The question this answers
Who should we be trying to reach, and how should we structure the funding?
What the problem looks like without targeting and mechanism recommendations
Your grant program is designed to support small community organisations. But the eligibility is broad enough that large established organisations apply too. They have grant writers. They submit polished applications. They win most of the funding.
The organisations you wanted to reach don’t apply, or can’t compete.
Or: your program offers $50,000 grants, paid upfront. Recipients take the money, deliver a minimal project, submit an acquittal. There’s no incentive to perform because the mechanism doesn’t create one.
The design choices around targeting and funding structure weren’t deliberate. They were inherited or assumed.
What I deliver actually is
A concise decision paper that sets out:
Targeting recommendations
- Who you’re trying to reach (and who you’re not)
- How eligibility, promotion, and application design can support or undermine targeting
- Risks if targeting fails (wrong applicants, equity concerns, political exposure)
- Options with trade-offs
Mechanism recommendations
- How funding should be structured (upfront, milestone-based, matched, acquittal-triggered)
- What size and duration makes sense for the objectives
- How the mechanism creates incentives (or doesn’t)
- Options with trade-offs
For each recommendation, the paper includes rationale, risks, and alternatives so executives can make informed choices rather than rubber-stamp defaults.
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: “Funding will be provided as a one-off grant of up to $50,000 to eligible organisations.”
No rationale. No consideration of alternatives. No analysis of whether this structure fits the objectives.
Good:
| Design choice | Options | Recommendation | Rationale | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Targeting | Open eligibility vs. restricted to small orgs | Restrict to organisations with annual revenue under $500K | Objective is to build capacity of small organisations; open eligibility will favour established players | May exclude some capable organisations; need clear definition of “revenue” |
| Grant size | $10K / $25K / $50K | $25K with option to apply for second-stage $25K | Smaller initial grants reduce risk; second stage rewards performance | More administration; may deter some applicants |
| Payment structure | Upfront / Milestone / Acquittal | 50% upfront, 50% on milestone | Balances cash flow needs with performance incentive | Milestone definition must be clear; some admin burden |
Executives see the options, understand the trade-offs, and can make a real decision.
Why it matters
Targeting and mechanism are where programs succeed or fail. Get them wrong and you fund the wrong people, create perverse incentives, or miss the cohort you were trying to reach.
These choices shouldn’t be defaults. They should be deliberate, documented, and aligned with objectives. A decision paper forces that discipline and gives executives what they need to make the call.
