Grant Writing That Actually Wins

Most grants aren't lost because your idea isn't strong. They're lost because the proposal doesn't make the funder's job easy. Grant writing is less about "beautiful writing" and more about clear decision-making: can this team deliver, will the plan work, is the budget believable, and will results be measured?

Start with the funder's logic, not your organization's story

Your story matters - but it shouldn't be the structure. Funders publish priorities, selection criteria, and expected outcomes. Your proposal should read like it was built directly from those requirements.

• Extract the funder's goals and scoring criteria into a checklist.
• Map each criterion to a specific section (no gaps).
• Use the funder's language strategically (alignment, not copy/paste).

If a reviewer can't quickly match your content to the scoring rubric, you're donating points.

Problem statement with proof

A strong need statement defines the issue clearly, identifies who is affected (and how many), and proves urgency with credible data. Keep it specific and local whenever possible.

Make the solution inevitable

The best proposals make the solution feel like the only reasonable next step. Show why the strategy works, why your team can deliver, and why now. Then connect goals -> objectives -> activities -> outputs -> outcomes.

• Why it works: evidence, best practices, prior results.
• Why you: capacity, partners, systems, experience.
• Why now: readiness, timing, and clear opportunity.

Build a workplan that survives reality

Reviewers read your timeline to assess risk. If it's vague or overly ambitious, trust drops. A solid workplan shows phases, owners, dependencies, and delivery milestones.

• Phases: setup -> delivery -> evaluation -> sustainability
• Responsible parties for each activity
• Month-by-month or quarter-by-quarter milestones
• Dependencies and checkpoints that prove momentum

Budget = credibility

Budgets fail when they look like guesses. A fundable budget matches the workplan, uses realistic unit costs, and explains assumptions clearly in the budget narrative/justification.

Evaluation that matters

Funders don't just want activity counts. They want evidence of change. Start with a baseline, set targets, define tools and frequency, and show how learning improves delivery.

• Baseline measurement (where you're starting)
• Targets (what success looks like)
• Tools/methods + collection frequency
• Responsibility (who collects and reports)
• Learning loop (how findings improve delivery)

Sustainability beyond promises

"We will seek additional funding" isn't a sustainability strategy. A credible plan shows how impact continues through earned revenue, institutional adoption, partnership commitments, or cost reduction over time.

• Earned revenue (fees, memberships, services)
• Institutional adoption (district, clinic, municipality)
• Partnership commitments (MOUs, co-funding, in-kind)
• System change (embedding into operations)

Final polish for reviewers

Reviewers are scanning under time pressure. Reduce friction with short paragraphs, rubric-aligned headings, bullets for requirements, and consistent naming across narrative, timeline, and budget.

If you removed your organization's name, would a reviewer still know this proposal fits this funder? If not, tighten alignment.

A repeatable grant-winning process

Here's a workflow you can reuse for almost any opportunity: