write-and-assemble-grant-proposals

name

write-and-assemble-grant-proposals

description

Turn a program into a fundable, NOFO-rubric-aligned proposal by chaining the program-design spine — needs statement → logic model / theory of change → SMART objectives → evaluation plan → budget & budget narrative (every line tied to an activity) — then assemble the LOI or full-proposal package (narrative, attachments, SF-424 family if federal, a reusable boilerplate library, and a NOFO-criteria crosswalk so nothing scored is unaddressed). Reach for this when the user asks "draft the logic model / needs statement", "write the narrative for this NOFO", or "assemble the full proposal / LOI". Used by `grants-strategy-lead` (primary).

Skill: write-and-assemble-grant-proposals

Invoked by: grants-strategy-lead (primary). Consulted alongside manage-post-award-compliance-and-reporting to confirm a proposal commitment (indirect rate, subrecipient plan, evaluation) is deliverable before it becomes binding.

When to invoke: "Draft the logic model / needs statement / SMART objectives / evaluation plan"; "write the narrative for this NOFO"; "assemble the LOI or full proposal"; any move from a decided-to-pursue opportunity to a submitted package.

Output: the chained program spine (needs → logic model → objectives → evaluation) + a budget that mirrors the narrative + the NOFO-rubric-aligned narrative + the assembled LOI/full-proposal package + a NOFO-criteria crosswalk.

Procedure

1. Read the NOFO/RFP as the rubric it is. Extract every review criterion, its point weight, the required forms/attachments, page limits, and the submission mechanics (federal → Grants.gov Workspace + SF-424 family). Build the crosswalk shell now so every scored criterion has a home. See ../../knowledge/grants-management-patterns-2026.md.
2. Write the needs statement from evidence. The problem for this population in this place, backed by data — not adjectives. The reviewer must believe the need is real and that you understand it.
3. Build the logic model / theory of change. Inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impact, plus the causal assumptions (the why activities produce outcomes). This is the spine; everything downstream hangs on it.
4. Write SMART objectives. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound — the measurable promises tied to the logic model's outcomes. Replace any "improve outcomes" vagueness with a scoreable target.
5. Design the evaluation plan. Indicators, data sources, collection cadence, and who analyzes — formative (improve as you go) + summative (did it work). Remember this becomes a binding post-award obligation; don't promise an evaluation the org can't run.
6. Build the budget so it mirrors the narrative. Every budget line ties to a narrative activity; every activity has a line — no orphans in either direction. Write the budget narrative justifying each line. Flag any number without a justification (the #1 reviewer red flag) before the funder does. Loop the compliance specialist on the indirect rate and any cost-share/match terms so the proposal-stage budget is post-award-keepable.
7. Draft the narrative to the rubric's order and language, from boilerplate + tailoring. Answer each criterion in the funder's sequence; pull org-capacity/sustainability/history from a reusable boilerplate library but tailor the fit — a bolted-on boilerplate paragraph reads as one. Cover org capacity and a sustainability plan (what happens after the grant).
8. Assemble the package. LOI first if the funder requires it (→ invited full proposal), else the full proposal: narrative, budget + budget narrative, attachments, and the SF-424 forms if federal. Complete the NOFO-criteria crosswalk — confirm every scored criterion is answered before submission. Capture it against ../../templates/grant-proposal-outline.md.

Worked example

User: "We decided to pursue the state literacy formula grant. Draft the proposal."

• NOFO read: four scored criteria (Need 25 / Approach 35 / Evaluation 20 / Capacity & Budget 20); SF-424 + SF-424A required; 15-page narrative limit. Crosswalk shell built with those four buckets.
• Needs statement: county reading-proficiency data vs state average, plus the service gap — evidence, not adjectives.
• Logic model: inputs (tutors, curriculum) → activities (small-group tutoring, family literacy nights) → outputs (sessions delivered, students served) → outcomes (grade-level reading gains) → impact (long-term literacy).
• SMART objective: "By end of Year 1, 70% of enrolled K-3 students gain ≥1 reading level on the [named] assessment." Measurable, time-bound.
• Evaluation: pre/post assessment scores (quantitative) + tutor logs (implementation fidelity); analyzed quarterly by the program director — a plan the small team can actually run.
• Budget mirrors narrative: a "family literacy nights" line ↔ the family-literacy activity; personnel tied to the tutoring activity; indirect at the org's de minimis rate (pre-checked with the compliance specialist — verify current de minimis %).
• Assembly: narrative answered Need→Approach→Evaluation→Capacity in the rubric's order; crosswalk confirms all four criteria addressed; SF-424 family attached; submitted via Grants.gov Workspace early.

Guardrails

• The narrative must chain — need → activity → objective → evaluation → budget line as one traceable spine, or it reads as a wish list.
• The budget mirrors the narrative — every line ↔ an activity, every activity ↔ a line; an orphan either way is the top reviewer red flag.
• Answer the NOFO in its order and language — great prose that skips a scored criterion still loses those points; the crosswalk is the proof.
• Don't promise what you can't deliver post-award — the evaluation, indirect rate, and subrecipient plan become binding obligations; pre-check with the compliance specialist.
• Tailor the boilerplate — a reused capacity paragraph must fit this funder, not read as a paste.
• Federal form versions, portal steps, and rate figures carry a retrieval date and are re-verified before submission. Not legal/accounting advice.