The anatomy of a strong grant proposal

Every funder has its own template, but most proposals are built from the same core sections. Knowing what each one is for makes it far easier to write.

Problem statement

What reviewers look for: a specific, evidenced problem affecting identifiable people.

Use data where you have it and say where it came from. Avoid describing the problem as the absence of your solution ("there is no training centre") and describe the effect on people instead.

Objectives

What reviewers look for: a small number of measurable changes.

Good objectives say what will change, for whom, by how much and by when. Three clear objectives beat eight vague ones.

Activities and timeline

What reviewers look for: a realistic plan that obviously leads to the objectives.

Link each activity to an objective. A simple table with months across the top is often enough.

Monitoring and evaluation

What reviewers look for: how you will know it worked.

Name the indicators, how you will collect them and how often. Keep them consistent with your objectives.

Budget and budget narrative

What reviewers look for: costs that match the activities and look neither padded nor unrealistically low.

Every activity in your plan should appear in the budget, and every budget line should trace back to an activity.

Organisational capacity

What reviewers look for: evidence you can deliver.

Mention relevant past projects, the team who will run this one and the systems you use for finance and reporting. Only include achievements you can back up.

Sustainability

What reviewers look for: what happens when the grant ends.

Explain which results last, who takes over ongoing costs and how the work could continue or grow.

---

The most common mistake is answering the question you wish the funder had asked. Copy each question from the call into your draft as a heading, answer it directly and stay within the word limit.