Proof Before Belief

A foundation looked over a concept note I wrote but chose not to move forward.

Their feedback was short. They liked the overall work but thought the impact statement was weak.

At first, I wanted to rewrite the impact statement. But when I tried, I realized I couldn’t. The program didn’t include any data collection, so there was nothing to measure or promise.

That’s when I realized what the foundation really wanted.

What the request is telling you

Usually, funders start out believing the problem matters and that we can make a difference. Then they look at the numbers to support what they already believe.

But when a funder asks for numbers first, it interrupts that usual process.

When a funder says, "We need to see the metrics first," they’re telling us they want to believe in the project but can’t based on what we’ve given them. That can be frustrating, but it’s also helpful feedback because it shows us exactly where to improve.

Looking deeper: two common gaps

Last week, we saw that "we already give elsewhere" shows us where we fit in a donor’s giving. A request for proof works the same way. It usually points to one of two gaps.

Gap A: The funder can't see the change. They don't know what will be different, who it will affect, or when it will happen.

Gap B: The funder understands the change but isn't sure we can make it happen. They want proof we've done this before and that it worked.

My concept note had both gaps. No amount of rewriting could fix them because the problems started with the program design, not the proposal.

Revisiting the program design

I met with the team to review the design. We talked about where data collection should fit in, what we’ll evaluate and when, and what we can report to a funder a year from now.

Once we had those answers, the impact statement was easy to write. We had a person, a change, and a number we could stand behind.

Going back to the funder

We went back to the foundation with a revised concept note. Unless a funder rejects a proposal completely, we always follow up. When a funder asks for proof, it’s an invitation to come back with it.

For a new program, that proof can’t be historical data. So we offer the next best thing: how we’ve measured similar programs before, and a plan to measure this one the same way.

This approach addresses Gap B. The funder can see that we have a track record of measuring what we promise, and that our plan for this program builds on that experience.

For Chief Fundraisers

For a proposal writer, a weak impact statement might seem like a writing issue. For a Chief Fundraiser, it’s often a design problem that shows up in our department first.

Development is usually where a program’s measurement gap first becomes clear, since we’re responsible for explaining it to people outside the organization. Our role is important: we need to join the conversation while a program is still being designed, before anyone asks us to fund it.

You only need two questions to get started.

Before any concept note, 2 questions:

If the program lead can answer both, development can write a strong impact statement. If not, the concept note isn’t ready yet.

If one funder asks for proof, it tells you something about that funder. If three funders ask in the same quarter, it means your programs might not have the evidence funders expect, and that gap affects every proposal your team writes.

Your Turn

Before Friday, email your grants lead and ask for the last five proposals where a funder declined or asked for more data. Read just the impact statements and decide which of the following is true for most of them:

A) The data was available, but we didn't use it effectively.

B) The data didn't exist because the program wasn't set up to collect it.

If you picked A, make sure one verified number is a required line in your team’s proposal review. If you picked B, add the two questions to your next leadership team agenda as a regular step in program design.

On My Radar

In The Stelter Company's webinar "Blending Gifts for Fundraising Success!", Phil Purcell, Director of Planned Giving for The Salvation Army's Central Territory, explains why planned gifts should be included in everything: campaign goals, gift acceptance policies, program-level recognition, sample will language, and layered asks in every major gift proposal. One idea to share with your major gifts lead is his pledge-completion clause, which covers any unpaid balance on a capital or naming pledge at death with a bequest or beneficiary designation. Since we’re talking about objections, notice how he responds to a donor concerned about retirement income.

Coming Next Week

Next Sunday, How They Give profiles Mark and Maureen Davitt. The Sunday after, I’ll wrap up the Donor Objections at Chief Fundraiser Altitude series with the third and final part: “Not Now, Maybe Next Year.” We’ll look at what a timing objection means for your pipeline and how to tell the difference between a real delay and a gentle no.

See you next Sunday,
Christine

PS - If a funder has asked you for proof in a way I didn’t cover here, reply and send me their exact words. I respond to every message.

This newsletter grows one fundraiser at a time, and mostly by word of mouth. If it's useful, forward it to one Chief Fundraiser who'd get something out of it.

I’m Christine Bork, Chief Development Officer at the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I write CFW to share what I’m learning as I lead a growing team and try to do the work in a way that’s sustainable and thoughtful.

© 2026 Christine Bork / Chief Fundraiser Weekly. All rights reserved.