The difference between "We help people" and "We serve 300 families annually" isn't just word choice—it's the difference between getting funded and getting overlooked.
Impact language is about precision, not complexity. Sharper, not longer. But exceptional grant writing goes beyond clarity—it transforms how you present both your work and the people you serve.
The Foundation: Action Verbs
Action verbs create immediacy and energy in your writing. Instead of passive phrases like "assistance is provided" or "services are offered," use active language: "we deliver," "we connect," "participants achieve." Action verbs make your work sound immediate and results-focused.
Compare these examples:
Passive: "Support is given to families"
Active: "We support families"
Action-focused: "Families build financial stability"
Notice how the progression moves from vague to specific to empowered.
The Next Level: Empowering Language
Empowering language positions program participants as the heroes of their own stories, not passive recipients of services. This approach recognizes people's inherent strengths, agency, and capacity for growth. Instead of describing what your organization does TO people, describe what people accomplish WITH your support.
Person-first language puts the person before their circumstances or characteristics. This means saying "adults experiencing homelessness" rather than "the homeless," or "young people ages 14-18" instead of "at-risk youth." Person-first language recognizes that circumstances don't define people—they're individuals with goals, dreams, and capabilities who happen to be navigating challenges.
Compare these approaches:
Service-centered: "We provide financial literacy classes to low-income families"
Person-centered: "Parents increase their savings and reduce debt through our financial coaching program"
The second version puts people first, uses empowering language about what they accomplish, and positions your organization as the supportive resource rather than the primary actor. This shift matters because funders increasingly want to see that organizations respect and recognize participants' agency and potential.
Here are 15 phrase upgrades that incorporate these principles and will make your next proposal more compelling and credible.
Problem Identification
1. Replace general populations with person-first, specific demographics
Weak: "Many seniors struggle with isolation"
Impact: "Over 2,000 adults ages 65+ in our county experience chronic isolation"
Why it works: Person-first language with specific numbers and demographics
2. Replace "struggle with" with empowering, action-oriented language
Weak: "Families struggle with food insecurity"
Impact: "Families work to overcome irregular meals and nutritional gaps"
Why it works: Acknowledges effort and resilience rather than depicting people as victims
3. Replace vague statistics with local, person-centered ratios
Weak: "Homelessness is a growing problem"
Impact: "1 in 8 students in our district seeks stable housing solutions"
Why it works: Shows agency while making the issue immediate and local
4. Replace "there is a need" with community-voiced evidence
Weak: "There is a need for mental health services"
Impact: "Community members report a 6-month wait for counseling services"
Why it works: Centers community voice rather than organizational assumption
Solution Positioning
5. Replace organization-centered language with participant achievements
Weak: "We provide job training"
Impact: "Participants achieve welding certification and connect to employers through our resources"
Why it works: Participants are the heroes; your organization provides support
6. Replace "program" with participant-focused descriptions
Weak: "Our youth program serves at-risk teens"
Impact: "Young people ages 14-18 build leadership skills through mentorship partnerships"
Why it works: Person-first language that focuses on growth, not deficits
7. Replace "we offer services" with what participants accomplish
Weak: "We offer comprehensive support"
Impact: "Participants navigate housing options, access benefits, and secure employment"
Why it works: Shows people taking active steps toward their goals
8. Replace "we will implement" with participant-centered outcomes
Weak: "We will implement evidence-based practices"
Impact: "Participants benefit from the nationally recognized Housing First approach"
Why it works: Centers the people who benefit rather than organizational actions
Outcome Description
9. Replace "will help" with measurable changes
Weak: "The program will help participants succeed"
Impact: "Participants increase their income by an average of 40%"
Why it works: Reviewers see concrete return on investment
10. Replace "better outcomes" with quantified improvements
Weak: "Students achieve better academic outcomes"
Impact: "Students improve reading levels by 1.5 grades in 6 months"
Why it works: Specific metrics demonstrate real progress
11. Replace future promises with past performance
Weak: "We expect to reduce recidivism"
Impact: "Our graduates show 15% lower re-arrest rates than county average"
Why it works: Track record beats promises every time
12. Replace "positive impact" with specific participant transformations
Weak: "Our work creates positive impact in the community"
Impact: "Families transition from emergency shelter to permanent housing within 90 days"
Why it works: Shows the human transformation and participant agency in achieving goals
Organizational Credibility
13. Replace "we believe" with "our experience shows"
Weak: "We believe in community-centered approaches"
Impact: "Our 15-year track record demonstrates that resident-led initiatives succeed"
Why it works: Experience carries more weight than philosophy
14. Replace "we are committed to" with "we have successfully"
Weak: "We are committed to serving diverse populations"
Impact: "We have successfully served clients speaking 12 different languages"
Why it works: Actions speak louder than intentions
15. Replace "we plan to" with current capacity
Weak: "We plan to leverage community partnerships"
Impact: "We currently collaborate with 15 local organizations"
Why it works: Shows existing infrastructure rather than future hopes
Character Count Reality Check
You'll notice that many of the improved examples are slightly longer than the originals. That's okay—and often necessary. The goal isn't fewer words; it's more impactful words.
Person-first language and specific details naturally require more characters, but they're worth every keystroke. "Adults ages 55+ earn welding certifications" uses more characters than "seniors get job training," but it's infinitely more compelling to funders.
The real test: Does each additional word work hard? If you're adding empty phrases like "innovative and comprehensive" or "cutting-edge approach," cut them. But if you're adding specifics, demographics, or empowering language that shows participant agency, those extra characters earn their place.
Put It Into Practice
Ready to transform your next proposal? Pick 3 phrases from your current draft and upgrade them using the principles above. Focus on replacing weak verbs with action verbs, and vague statements with specific, measurable language.
For grant writers who want to go deeper, our Action Words for Grant Writing e-book provides 200+ carefully selected verbs organized by program type—from direct service to advocacy to capacity building. It's designed specifically for nonprofit professionals who want to transform their proposal language from ordinary to outstanding.
The difference between a funded proposal and a rejection often comes down to these small but crucial word choices. Start with these 15 phrases, and watch your proposals become more compelling, more credible, and more successful.
