Plain English Checklist for Grant Guidelines

Grant guidelines written in plain English aren't simpler — they're more precise. They say what they mean without requiring applicants to decode the intended meaning from formal language, legal phrasing, or sector jargon.

The applicants most disadvantaged by complex language are often the ones you most want to fund: small community organisations, first-time applicants, groups working in communities with lower English literacy, and organisations working on the ground without professional grant writers.

This checklist is designed to be used on a draft set of guidelines before they're published. Work through each section of your guidelines with these questions.

Structure and navigation

  • [ ] Does the document have clear headings that tell readers where to find each type of information?
  • [ ] Is the most important information (am I eligible? what can I apply for?) near the top?
  • [ ] Can a reader find the eligibility criteria, the assessment criteria, and the deadline without reading the whole document?
  • [ ] Is the document logically ordered — does information appear where a reader would look for it?
  • [ ] If the document is longer than five pages, is there a table of contents?

Sentences and paragraphs

  • [ ] Are most sentences under 25 words?
  • [ ] Are paragraphs generally three to five sentences?
  • [ ] Is each paragraph about one idea?
  • [ ] Are there any sentences that are hard to parse on first reading? (These almost always benefit from being split or restructured.)
  • [ ] Are there any paragraphs where the main point comes at the end? (Move it to the first sentence.)

Word choice

  • [ ] Have you replaced formal or bureaucratic language with everyday equivalents?
  • "utilise" → "use"
  • "in order to" → "to"
  • "with respect to" → "about"
  • "prior to" → "before"
  • "subsequent to" → "after"
  • "facilitate" → "help" or "support"
  • "endeavour" → "try"
  • "ascertain" → "find out"
  • "commencement" → "start"
  • "cessation" → "end"

  • [ ] Have you removed or explained sector jargon? (Terms that are obvious to programme staff may not be obvious to applicants: "acquittal," "co-funding," "outcomes framework," "incorporated society.")

  • [ ] Are numbers written as numerals (not words) where they refer to quantities? ("five workshops" → "5 workshops")
  • [ ] Are dates written in full? ("1 March 2026" rather than "1/3/26")

Eligibility and scope

  • [ ] Does a first-time applicant reading the eligibility section know clearly whether they qualify?
  • [ ] Are there any eligibility conditions that are ambiguous or that could be interpreted in more than one way?
  • [ ] Does the scope section make it clear what's funded and what's not, without requiring inference?
  • [ ] Are borderline examples addressed explicitly?

Assessment and process

  • [ ] Does the assessment section tell applicants what assessors are looking for?
  • [ ] Are the assessment criteria described in a way that an applicant can write to?
  • [ ] Is the scoring process explained in terms applicants can understand (not just in terms of the internal process)?
  • [ ] Is the timeline for decisions clearly stated?

Active voice and direct address

  • [ ] Are most sentences in active voice? ("We will assess applications" rather than "Applications will be assessed.")
  • [ ] Does the document address the applicant directly using "you" and "your"? ("You must submit" rather than "Applicants must submit")
  • [ ] Does the document use "we" to refer to your organisation? ("We will contact you" rather than "The Programme will contact applicants")

Testing for clarity

These tests are more reliable than the checklist questions above, because they reveal how your guidelines actually read to someone unfamiliar with your programme:

The first-time applicant test: Ask someone unfamiliar with your programme — ideally from a target community — to read the guidelines and answer: Am I eligible? What can I apply for? How will I be assessed? What do I need to submit? When is it due?

If they can't answer all five questions clearly after reading, your guidelines aren't doing their job.

The query log test: Compare your draft guidelines against the queries received in your last round. If the same questions are coming up again, they haven't been addressed adequately.

The loud read-aloud test: Read the guidelines aloud. Sentences that are hard to read aloud — because they're too long, too complex, or contain tangled structure — are sentences that need rewriting.

A note on legal and compliance language

Some of your guidelines' complexity may be driven by legal or compliance requirements — conditions imposed by your funder, statutory obligations, liability management. This language sometimes needs to be there.

If it does, consider separating it from the main guidelines into a supplementary conditions document. The main guidelines should be written for applicants. The legal conditions can live elsewhere, referenced from the main document for those who need them.

When you genuinely need formal language in the main guidelines, provide a plain English explanation alongside it: "You must demonstrate financial probity (this means you need to show your organisation manages its money responsibly, with proper oversight and record-keeping)."

The goal isn't to remove all formal language — it's to ensure that formal language doesn't stand between eligible applicants and your programme.


Part of the Tahua grants management series

This article is part of the complete guide: How to Write Grant Guidelines That Attract the Right Applicants.