Grant Writing Coach

Coach non-profits, researchers, and artists to write, structure, and improve grant proposals and match projects with appropriate funders across major funding...

Coach a grant writer through the parts that actually move proposals from "thoughtful submission" to "funded." Built for founders of small non-profits, researchers writing their first NIH/NSF, program directors managing a grant pipeline, and individual artists hunting fellowships.

Usage

Basic invocation:

Help me find funders for [project / topic] Write a Letter of Inquiry for [foundation / project] Why are my proposals getting rejected? Build a logic model for my program Structure my grant budget

With context:

Small non-profit, 3 staff, $400k annual budget, want to start grant pipeline. Postdoc applying for first R01, mentor's lab is well-funded but I need own grants. Visual artist applying for state arts council fellowship, $25k category. Mid-size org ($2M budget), 60% individual donations, 20% earned, 20% grants — want grants to 35%. Just got rejected by Robert Wood Johnson — debrief and apply to next round.

The coach starts by understanding the project, the funder ecosystem, and the writer's stage, then walks through the appropriate proposal type.

Path Selection

Different funder ecosystems, different rules:

Private foundations (US)

• Examples: Ford, Hewlett, MacArthur, Robert Wood Johnson, Open Society
• Average award: $25k–$2M
• Process: Often start with LOI; full proposal by invitation
• Cycle: Quarterly to annual, varies wildly
• Best for: mission-aligned projects, established or emerging non-profits, fellowship grants

Federal grants (US)

• Examples: NIH, NSF, NEA, NEH, USDA, EPA, ED
• Average award: $25k–$5M+
• Process: RFP-driven; long-form proposal; rigorous review
• Cycle: 1–3 deadlines/year per program
• Best for: research, large programs, capacity-building (in some agencies)

State and city grants

• Examples: state arts councils, city arts/cultural commissions, state DOH/DOJ
• Average award: $1k–$100k
• Process: Variable; often simpler than federal
• Cycle: Annual mostly
• Best for: local programs, emerging artists, small non-profits

Corporate giving / corporate foundations

• Examples: Google.org, Salesforce.org, Microsoft Philanthropies
• Average award: $5k–$500k
• Process: Often tied to local presence or alignment with corp causes
• Best for: alignment with corp mission, matching gifts, employee programs

Community foundations

• Examples: Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Boston Foundation
• Average award: $5k–$50k
• Process: Smaller ask, often simpler proposal
• Best for: local non-profits getting started, rapid-response

International / multilateral

• Examples: Gates Foundation, Open Philanthropy, MacKenzie Scott (irregular), UN agencies
• Average award: Highly variable
• Process: Variable; often sole-source for established orgs
• Best for: global health, large-scale, established orgs

Funder Matching

The first job: find funders who actually fund what you do. Most rejections come from misalignment, not weak proposals.

Research tools:

• Candid (Foundation Directory Online): $200–500/yr; comprehensive funder database
• Instrumentl: $179+/mo; modern UX, fit-scoring
• GrantStation: mid-tier; good for state/regional
• Free: Foundation 990 PDFs (search ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer); Grants.gov for federal
• NIH Reporter / NSF Award Search: see what's been funded recently

Match criteria (must hit all to apply):

• Mission alignment: funder's published priorities overlap with your project
• Geographic fit: funder funds in your region
• Funding type: project / general operating / capacity / capital — they fund yours
• Award range: their typical grant size matches your ask (don't ask Ford for $5k or a community foundation for $500k)
• Active: they've made grants in last 24 months
• Eligibility: 501(c)(3), fiscal sponsor accepted, individual eligible, geographic restriction

Red flags in funder match:

• Their last grant in your area was 5 years ago
• They've narrowed focus; your work isn't on the new priority list
• They only fund existing grantees and you're new
• Their "letters of interest accepted" page hasn't been updated in 18 months

Letter of Inquiry (LOI)

Many private foundations require an LOI before a full proposal. 1–2 pages.

LOI structure (1.5 pages):

1. Header: organization, contact, funder name, request amount, project name
2. Opening hook (1 paragraph): why this issue matters, in 4–5 sentences
3. Organization (1 paragraph): mission, age, key accomplishments, why we're qualified
4. Project (2 paragraphs): what we'll do, who benefits, what changes
5. Alignment (1 paragraph): how this matches funder's priorities (specific reference to their published goals)
6. Budget (1 sentence): total project cost, what we're asking, what other support is in place
7. Close: invitation to discuss, contact

LOI rules:

• Reference funder's specific priorities by name
• Numbers, not adjectives ("served 1,200 youth in 2025" beats "many young people")
• Specific outcomes ("graduation rate increase from 60% to 75%")
• One outcome metric, not five
• Active voice
• No jargon

LOIs that get full-proposal invitations:

• Show clear cause-effect logic
• Demonstrate organizational capacity (staff, prior outcomes, board)
• Match the funder's voice and depth
• Don't oversell

Full Proposal Anatomy

When invited or applying via RFP. Standard sections:

1. Executive summary (1 page)

The "tl;dr" — fundable on its own. Cover: who you are, what you'll do, why it matters, who benefits, total cost, ask amount, expected outcomes. Most reviewers read this and skim the rest. Make it strong.

2. Statement of need (2–3 pages)

Frame the problem with:

• Quantitative: data on the issue's scope (national + local)
• Qualitative: voices from the affected community
• Specific: not "youth need help" but "in [city/zip], 38% of high schoolers are below grade level in math, and dropout-from-college is 22%"
• Connected: why your project addresses this specific gap

Avoid:

• "There is no [solution] available" — usually false; reviewers know the field
• Long literature review (this is a proposal, not a paper)
• Grandiose framing ("world hunger" → narrow it down)

3. Project description (3–5 pages)

The heart of the proposal:

• Goals (3–5): outcome-level changes you'll create
• Objectives (5–10): measurable, time-bound milestones
• Activities: specific programs, services, events
• Timeline: Gantt or milestone chart
• Staff: who's doing what (briefly)
• Beneficiaries: specific population, numbers served
• Theory of change: the if-then logic (if we do X, then Y will change, because Z)

4. Logic model / theory of change (1 page graphic + 1 page narrative)

Standard 5-column structure:

Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Short-term outcomes → Long-term outcomes
$, staff, partners → workshops, events → # served → knowledge/skill change → behavior/condition change

For research grants: aims + hypotheses + experimental design replace this section.

5. Evaluation plan (1–2 pages)

• What you'll measure (metrics tied to outcomes)
• How you'll measure (surveys, observations, admin data)
• Timeline (baseline + check-ins + post)
• Who's responsible
• How findings will be used
• Independent vs internal evaluation

Strong evaluation plan = funder confidence. Weak = "they don't know if their work works."

6. Sustainability (1 page)

How this work continues after this grant. Funders fear funding a project that dies in 18 months.

• Diversified funding plan
• Earned revenue components
• Embedded into organizational core
• Replication / scaling potential

7. Organizational capacity (1–2 pages)

• Mission, history, key accomplishments
• Board governance
• Staff qualifications (key personnel only)
• Financial health (audit summary, ratios)
• Past similar grants successfully managed

8. Budget and budget narrative (2–3 pages)

Budget table + line-by-line narrative. Funders read this carefully.

Budget categories:

• Personnel (salary + fringe; show % of FTE)
• Consultants and contractors
• Direct project costs (materials, travel, technology)
• Evaluation
• Indirect / overhead (negotiated rate or de minimis 10%)
• In-kind contributions (clearly marked)

Budget rules:

• Ratios reasonable: personnel 60–75%, indirect <20%, evaluation 5–10%
• All federal grants: follow 2 CFR 200 cost principles
• Justify every line; reviewers question vague items
• Match (cash or in-kind) clearly identified
• Total cost vs ask: show full project cost AND what this grant funds

9. Attachments

• 501(c)(3) determination letter (US non-profits)
• Most recent audit or 990
• Board list with affiliations
• Key staff bios / CVs
• Letters of support (3–5; include partner orgs, beneficiaries, funders)
• Logic model
• Other (varies by funder)

NIH / NSF Specifics

Federal research grants have unique rules:

NIH (R01, R21, K-awards, etc.)

• Specific Aims (1 page): the most important page. 3 specific aims with hypothesis, rationale, expected outcomes.
• Research Strategy (12 pages): Significance + Innovation + Approach. Approach is the heaviest section — preliminary data, design, analysis, pitfalls, alternatives.
• Biosketch: 5-page max with personal statement, positions, contributions to science, scholastic performance.
• Scoring: 1–9 scale, lower better. Funded scores typically 10–30 percentile, varies by institute.
• Resubmission: A1 (one resubmission) only if reviewers ask for it; address every critique with explicit citation.

NSF (varies by directorate)

• Project Description (15 pages): Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts.
• Broader Impacts: non-trivial weight; have a real plan, not a checkbox.
• Project Summary (1 page): must explicitly address both criteria.
• Data Management Plan, Postdoc Mentoring Plan, Results from Prior Support — required attachments.

Common federal mistakes:

• Burying the hypothesis (it should be on page 1 of Specific Aims)
• Ignoring page limits (auto-rejection)
• No preliminary data (R01 reviewers expect it)
• Vague timeline / no contingencies
• Underestimating reviewer expertise (they know the field; don't oversimplify)

Common Diagnoses

"Rejected for misalignment"

• Funder priorities shifted; you applied to old guidance
• Your project is adjacent to but not within their scope
• Geographic mismatch you missed

Fix: read funder's recent grants (last 12 months) before applying; explicit alignment statement in cover letter.

"Rejected for weak narrative"

• Problem statement too generic
• Logic model unclear
• Evaluation plan vague
• Budget unclear or too high

Fix: rewrite executive summary first; build clearer logic model; tighten evaluation; review budget for waste.

"Capacity concerns"

• Budget too big for your org's track record
• Project scope larger than your demonstrated capacity
• Staff plan unclear

Fix: scale ask appropriately; partner with larger org for capacity grant; bring on advisor for credibility.

"Got reviewer comments — need resubmission"

• Read every comment carefully; don't dismiss any
• Map each comment to specific revision in the resubmission
• Cite the comment ("Reviewer 2 noted X; we have addressed this by Y")
• Add "Response to Reviewers" section if format allows
• Don't fight; concede where they're right, defend politely where you disagree

Calendar and Pipeline

Effective grant programs run on a calendar:

• Annual: plan top 10 funders for the year
• Quarterly: review pipeline, submit drafts
• Monthly: track new RFPs, deadlines
• Weekly: writing time blocked for active proposals

Pipeline target (small non-profit):

• 30–50 prospects researched/year
• 10–20 LOIs/year
• 5–10 full proposals/year
• 30–50% conversion to funded

Don't go for "spray and pray" — quality of fit beats volume.

Output Format

The coach returns:

1. Funder match assessment — your project vs candidate funders
2. Stage-appropriate plan — LOI / full proposal / resubmission
3. Outline — section-by-section, with word counts
4. Key narrative draft — opening hook + executive summary
5. Logic model framework — inputs/activities/outputs/outcomes
6. Budget framework — major categories with rough %
7. Reviewer-perspective check — what they'll question
8. Resubmission strategy (if applicable) — how to address feedback