Build a fundable grant proposal section by section
Grant proposals are evaluated against strict criteria, and a weak statement of need or a vague evaluation plan can sink an otherwise strong project. This builder assembles a complete proposal: project summary, statement of need, goals and objectives, methodology, evaluation plan, a budget narrative that totals your line items, and organisational credentials.
How it works
The tool maps your inputs onto the architecture funders expect. It writes a concise project summary, frames the statement of need around the problem and evidence you provide, lists your goals and objectives as discrete items, describes the methodology, and builds an evaluation plan from your indicators. It sums every budget line into a total request and pairs it with a short justification, then closes with your organisational background. Everything is stitched into one ordered document you can adapt to a specific funder’s template.
Tips and example
- Open the statement of need with a hard fact, such as
1 in 5 local children leave primary school unable to read fluently, then cite the source. - Write objectives as SMART targets:
Deliver 200 reading sessions to 80 children by July 2027. - Justify every major budget line in the narrative, especially staff time and any overhead or indirect costs.
- Tie your evaluation indicators directly to your objectives so the funder sees a clean line from goal to measurement.
Writing the budget narrative
A budget table shows numbers; the narrative explains why. Funders are looking for two things: evidence the costs are necessary and evidence they are reasonable. For each major line, answer both questions briefly.
For example: “Project Coordinator (0.5 FTE, 18 months): responsible for participant recruitment, session scheduling, data collection, and reporting. Salary benchmarked to the [relevant sector] pay spine Grade 5; actual cost at the anticipated April 2027 increment is £18,750 including employer national insurance contributions.”
This is more persuasive than “Salary: £18,750” because it shows the link between the cost and the activities, and signals the applicant knows how their organisation’s pay scales work.
Indirect costs or overheads — the percentage contribution toward shared office, IT, finance, and HR functions — are increasingly standard. Include them if your organisation has an approved indirect cost rate; omit them if the funder prohibits them. Never silently inflate direct costs to compensate for excluded overheads; reviewers recognise inflated line items and it damages trust.
Evaluation plan depth
Funders differ on how much evaluation detail they want. Small community grants may ask only for a simple outcome description. Government and foundation funders increasingly expect a named evaluator or evaluation approach (pre-post survey, control group, randomised selection), a data management plan, and explicit reporting milestones. The builder outputs a standard evaluation section; add or strip detail to match the funder’s guidelines.
The cardinal rule: every objective needs at least one measurable indicator. If an objective states “Improve participants’ reading confidence”, your indicator should be “80% of participants report improved reading confidence on a 5-point pre-post self-assessment scale”. Vague objectives with no measurable indicator are the most common reason for rejection after weak need statements.