Writing grant applications well is a skill — one that takes practice, feedback, and understanding of what funders are actually looking for. Many capable organisations with genuinely good programmes lose out to weaker organisations with better-written applications. Understanding what makes applications strong helps close this gap.
Before thinking about writing tips, understand what an assessor is looking for:
Organisational credibility. Can this organisation be trusted to deliver? Do they have appropriate governance, financial management, and operational capability? Has their past work demonstrated competence?
Programme quality. Is the programme well-designed? Is there a coherent theory of change? Is the approach evidence-informed? Does the budget make sense for the proposed activities?
Need and fit. Is this addressing a genuine need? Is it aligned with the funder's priorities? Are the proposed beneficiaries the people the funder is trying to serve?
Realistic planning. Is the proposed work genuinely achievable in the proposed timeframe and budget? Or does the application promise more than is realistic?
Value for money. Is the cost per outcome reasonable? Could fewer funds achieve the same results, or do the outcomes justify the investment?
Jargon overload. Applications full of sector jargon, acronyms, and insider language are harder to assess. Write as if you're explaining your work to an intelligent person who isn't familiar with your sector.
Assumed knowledge. Don't assume the assessor knows your organisation, your community, or the context for your work. Provide necessary background clearly and concisely.
Vague impact claims. "We will support the community to thrive" tells an assessor nothing. Be specific: "We will provide X service to Y people, resulting in Z outcome, measured by A, B, C."
Budget inconsistencies. Budgets that don't add up, include unexplained items, or don't align with the proposed activities undermine trust. Have someone else check your budget before submitting.
Ignoring the guidelines. Not reading the guidelines carefully — or not following instructions — is surprisingly common. Assessors notice when applications don't answer the questions asked.
Overselling. Applications that promise more than is realistic, or claim impact that isn't substantiated, create credibility problems. Honest, grounded applications from credible organisations beat oversold applications from less credible ones.
Weak theory of change. Applications that describe activities without connecting them to outcomes leave assessors doing the connecting work — and they may connect differently than you intend. Be explicit about why your activities will lead to the outcomes you're claiming.
Answer the question asked. This sounds obvious but is commonly violated. If the form asks "What evidence supports your approach?", answer that question — don't pivot to telling us how long your organisation has existed.
Be specific. Specific details — actual numbers, named programmes, real examples — are more compelling than generalities. "We supported 47 families in the Ōtara community last year" is better than "We support many families in South Auckland."
Explain your theory of change. Connect your activities to your outcomes explicitly. "We provide X because we know that Y is a barrier to Z, and X reduces Y, enabling Z."
Be honest about challenges. Funders don't expect all programmes to be perfectly successful. Applications that acknowledge challenges, explain what the organisation has learned, and describe how they've adapted are more credible than those that pretend everything is perfect.
Get the financials right. Have a financial person review the budget. Confirm numbers are consistent across the application. Explain any significant variances from previous budgets if you're a returning applicant.
Tailor to the funder. Don't send the same application to every funder. Tailoring the application to the specific funder's priorities — even subtly — shows you've read and understood what they're trying to achieve.
Meet deadlines. Late applications are either rejected or create goodwill problems. Build in time for review and submission well before the deadline.
Proofread. Typos, formatting errors, and grammatical mistakes undermine professionalism. Have someone else proofread before submitting.
Ask for feedback. Many funders offer feedback to unsuccessful applicants. Take up this offer — the information is valuable for improving future applications.
Don't personalise rejection. Grant rounds are competitive; even strong applications don't always succeed. A rejection is usually about competition and fit, not about the quality of your work.
Consider whether the funder is the right fit. If your application is consistently unsuccessful with a particular funder, consider whether your work genuinely aligns with their priorities — or whether your energy would be better directed elsewhere.
Tahua helps funders create clear, well-designed application forms that make it easier for nonprofits to submit strong applications — and easier for programme officers to assess them.