How to Write Grant Proposals That Actually Get Funded

Our nonprofit submitted 23 grant proposals in our first year. We got zero funding.

The next year, we changed our approach. Same organization, same mission, same projects. We won 7 grants totaling $340,000.

The difference wasn't luck. It was learning how grant reviewers actually read proposals.

Why Most Proposals Fail

Grant reviewers read dozens—sometimes hundreds—of proposals for each funding cycle. They're looking for reasons to say no, not reasons to say yes.

Most proposals fail for predictable reasons:

• They don't clearly answer what the funder asked
• They describe problems but not solutions
• They focus on the organization instead of the impact
• They're written for themselves, not the reviewer

Understanding this changes how you write.

Read the RFP Like It's a Test

The Request for Proposal (RFP) tells you exactly what they want. Most applicants skim it. Winners study it.

Every question they ask has a reason. Every criterion they mention will be scored. Answer exactly what they asked, in the order they asked it, with the emphasis they indicated.

If they want a 500-word summary, give them 500 words. If they ask about sustainability, talk about sustainability—don't assume they'll figure it out from context.

Reviewers often have scorecards. If your proposal doesn't address a criterion, you get zero points for it. That's true even if your project is excellent.

The First Paragraph Problem

Reviewers decide in the first paragraph whether your proposal is worth reading carefully. Most first paragraphs sound like this:

"[Organization name] is a nonprofit founded in [year] dedicated to [mission statement]. We serve [number] of [population] in [location]. We are seeking $[amount] to support our [program name]."

This tells the reviewer nothing they couldn't get from your cover page. It wastes prime real estate.

Better opening: "Last year, 47 teenagers in rural Montana didn't graduate—not because they weren't capable, but because they had no adult in their school who knew their name. This proposal outlines how [Organization] will change that by placing dedicated mentors in three underserved high schools."

Start with the problem. Make them care. Then explain who you are and what you're proposing.

Show, Don't Tell

Weak: "Our program has been very successful in helping at-risk youth."

Strong: "Of the 89 students who completed our program last year, 84 graduated from high school—a 94% rate compared to 67% for similar students district-wide. Fourteen are now enrolled in college."

Numbers are more credible than adjectives. Specificity beats vagueness. Third-party validation (like district data) beats self-assessment.

If you don't have outcomes data yet, explain how you'll collect it. Funders want to know you're thinking about measurement, not just activity.

The Budget Test

Reviewers look at budgets carefully. A sloppy budget suggests a sloppy organization.

Common budget red flags:

• Round numbers everywhere (suggests guessing)
• No indirect costs (unrealistic)
• Misalignment between budget and narrative (they don't match)
• Missing major categories (where are the salaries?)

Your budget narrative should explain why you need what you're asking for. Don't just list costs—justify them.

Sustainability (They Always Ask About This)

"How will you sustain this project after our funding ends?"

The wrong answer: "We will seek additional grants."

This tells them their money is a temporary patch. They want to fund things that last.

Better answers include:

• Revenue from services generated by the project
• Partnerships that share costs
• Integration into existing organizational budget
• Planned transition to different funding sources (specific ones)

If you honestly can't sustain it, be honest about that—but explain why the short-term impact is worth it.

The Evaluation Section

Most proposals treat evaluation as an afterthought. A few paragraphs about collecting data.

Strong evaluation sections include:

• What you'll measure (outputs AND outcomes)
• How you'll measure it (specific tools, methods)
• When you'll measure (timeline)
• How you'll use what you learn (not just report it)

This shows funders you're serious about knowing whether you actually helped.

Common Mistakes

Mission creep: Twisting your project to fit what the funder wants. This leads to projects you can't execute well. Only apply for grants that genuinely match what you do.

Jargon overload: "We leverage stakeholder engagement to catalyze systemic change." Nobody knows what this means. Use plain language.

The laundry list: Listing every problem in the community instead of focusing on the specific one you're addressing. Go narrow and deep, not wide and shallow.

No letters of support: These matter more than you think. They validate that partners are real and community members want your help.

The Review Process

Before submitting, have someone outside your organization read the proposal.

Ask them:

• What's the problem we're solving?
• What will we actually do?
• Why should they fund us instead of someone else?

If they can't answer these clearly, revise. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Relationships Matter

Cold applications have lower success rates than warm ones.

If possible, before you apply:

• Attend funder webinars
• Ask clarifying questions during the Q&A period
• Request a pre-submission conversation (many funders offer this)
• Get referrals from organizations they've funded

You're not gaming the system. You're learning what they actually want and whether you're a good fit.

After the Decision

If you're rejected, ask for feedback. Many funders will share reviewer comments. This is gold—use it to improve next time.

If you're funded, over-deliver on reporting. Send updates before they're due. Share good news when it happens. Organizations that communicate well get renewed.

---

Need help with persuasive professional writing? Try WriteBetter.ai to craft proposals that get results.