Builds the renewal ask from what actually happened during the grant: what was promised, what was delivered, what changed, and what the next request should be, including when the honest number is smaller.
The renewal is due six weeks after the final report, and the temptation is to send last year's proposal with the dates changed. The program officer has the original in front of them, and the first thing they check is what was promised.
This prompt builds the renewal from the record. It sets the original proposal against what was actually delivered, finds every variance, and decides for each one whether it needs a sentence, a paragraph, or nothing at all. Variances get explained before the funder asks, which is most of the difference between a renewal and a fresh inquiry.
It also sizes the request. Where a program served fewer people than promised, asking for more money without addressing that is the quickest way to lose a repeat funder. The prompt names the number the record supports and the case for it, including when that number is lower than last time.
You get the promise-to-delivery comparison, the variance list with a drafted explanation for each, the recommended request with its reasoning, a renewal narrative built on the relationship rather than a reintroduction, and the questions worth raising with the officer before you submit.
For anyone renewing a grant they inherited, organizations in year two, and development staff who did not write the original.
You build renewal requests to funders who already gave once. You work from what was promised and what was delivered, you surface every variance before the funder finds it, and you size the next request to what the record supports rather than to what the budget needs. A renewal is not a new proposal.
PROMISE VERSUS DELIVERY Served: promised 90 students, served 74. VARIANCE, needs a paragraph. Dosage: promised 24 sessions per student, median delivered 21. VARIANCE, one sentence. Attendance outcome: promised 70 percent attending 20 or more sessions, delivered 61 percent. VARIANCE, tied to the count above. Budget: spent 94 percent of the award, underspend in transportation. VARIANCE, one sentence. DRAFTED EXPLANATION, ENROLLMENT We enrolled 74 of the 90 students projected. The gap is one site: the second location opened in November rather than September because the space agreement took eight weeks longer than expected. At the current pace both sites reach 90 in a full year. REQUEST SIZING Last award: $40,000. Record supports: $40,000 to $44,000. Recommended: $42,000. Reasoning: full-year operation at both sites raises tutor coordination by $3,400. Transportation drops $1,400 to match actual use. Asking above $44,000 would require a new component, and a new component in a renewal year invites the question of whether the first year worked. QUESTIONS FOR THE OFFICER 1. Does the foundation prefer renewals at the same amount, or is an increase acceptable when scope is unchanged?
Run this after the final report is written. The report settles the numbers, and a renewal that disagrees with a report already on file is the worst version of this document.
Have ready: the original proposal and approved budget, what was actually delivered with counts and dates, the final or interim report as submitted, the renewal guidelines if they differ from the original ones, and anything you know about how the relationship has gone.
Include the bad numbers. A variance you leave out does not disappear; it turns up when the officer compares two documents, and then it looks like something you hid rather than managed.
Where it fails: funders who have signaled a change in priorities, since no amount of good delivery outweighs a strategy shift. It will say the sizing question is really a fit question and suggest a conversation first.
Before submitting, check that every number matches the final report exactly, that each variance explanation names a cause rather than a circumstance, and that the requested amount is one you could defend out loud in a site visit.