| name | grant-proposal-writer |
| description | Write compelling grant proposals for academic research, creative projects, and nonprofit initiatives. Covers federal (NSF, NEA, NEH), foundation, and institutional grants with attention to narrative, budget justification, and review criteria. Triggers on grant writing, funding proposals, research funding, or fellowship applications. |
| license | MIT |
Grant Proposal Writer
Secure funding through compelling proposals.
Grant Landscape
Funder Types
| Type | Examples | Characteristics |
|---|
| Federal | NSF, NIH, NEA, NEH | Large awards, rigorous process, public benefit |
| Foundation | Ford, Mellon, MacArthur | Mission-aligned, relationship-based |
| Corporate | Google, Adobe, Microsoft | Product/brand alignment, shorter timelines |
| Institutional | Internal grants, seed funds | Lower amounts, faster decisions |
| Crowdfunding | Kickstarter, Experiment | Public-facing, momentum-based |
Fit Assessment
Before writing, assess alignment:
| Factor | Question | Weight |
|---|
| Mission | Does your work serve their goals? | Critical |
| Scope | Is your budget in their range? | Critical |
| Eligibility | Do you meet requirements? | Critical |
| Track Record | Have they funded similar work? | Important |
| Timing | Does your timeline match? | Important |
| Competition | What's the funding rate? | Consider |
Proposal Structure (Standard)
1. Project Summary/Abstract
One page maximum. Must stand alone.
Structure:
- Problem/opportunity (2-3 sentences)
- Proposed approach (2-3 sentences)
- Expected outcomes (2-3 sentences)
- Broader impact (1-2 sentences)
2. Statement of Need
Establish the problem:
What is the problem?
↓
Who is affected?
↓
What are current approaches?
↓
What gap remains?
↓
Why now?
Effective patterns:
- Statistics that humanize scale
- Specific examples that illustrate
- Expert voices that validate
- Logical argument that compels
3. Goals and Objectives
| Element | Definition | Example |
|---|
| Goal | Broad intended impact | "Improve digital literacy among seniors" |
| Objective | Specific, measurable outcome | "Train 200 seniors in basic computer skills by Dec 2025" |
| Activity | What you'll do | "Conduct 20 workshops at community centers" |
SMART Objectives:
- Specific: Clear and defined
- Measurable: Quantifiable
- Achievable: Realistic
- Relevant: Aligned with goal
- Time-bound: Has deadline
4. Methods/Approach
Describe HOW you'll achieve objectives:
For each objective:
1. Activities planned
2. Timeline/sequence
3. Personnel responsible
4. Resources required
5. Rationale for approach
Methodology credibility:
- Cite precedent or literature
- Explain why this approach
- Address potential challenges
- Show awareness of alternatives
5. Evaluation Plan
| Type | Question | Methods |
|---|
| Process | Did we do what we said? | Activity logs, attendance |
| Outcome | Did it work? | Pre/post tests, surveys |
| Impact | What changed? | Long-term follow-up, indicators |
Evaluation components:
- What will be measured
- How data will be collected
- When measurement occurs
- Who will analyze
- How results will be used
6. Timeline
Year 1
Q1: [Activities]
Q2: [Activities]
Q3: [Activities]
Q4: [Activities]
Year 2
Q1: [Activities]
...
Milestones:
- Month 6: [Milestone]
- Month 12: [Milestone]
- Month 18: [Milestone]
7. Budget and Justification
See Budget section below.
8. Personnel/Qualifications
For each key person:
[Name], [Title]
Role: [Specific responsibilities]
Qualifications: [Why they're suited]
Time commitment: [% FTE or hours]
9. Organizational Capacity
Demonstrate ability to execute:
- Relevant past projects
- Infrastructure/facilities
- Partnerships
- Financial stability
10. Sustainability/Future Plans
How will this work continue after funding?
- Revenue streams
- Institutionalization
- Partnerships
- Scaled approach
Budget Development
Budget Categories
| Category | Includes |
|---|
| Personnel | Salaries, benefits, consultants |
| Equipment | >$5K items typically |
| Supplies | Consumables, materials |
| Travel | Conferences, fieldwork |
| Contractual | Subcontracts, services |
| Other Direct | Participant support, publications |
| Indirect | Overhead (varies by institution) |
Budget Template
PERSONNEL
PI Name, 2 months summer salary $XX,XXX
Graduate Student, 12 months $XX,XXX
Fringe Benefits (XX%) $X,XXX
Subtotal: $XX,XXX
EQUIPMENT
[Item description] $X,XXX
Subtotal: $X,XXX
SUPPLIES
Research supplies $X,XXX
Computing $X,XXX
Subtotal: $X,XXX
TRAVEL
Domestic (X trips) $X,XXX
International (X trips) $X,XXX
Subtotal: $X,XXX
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Participant stipends $X,XXX
Publication costs $X,XXX
Subtotal: $X,XXX
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $XXX,XXX
INDIRECT COSTS (XX%) $XX,XXX
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $XXX,XXX
Budget Justification
For each line item:
[Item]: $X,XXX
[Why needed]: This [item] is necessary for [specific project activity]
because [rationale]. The amount is based on [calculation/quote/rate].
Writing Strategies
For Reviewers
Remember:
- Reviewers are busy
- They may not be experts in YOUR area
- They're looking for reasons to fund AND reject
- Clear writing signals clear thinking
Structure Signals
Use headers, white space, bold:
**Problem**: Clear statement of the issue.
**Approach**: How we'll address it.
**Outcome**: What will result.
Strong vs Weak Writing
| Weak | Strong |
|---|
| "We hope to..." | "We will..." |
| "This may lead to..." | "This will produce..." |
| "It is believed that..." | "Research shows that..." |
| "Various methods..." | "Three specific methods: A, B, C..." |
| "Significant impact..." | "40% reduction in..." |
The "So What" Test
Every claim should answer:
- Why does this matter?
- To whom does this matter?
- What changes if this succeeds?
Review Criteria (Typical)
NSF Merit Review
- Intellectual Merit
- Importance of proposed activity
- Qualified team
- Sound methodology
- Adequate resources
- Broader Impacts
- Benefit to society
- STEM workforce development
- Broadening participation
- Public engagement
NEH Criteria
- Significance: Importance of the project
- Quality: Soundness of design
- Impact: Potential effects
- Feasibility: Likelihood of completion
Foundation Criteria (Varies)
Common themes:
- Mission alignment
- Potential for impact
- Organizational capacity
- Sustainability
- Innovation
Specific Grant Types
Research Grants
Key elements:
- Literature review showing gap
- Research questions/hypotheses
- Rigorous methodology
- Preliminary data if available
- Dissemination plan
Creative/Arts Grants
Key elements:
- Artistic statement/vision
- Work samples (critical)
- Project description
- Community impact
- Artist's biography
Fellowship Applications
Key elements:
- Personal statement
- Research/project proposal
- Letters of recommendation
- CV/resume
- Writing sample (often)
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|
| Not following guidelines | Read guidelines 3+ times |
| Vague objectives | Make SMART |
| Misaligned with funder | Research thoroughly |
| Budget doesn't match narrative | Cross-check both |
| Missing required elements | Use checklist |
| Jargon overload | Define terms, simplify |
| No preliminary work | Show feasibility |
| Weak evaluation | Be specific and realistic |
| Last-minute submission | Build in buffer |
Timeline for Writing
8-Week Timeline
| Week | Activities |
|---|
| 1 | Read guidelines, assess fit, outline |
| 2 | Draft statement of need, goals |
| 3 | Draft methods, timeline |
| 4 | Draft evaluation, sustainability |
| 5 | Develop budget and justification |
| 6 | Complete first full draft |
| 7 | Internal review, revision |
| 8 | Final polish, submit early |
References
references/budget-templates.md - Detailed budget formatsreferences/funder-profiles.md - Major funder informationreferences/boilerplate-library.md - Reusable sections
