The question this answers:
How do we keep the guidelines clear when someone else updates them next year?
What the problem looks like without a Plain-English style guide for future rounds
You’ve invested in getting the guidelines right. They’re clear, well-structured, written for applicants.
Then next round, someone updates them. They add a section in a different tone. They reintroduce policy jargon. They restructure something without realising why it was organised that way.
Within two rounds, you’re back where you started. The clarity erodes because no one documented the principles behind it.
What I deliver
A short reference guide your team can use when updating guidelines in future. It covers:
- Tone and voice (who you’re writing for, how to address them)
- Structure principles (what goes where, and why)
- Language standards (words to use, words to avoid, how to explain technical terms)
- Formatting conventions (headings, lists, examples)
- Common mistakes and how to avoid them
It’s not a comprehensive style manual. It’s a practical tool, two to four pages, that helps anyone updating the guidelines maintain the standard you’ve set.
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: No documentation. Next year’s editor guesses, or copies something from another program.
Good:
| Principle | Guidance | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Write for applicants, not colleagues | Assume the reader has no background in government grants | “You can apply if…” not “Eligible applicants include…” |
| Front-load key information | Eligibility and key dates should appear in the first two pages | Move “About the program” to after eligibility, not before |
| Avoid nominalisations | Use verbs, not noun forms of verbs | “We will assess…” not “Assessment will be undertaken…” |
| Define terms on first use | Don’t assume readers know acronyms or program-specific language | “Australian Business Number (ABN)” on first use, then “ABN” |
| Use examples | Concrete examples reduce enquiries and ambiguity | “For example, a community garden project would be eligible if…” |
This means the next person to touch the guidelines has a fighting chance of maintaining quality.
Why it matters
Guidelines aren’t a one-time deliverable. They get updated, revised, extended. Every change is an opportunity for clarity to degrade.
A style guide protects your investment. It embeds the thinking behind the writing so future editors can maintain the standard, not just inherit the document.
Other Guidelines Development Deliverables
“Why don’t grant applicants understand your guidelines?” → Guidelines restructured so they communicate program design, not policy language. Applicants understand what the program is for, whether they are a fit, and what evidence they need to provide. Clarity comes from the structural logic behind the guidelines, not from simpler words.
“How do you brief stakeholders on grant guidelines changes?” → A design rationale document that explains the structural decisions behind the guidelines for executives, ministers, audit committees, and internal teams. This is not a summary of what changed. It explains why the program communicates differently and what that solves.
“Are your grant guidelines compliant?” → A compliance review ensuring the redesigned guidelines meet CGRG or relevant state framework requirements. Program design that cannot pass governance review is not usable design.
“Can you prove what changed in your grant guidelines?” → A design decision record showing the logic behind every structural change, suitable for audit, governance review, or onboarding new program staff. This is not tracked changes on a document. It is a record of why the program communicates the way it does.
