is revision rather than deletion.
3. The draft says 'We believe that we may possibly be able to expand our weekend distribution if we are given the opportunity to receive additional funding.' Revise the request sentence to be specific and confident without overpromising. Explain what you removed and why.
Read the worked answer
A stronger version is: With additional funding, we will expand weekend distribution to serve the 40 families now on the waiting list. This states a concrete outcome and ties the request to the evidence already given. It removes We believe that, may possibly, be able to, and if we are given the opportunity to receive, all of which make the proposal sound uncertain or wordy.
Will is appropriate if the pantry has the capacity and the funding is the only barrier; that is a commitment, not an overpromise. If capacity is uncertain, use With additional funding, we would expand... and add a brief capacity detail, such as volunteer staffing. The key is to avoid both vague hedging and unsupported guarantees: the revised sentence promises only what the waiting-list evidence and the pantry's operations can support.