Nonprofit and research grant proposal assembly with structured sections, budget templates, and evaluation alignment. Use when writing grant proposals, funding applications, or research funding requests.
Comprehensive frameworks for developing competitive grant proposals across government, foundation, corporate, and research funding contexts.
Grant Proposal Structure
Universal Proposal Sections
STANDARD STRUCTURE:
1. COVER PAGE / TITLE PAGE
- Project title (clear, compelling, concise)
- Applicant organization name and address
- Principal Investigator / Project Director
- Requested amount and project period
- Funder program name and deadline
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / ABSTRACT (1 page)
- Problem statement (2-3 sentences)
- Proposed solution (2-3 sentences)
- Goals and expected outcomes (2-3 sentences)
- Budget summary (1 sentence)
- Organization qualifications (1-2 sentences)
3. STATEMENT OF NEED (2-4 pages)
- Problem definition with data
- Population affected
- Geographic scope
- Consequences of inaction
- Gap in current solutions
4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (1-2 pages)
- Goal statements (broad, long-term)
- SMART objectives (specific, measurable)
- Alignment with funder priorities
5. METHODOLOGY / PROJECT DESIGN (5-10 pages)
- Approach and activities
- Timeline and milestones
- Staffing and roles
- Partnerships and collaborations
- Innovation and evidence base
6. EVALUATION PLAN (2-4 pages)
- Process evaluation design
- Outcome evaluation design
- Data collection methods
- Analysis approach
- Reporting schedule
7. BUDGET AND BUDGET NARRATIVE (2-5 pages)
- Line-item budget
- Budget justification narrative
- Matching/cost-share (if required)
8. SUSTAINABILITY PLAN (1-2 pages)
- Post-grant funding strategy
- Institutional commitment
- Revenue diversification
9. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY (1-2 pages)
- Mission and history
- Relevant experience
- Key staff qualifications
- Past performance
10. APPENDICES
- Letters of support
- Staff CVs/resumes
- Organizational chart
- Tax-exempt documentation
- Data tables and supplementary materials
Related Skills
Needs Assessment Methodology
Building a Compelling Case
NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS:
1. QUANTIFY THE PROBLEM
- Use local, state, and national data
- Cite authoritative sources (CDC, Census, WHO, peer-reviewed)
- Show trends (is the problem growing?)
- Compare to benchmarks or averages
Example: "In Jefferson County, 34% of children under 5 live in
food-insecure households, compared to the state average of 19%
and national average of 16% (USDA, 2024)."
2. DEFINE THE TARGET POPULATION
- Demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, income)
- Geographic location
- Size of population affected
- Specific vulnerabilities or barriers
3. DOCUMENT THE GAP
- What services/solutions currently exist?
- Where do they fall short?
- What populations are underserved?
- What evidence supports the proposed approach?
4. ESTABLISH URGENCY
- Consequences of inaction
- Time-sensitive factors
- Tipping points or windows of opportunity
- Cost of not acting vs. cost of intervention
Data Sources for Needs Statements
Data Type
Sources
Strength
Demographic
US Census, ACS, BLS
Authoritative, granular
Health
CDC WONDER, BRFSS, NHANES
National benchmarks
Education
NCES, state report cards
School/district level
Economic
BLS, BEA, FRED
Employment, income data
Community
Community needs assessments
Local relevance
Qualitative
Focus groups, interviews, surveys
Lived experience
Organizational
Internal program data
Demonstrates capacity
Logic Model / Theory of Change
Logic Model Template
LOGIC MODEL:
INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
(Resources) (What you do) (Products) OUTCOMES OUTCOMES
(1-3 years) (3-5+ years)
----------- ----------- --------- ----------- -----------
Funding Job training # trained Increased Reduced
Staff workshops # workshops employment poverty rate
Volunteers Case management # served rate
Partners Mentoring # mentor Higher Improved
Facilities Job placement matches income community
Curriculum Follow-up # placed economic
support Improved health
job retention
ASSUMPTIONS:
- Target population will engage in programming
- Local employers will participate in placement
- Participants have baseline qualifications
- Economic conditions remain stable
EXTERNAL FACTORS:
- Labor market conditions
- Policy/regulatory changes
- Community support
- Competing programs
Theory of Change Narrative
TEMPLATE:
IF we provide [ACTIVITIES] to [TARGET POPULATION],
THEN [SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES] will occur,
BECAUSE [EVIDENCE/MECHANISM],
WHICH WILL LEAD TO [LONG-TERM OUTCOMES].
EXAMPLE:
"If we provide intensive digital literacy training combined with
personalized job coaching to 200 unemployed adults in rural
Appalachia, then participants will develop marketable technology
skills and secure employment within 6 months, because research
demonstrates that combined skills training and individualized
support produces employment rates 40% higher than training alone
(Smith et al., 2023), which will lead to increased household
income and reduced regional poverty over 3-5 years."
SMART Objectives
Writing SMART Objectives
Component
Definition
Test Question
Specific
Clearly defined and unambiguous
What exactly will change? For whom?
Measurable
Quantifiable indicator of success
How will you know it was achieved?
Achievable
Realistic given resources and context
Can this actually be accomplished?
Relevant
Aligned with needs and funder priorities
Does this address the stated need?
Time-bound
Clear deadline or timeframe
By when will this be achieved?
Objective Examples
WEAK OBJECTIVE:
"Improve health outcomes for community members."
STRONG OBJECTIVE:
"By September 30, 2027, 75% of the 200 enrolled participants
will demonstrate a reduction in systolic blood pressure of at
least 10 mmHg, as measured by quarterly clinical assessments."
GOAL vs OBJECTIVE:
Goal: Reduce food insecurity in Jefferson County
Objective 1: By Month 12, establish 3 new community food
pantries serving 500 households per month
Objective 2: By Month 18, 80% of enrolled families will report
increased access to fresh produce (pre/post survey)
Objective 3: By Month 24, reduce the percentage of food-insecure
children in target ZIP codes from 34% to 25%
Budget Development
Budget Template
BUDGET CATEGORIES:
A. PERSONNEL
Position | FTE | Annual Salary | Grant Request | Match
Project Director | 1.0 | $75,000 | $75,000 | $0
Program Manager | 1.0 | $55,000 | $55,000 | $0
Case Workers (2) | 2.0 | $42,000 each | $84,000 | $0
Evaluator | 0.25 | $80,000 | $20,000 | $0
Admin Assistant | 0.5 | $35,000 | $0 | $17,500
SUBTOTAL PERSONNEL | $234,000 | $17,500
B. FRINGE BENEFITS (rate: 28%)
SUBTOTAL FRINGE | $65,520 | $4,900
C. TRAVEL
Local mileage (staff) | $4,800 | $0
Conference travel (2 staff x 1 conf) | $4,000 | $0
SUBTOTAL TRAVEL | $8,800 | $0
D. EQUIPMENT (>$5,000 per unit)
None | $0 | $0
E. SUPPLIES
Office supplies | $3,000 | $0
Program materials | $8,000 | $0
Technology (laptops for participants) | $15,000 | $0
SUBTOTAL SUPPLIES | $26,000 | $0
F. CONTRACTUAL
External evaluation consultant | $25,000 | $0
IT support services | $6,000 | $0
SUBTOTAL CONTRACTUAL | $31,000 | $0
G. OTHER
Participant stipends | $20,000 | $0
Facility rental | $0 | $18,000
Utilities | $0 | $6,000
Insurance | $3,000 | $0
SUBTOTAL OTHER | $23,000 | $24,000
H. INDIRECT COSTS (10% MTDC or negotiated rate)
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT | $38,932 | $0
TOTAL PROJECT COST | $427,252 | $46,400
TOTAL GRANT REQUEST | $427,252
TOTAL MATCH (in-kind + cash) | $46,400
TOTAL PROJECT | $473,652
Budget Justification Narrative
NARRATIVE FORMAT (per line item):
[Position/Item]: [Amount]
[Justification explaining why this cost is necessary and how it was calculated]
EXAMPLE:
Project Director (1.0 FTE): $75,000
The Project Director will provide day-to-day management of all
project activities, supervise program staff, coordinate with
partners, and ensure compliance with grant requirements. The salary
is consistent with the Bureau of Labor Statistics median for program
directors in our metropolitan area ($72,000-$78,000) and our
organization's established pay scale.
Technology Supplies (Participant Laptops): $15,000
30 refurbished laptops at $500 each for use in digital literacy
training. Laptops will remain with participants upon program
completion to support continued skill development and job searching.
Pricing based on vendor quote from Dell Refurbished (attached).
Evaluation Plan Design
Process vs Outcome Evaluation
Evaluation Type
Focus
Key Questions
Methods
Process
Implementation fidelity
Are activities delivered as planned? Who is being reached?
ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS:
Step 1: Read the RFP/RFA closely
- Highlight stated priorities and preferred approaches
- Note required elements and formats
- Identify scoring criteria and weights
- Note any absolute requirements (deal-breakers)
Step 2: Map your project to funder language
- Use their terminology (not yours)
- Reference their strategic plan or theory of change
- Cite their previously funded projects as models
- Address every stated priority explicitly
Step 3: Mirror the scoring rubric
- Structure your proposal to match evaluation criteria
- Ensure every scored element is clearly addressed
- Front-load the most heavily weighted criteria
- Use their section headings when possible
Funder Research Checklist
BEFORE APPLYING:
- [ ] Read full RFP/guidelines at least twice
- [ ] Review funder's strategic plan / annual report
- [ ] Search their grants database for past awards
- [ ] Note average grant size and duration
- [ ] Identify contact person and ask clarifying questions
- [ ] Check eligibility requirements carefully
- [ ] Note formatting requirements (font, margins, page limits)
- [ ] Confirm deadline (is it receipt or postmark?)
- [ ] Review scoring criteria and point allocations
- [ ] Attend any pre-application webinars or info sessions
Grant Types and Compliance
Common Grant Types
Type
Source
Typical Size
Duration
Compliance Level
Federal (formula)
HHS, DOE, DOL
$100K - $10M+
1-5 years
Very High (OMB Uniform Guidance)
Federal (competitive)
NIH, NSF, USAID
$50K - $5M
1-5 years
Very High
State
State agencies
$25K - $2M
1-3 years
High
Foundation (private)
Private foundations
$10K - $500K
1-3 years
Medium
Foundation (community)
Community foundations
$5K - $100K
1 year
Low-Medium
Corporate
CSR programs
$5K - $250K
1 year
Low
Research (NIH R01)
NIH
$250K - $500K/yr
3-5 years
Very High
Research (NSF)
NSF
$100K - $500K/yr
3-5 years
Very High
Federal Compliance Requirements
OMB UNIFORM GUIDANCE (2 CFR 200):
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT:
- Separate accounting for grant funds
- Time and effort reporting
- Procurement standards (competitive bidding thresholds)
- Indirect cost rate negotiation
- Cash management and drawdown procedures
REPORTING:
- Financial status reports (SF-425 quarterly/annually)
- Performance/progress reports (frequency per award)
- Final reports (financial and programmatic)
- Single audit requirement (> $750K federal expenditures)
ALLOWABLE COSTS:
Must be: Reasonable, allocable, consistent, and conform
to grant terms and applicable cost principles
COMMON DISALLOWED COSTS:
- Alcoholic beverages
- Bad debts
- Entertainment
- Fundraising
- Lobbying
- Fines and penalties
NIH-Specific Requirements
NIH GRANT APPLICATION FORMAT (SF424 R&R):
- Specific Aims (1 page)
- Research Strategy (12 pages for R01)
- Significance
- Innovation
- Approach
- Bibliography
- Facilities and Resources
- Equipment
- Budget (modular or detailed)
- Biosketch (5 pages per key person)
- Human Subjects / Vertebrate Animals sections
- Data Management and Sharing Plan
NIH REVIEW CRITERIA (scored 1-9):
1. Significance - Does the project address an important problem?
2. Investigator(s) - Are the PIs well suited?
3. Innovation - Does the project employ novel approaches?
4. Approach - Is the strategy well-reasoned and feasible?
5. Environment - Is the institutional support adequate?
Review Criteria Alignment
Generic Scoring Rubric Mapping
TYPICAL SCORING CATEGORIES:
| Category | Weight | What Reviewers Look For |
|----------|--------|----------------------|
| Need / Significance | 20-25% | Data-driven, compelling, specific |
| Project Design | 25-30% | Logical, evidence-based, feasible |
| Organizational Capacity | 15-20% | Track record, qualified staff, partnerships |
| Evaluation Plan | 10-15% | Rigorous, measurable, appropriate methods |
| Budget | 10-15% | Reasonable, justified, cost-effective |
| Sustainability | 5-10% | Realistic post-grant plan |
REVIEWER MINDSET:
- They read dozens of proposals - make yours easy to follow
- They score against criteria - address every criterion explicitly
- They look for red flags - avoid vague claims or missing sections
- They appreciate evidence - cite data and research for every claim
- They value specificity - numbers beat adjectives every time
Common Rejection Reasons
Rejection Reason
Frequency
Prevention
Weak needs statement
Very common
Use current, local data; cite authoritative sources
Vague objectives
Very common
Use SMART format; include specific numbers and dates
Budget doesn't match narrative
Common
Cross-reference every budget line with activities
No evaluation plan
Common
Include evaluation matrix with indicators and methods
Misalignment with funder
Common
Mirror funder language; address every priority
Unrealistic scope
Common
Scale to budget; acknowledge limitations
Boilerplate language
Moderate
Customize every application; reference specific RFP
Missing required elements
Moderate
Use compliance checklist; have second person review
Weak organizational capacity
Moderate
Highlight relevant experience; include strong partners
Poor writing quality
Moderate
Clear prose, short paragraphs, active voice, no jargon
Proposal Quality Checklist
PRE-SUBMISSION REVIEW:
CONTENT:
- [ ] Executive summary is compelling and complete
- [ ] Needs statement is data-driven with cited sources
- [ ] Logic model connects inputs to outcomes
- [ ] Objectives are SMART with specific targets
- [ ] Methodology is detailed with clear timeline
- [ ] Evaluation plan includes process and outcome measures
- [ ] Budget aligns with proposed activities
- [ ] Budget narrative justifies every line item
- [ ] Sustainability plan is realistic
- [ ] Organizational capacity is demonstrated
ALIGNMENT:
- [ ] Addresses every requirement in the RFP
- [ ] Uses funder's language and terminology
- [ ] Scoring criteria mapped and addressed
- [ ] Page limits respected
- [ ] Required attachments included
FORMAT:
- [ ] Correct font, margins, spacing per guidelines
- [ ] Page numbers included
- [ ] Headers match required section names
- [ ] Tables and figures are clear and labeled
- [ ] Proofread by someone other than the writer
COMPLIANCE:
- [ ] Organizational eligibility confirmed
- [ ] Required registrations current (SAM.gov, Grants.gov)
- [ ] Authorized official identified for submission
- [ ] Deadline confirmed (with timezone)
- [ ] Submission method confirmed (online portal, mail, email)
Proposal Writing Tips
WRITING PRINCIPLES:
1. LEAD WITH IMPACT
"This project will reduce childhood food insecurity by 30%"
NOT "This project proposes to address food insecurity issues"
2. SHOW, DON'T TELL
"In 2024, our program placed 142 adults in jobs with an average
starting wage of $19.50/hour, exceeding our target by 18%"
NOT "Our organization has extensive experience in job placement"
3. ONE IDEA PER PARAGRAPH
Each paragraph should have a clear topic sentence
and supporting evidence
4. USE ACTIVE VOICE
"The Program Director will coordinate all partner activities"
NOT "All partner activities will be coordinated"
5. QUANTIFY EVERYTHING
"serve 200 families" not "serve many families"
"$15/hour" not "a competitive wage"
"within 6 months" not "in a timely manner"
6. CITE YOUR SOURCES
Every claim about need, prevalence, or effectiveness
should have a citation (Author, Year)