The Grant Report That Loses Its Reader
A community health nonprofit must submit a 900-word progress report to a funder. The draft opens with three sentences of background on the organization's founding, then buries the key result-142 of 150 enrolled clients completed the program-in paragraph five. The funder's instructions say: 'State outcomes in the first paragraph and explain any shortfall.' The draft's final paragraph explains that 8 clients dropped out because of transportation gaps, but the writer is unsure whether to move that explanation forward or keep it as a closing note. The report is due in two days and the writer has budgeted only one revision pass.
1. Where should the completion result and the shortfall explanation go, and what should be cut or compressed to make room?
Read the worked answer
Move the result to sentence one and pair it immediately with the shortfall. The funder's instruction is an explicit organizational constraint, so it overrides the writer's instinct to build up to the outcome.
- Open with something like: Of 150 enrolled clients, 142 completed the program (95%); the 8 who did not were blocked primarily by transportation gaps.
- The transportation explanation belongs next to the number it explains, not in a closing note. Separating a shortfall from its cause makes the report look evasive.
- Compress, don't delete, the founding background. One sentence of context is enough; the organization's history does not serve the funder's stated question.
- With one revision pass, the highest-value edit is restructuring the opening and merging the old paragraph five and final paragraph. Sentence-level polish is secondary.
2. The writer worries that leading with a 95% figure 'sounds like bragging.' How should that concern be weighed against the funder's instructions?
Read the worked answer
The concern is a matter of tone, but the instruction is a matter of compliance. A funder asking for outcomes in the first paragraph is telling the writer what it will evaluate.
Tone can be managed within a direct opening: state the number plainly, attribute it to the program rather than to the organization's virtue, and follow immediately with the limitation. '142 of 150 clients completed (95%); the remaining 8 cited transportation gaps' is factual, not boastful.
What the writer should avoid is the opposite failure-hedging the number so heavily that the reader cannot find it. The revision pass should check that the first paragraph contains the number, the rate, and the cause of the shortfall, and nothing that delays them.