What this sample shows
This is a sample of the $200 Readiness Audit. The organization and all of its facts are fictional. It is the same invented watershed group used in the sample Funding Roadmap, so you can follow one story from audit to funder list. The checklist, scoring rules and sources are the ones used in every audit.
Each audit scores 32 items that common grant applications, the IRS and funders actually ask about, each at 0, 1 or 2, plus 3 federal items scored apart. Below is the report the client receives, followed by a summary of the scoring sheet. The real deliverable also includes the full 35-item sheet with the evidence behind every score, and a written findings memo with a "questions you may have" section. You can email questions for 14 days after delivery. There are no calls.
Grant Readiness Audit: Southwest Mountains Watershed Alliance
Prepared by Short List Grants, August 21, 2026. Based on documents received August 10 to 19 and public records checked August 12, 2026.
Verdict: Ready now
Score: 51 of 64 on 32 funder-readiness items. Federal readiness: 4 of 6 (not yet).
A funder would see a clean audit, steady surpluses and clear programs. They would also see governance paperwork that has fallen behind, and buffers reported as planted, not alive. You can compete for mainstream foundation grants now. But governance is exactly at my minimum: one more lost point would drop you to "Ready for small foundations only". First, track each grant and its match.
| Area | Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Legal and compliance | 9 / 10 | Strong |
| Financial health | 14 / 16 | Strong, except grant tracking |
| Governance | 5 / 10 | At the minimum |
| Programs and outcomes | 10 / 12 | Results partly measured |
| Fundraising history and relationships | 8 / 10 | Good record, few relationships |
| Capacity to manage a grant | 5 / 6 | The ED writes every grant |
Your top 5 gaps, ranked by how much they block funding
1. Grants and match are not tracked one by one
What I found: Your two monitoring grants share one account, and nothing records which cash is promised as match to which grant.
Why it matters to funders: Many conservation funders require match (money from other sources alongside theirs). The Virginia Environmental Endowment requires $1 in cash for every $1 it gives and does not count volunteer hours.
Fix: Set up a QuickBooks class for each restricted grant and re-code this year's entries. Keep a match log per proposal: source, amount, cash or in-kind, committed or pending, and proof. Record board-committed match in the minutes.
Who: Finance manager, with the ED and treasurer · Effort: 4 to 6 hours, plus one board meeting · Cost: none
2. Two governance answers on your public 990
What I found: You have no document-retention policy, and your FY2025 Form 990 (the annual IRS return) says the board did not see it before filing.
Why it matters to funders: Both answers are printed on your public 990, and reviewers read them.
Fix: Adopt a retention policy from a reputable template. Send the FY2026 990 (due November 16, 2026) to every director before filing.
Who: Board chair and ED · Effort: 2 to 3 hours, plus one board meeting · Cost: none
3. Board giving is at 64%
What I found: 7 of your 11 directors gave last year.
Why it matters to funders: Many foundations expect every director to give, and some applications ask.
Fix: The chair asks the other four for a gift of any size before June 30, 2027.
Who: Board chair · Effort: 2 to 3 hours · Cost: none
4. Buffers are counted as planted, not alive
What I found: Your annual report gives 31.6 acres and 15,200 trees planted. Your one survival count (September 2025) covered 10 of 14 plantings: 64% alive. The four oldest were never counted. No program has a results target.
Why it matters to funders: Applications ask what results you commit to and how you will measure them. Restoration funders want trees alive, with a care plan.
Fix: Set one target per program, such as buffer survival of 75% or more, or the share of students whose quiz scores rise. Count the four older plantings next September or in your next buffer project. Use the quiz in all nine schools.
Who: Restoration manager and education manager · Effort: 10 to 12 hours, then one growing season · Cost: none
5. Few funder relationships, and the board opens no doors
What I found: You could call two program officers today. No director made an introduction last year.
Why it matters to funders: "No relationship or introduction" is the most-cited reason proposals are turned down.
Fix: Ask each director to make one funder introduction this year. Call program officers before applying.
Who: ED and board chair · Effort: 3 to 4 hours to start; relationships take months · Cost: none
What's already working
- A clean audit, two years of surpluses, and no funder above about a tenth of income.
- Clear program descriptions, and signed 10-year agreements with 9 of 11 buffer landowners.
- Every grant report on time, and 18 of 20 core documents sent within 4 business days.
What you can apply for now
Regional environmental grantmakers, your community foundation, and private foundations funding Virginia or Chesapeake Bay water work, including those wanting an audit. Your programs and paperwork fit them. Finish fix 1 before applying where match is required. Hold off on federal grants: your SAM.gov registration, which federal money requires, expired in March 2026.
Your next step
Start fixes 1 and 2 this month. If you want a researched list of funders that fit and a 12-month application calendar, the Funding Roadmap is the next step.
Also noted, not ranked: strategic plan expired in 2022 (a one-page priorities statement would add a governance point); 3 directors past term limits; 2 months of reserves; Candid Silver Seal (a transparency rating); two verbal landowner agreements; no approved quality plan for monitoring; 25.4 buffer acres missing from state records.
How this was scored: 32 items drawn from what common grant applications, the IRS and federal grant rules ask for. The full scoring sheet with evidence is attached to the real report. This audit is not a legal or accounting opinion, and it doesn't guarantee funding.
Scoring sheet summary by category
| Area | Score | Items at 2 | Items at 1 | Items at 0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal and compliance | 9 / 10 | IRS status letter; status active; 990s filed; state registration | Bylaws: term limits not followed | none |
| Financial health | 14 / 16 | Board-approved budget; budget vs actual; independent audit; clean opinion; two years of surpluses; revenue spread | Reserves (about 2 months); grants and match not tracked one by one | none |
| Governance | 5 / 10 | Board list with affiliations, and an independent board | Board did not see the 990; no document-retention policy; board giving 64% | Strategic plan expired 2022 |
| Programs and outcomes | 10 / 12 | Program descriptions; program budgets; counts from records; partner and landowner agreements | Results named without targets; one survival count, four plantings never counted | none |
| Fundraising history and relationships | 8 / 10 | Grant list and deadline calendar; reports on time; documents sent within 4 business days | Two funder relationships, no board introductions; Candid Silver Seal | none |
| Capacity to manage a grant | 5 / 6 | Stable leadership, org chart and bios; bookkeeping and reconciliation | The ED writes every grant and report | none |
| Total | 51 / 64 | 20 items | 11 items | 1 item |
| Federal (scored apart) | 4 / 6 | Timesheets by project | SAM.gov expired, no Grants.gov account; written procedures lack allowable-cost rules | none |
How the verdict is set. "Ready now" needs 48 or more of 64, no zero on the five gate items (IRS status letter, active status, 990s filed, board-approved budget, program descriptions), and at least half the points in every area. The cut-offs are my judgment, not a published funder standard, and the report says so.