A Strategy Makes Choices Others Can Understand
A list of themes says what a funder likes. A strategy explains whom it intends to support, why that approach may help, what it will not do, how decisions will be made and what evidence would cause it to change. It should make a plausible application easier to judge without pretending the future is certain.
Before using a strategy, check it against the organization's actual purposes, authority, resources and applicable requirements. This page supplies a fictional explanation, not a governance approval or legal interpretation.
A Complete Fictional Strategy
Purpose and intended users: For the coming year, our small grantmaking organization will support reliable access to existing community services in two defined neighboring districts. Our intended partners are locally accountable organizations already working with the people who use those services. We will publish the actual geographic and applicant definitions before inviting applications; our internal shorthand is not an eligibility rule.
Our reasoning: Local organizations identify interruptions caused by gaps between activity funding, staff continuity and workable internal systems. We propose combining bounded project support with organizational and capacity support where the problem and evidence justify it. We do not assume that a new system or flexible grant automatically improves services.
Resources and forms: Our fictional annual envelope is 120,000 units. We plan commitments of 54,000 for defined projects, 36,000 for general operating support within permitted purposes and 18,000 for specific capability needs. The 12,000 balance is uncommitted contingency, not a promise to any applicant. The three proposed commitment categories total 108,000; 108,000 + 12,000 = 120,000. Actual grant numbers and sizes follow credible work/cost proposals and authority, rather than dividing the envelope into an arbitrary quota.
Exclusions and limits: This year we will not establish a national expansion program, make grants to individuals or create an emergency-response service. These are scope choices within the exercise, not judgments that those activities lack value. We will explain referrals only where an actual appropriate route is verified. We will not promise to find another funder for an unsuccessful applicant.
Selection and relationship: We will compare fit, feasibility, evidence and proportionate risk using criteria communicated before review. We will address conflicts, clarify unfamiliar evidence and explain decisions through the actual authorized process. Reporting will serve agreed decisions and learning, with sensitive information minimized. The recipient's account of what is practical belongs in that design.
Duration and uncertainty: We may fund different durations when the work justifies them. An indicative future interest is not a renewal commitment. We will state award and payment conditions clearly and check the recipient's ability to deliver without assuming it can finance a delayed payment.
Learning and revision: After six months we will examine which relevant organizations could and could not use the process, what needs were unaddressed, whether reports informed decisions, and what delivery or capability evidence exists. If the actual work requires a different mix of support, we will seek an authorized strategy/budget revision for a later round. We will not change current-round criteria privately after seeing applicants.
Explain Why a Tempting Proposal Falls Outside
A fictional applicant proposes a nationwide campaign. It may be valuable, but it does not fit the published two-district scope. The funder can state that reason without inventing a low-quality score. If the proposal exposes a serious weakness in the strategy, record that learning for an authorized later change; do not quietly favor one applicant with an undisclosed exception.
Conversely, a local organization may request an unfamiliar but relevant continuity intervention. The strategy should let reviewers consider its actual mechanism instead of rejecting it merely because it is not a conventional activity budget. Use the support-form comparison and capability explanation to examine the case.
Source and Scope
Stewardship Principles for Corporate Grantmakers, adopted September 2004, pages 2-6, addresses mission, support options and transparent processes in its corporate context. The complete strategy, amounts, exclusions and review point above are original fictional choices, not universal duties or evidence of results.