Grant Writing Tips for Nonprofits: How to Write Stronger Grant Applications

Writing effective grant applications is a skill that can be learned. Whether you're approaching a grant for the first time or have years of experience, the quality of your application has a significant influence on funding outcomes. This guide covers the principles and practical techniques that produce stronger grant applications.

Understand before you apply

The most important grant writing work happens before you write a word. Understanding the funder — their priorities, their criteria, their approach, and what they've funded before — is the foundation of a successful application.

Research the funder

  • Read the funder's website, strategy documents, and annual reports carefully
  • Review their grant guidelines and eligibility criteria in detail
  • Look at what they've funded before (many funders publish grant recipient lists)
  • If possible, speak to someone the funder has supported previously to understand their experience

Check fit before committing

Before investing hours in an application, assess honestly whether this funder is a good fit for your work. Ask:
- Does our work clearly align with their stated priorities?
- Are we eligible? (Geography, legal status, scale, sector)
- Is the grant size appropriate for what we're proposing?
- Is our timing right? (Some funders don't fund organisations in their first years)

If the fit is poor, it's better to not apply than to submit a misaligned application that wastes everyone's time.

Contact the funder if permitted

Many funders encourage potential applicants to make contact before applying. A brief conversation can clarify whether your proposal is a good fit and may reveal the specific angle that will resonate with this funder.

The principles of effective grant writing

Write for one reader

Your grant application is read by one or two people — an assessor who may be reviewing dozens of applications. Write directly for that reader: clearly, accessibly, with a focus on what matters to them (alignment with their priorities, confidence that you can deliver, evidence of need and impact).

Lead with the problem, not your organisation

Too many applications start with paragraphs about the applicant organisation before explaining the problem being addressed. Funders fund solutions to problems, not organisations. Open with a clear, compelling description of the need or problem your grant will address.

Be specific

Vague claims ("we help many people in our community") are less convincing than specific ones ("we work with 240 young people aged 13-17 in Otara, 78% of whom are Pasifika"). Specific numbers, specific communities, specific outcomes are more credible than generalizations.

Avoid jargon

Grant assessors may not be experts in your field. Write in plain language that a non-specialist can understand. If technical terms are necessary, explain them. Jargon makes writing seem evasive; clear language builds confidence.

Show evidence of need

Why does this problem exist? Who is affected? What evidence demonstrates the need? Statistics, community research, client stories, and sector data all build the case. Don't assume the assessor knows your community's situation as well as you do.

Tell a coherent story

Your application should tell a coherent story: here's the problem; here's how we address it; here's why our approach works; here's what we need from you; here's what will happen if you support us.

Application structure

Most grant applications follow a similar structure, even if the specific questions vary. Understanding this underlying structure helps you respond to questions more effectively.

The need or problem

What is the issue you're addressing? Who is affected and how severely? What is the context — geographic, demographic, social? Why does this matter to the funder's community?

Strong need statements use:
- Specific numbers (people affected, severity of the problem)
- Local evidence (not just national statistics)
- Community voice (quotes, stories, consultation findings)
- An explanation of why existing provision is inadequate

Your approach and activities

What will you do? Be concrete — what activities, in what sequence, for whom, over what period? Assessors should be able to visualise what you'll actually do with the money.

Include:
- A clear description of the programme or project
- The timeline (when activities will happen)
- Who will be involved (staff, volunteers, partners)
- Why this approach (what evidence supports it?)

Expected outcomes

What will change as a result of this grant? Who will benefit, how, and to what extent? Be realistic and specific — "150 young people will improve their attendance at school" is more credible than "many young people will benefit."

Connect your outcomes to the funder's priorities — they're funding this because they care about specific outcomes; show them how your grant produces those outcomes.

Your organisation

Why are you the right organisation to do this? What track record, expertise, and relationships make you credible? Include:
- A brief description of your organisation and its history
- Evidence of past success with similar work
- Key staff experience and qualifications
- Relevant partnerships

Don't write a detailed organisational history — keep it brief and relevant to this application.

Budget

Your budget should be clear, complete, and credible. Key principles:
- Include all costs, not just the grant portion (show what else is funding the project)
- Explain any significant line items
- Ensure the math adds up
- Don't request more than you need, and don't pad the budget — experienced assessors notice both
- If there's a cost share requirement, show where the remaining funding is coming from

Evaluation and reporting

How will you know your programme is working? What will you measure? How will you collect evidence? What will you do with the learning?

Funders increasingly want to see that grantees have thought about evaluation — not necessarily a sophisticated evaluation design, but evidence that you're thinking about whether your work is making a difference.

Common mistakes

Not reading the guidelines: Failing to follow specific instructions (word limits, required attachments, format) signals poor attention to detail and may result in automatic disqualification.

Copying applications from other funders: Applications written for one funder rarely work well for another. Each application should be tailored to the specific funder's priorities and format.

Underselling or overselling: Don't undersell your work (false modesty) or overclaim impact. Credibility comes from realistic, evidence-based claims.

Burying the key information: Put the most important information where assessors will see it — in the opening paragraphs, not buried in detail.

Poor proofreading: Spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, and formatting inconsistencies undermine the professional impression your application makes.

Submitting at the deadline: Systems crash, attachments fail, unexpected problems arise. Submit well before the deadline.

After the decision

If successful: Acknowledge promptly, review the grant conditions carefully, and clarify anything you don't understand before signing the grant agreement.

If declined: Request feedback if it's offered. Understand why — was it strategic misalignment, a budget issue, a capacity concern, or simply competition in a strong round? Use the feedback to improve future applications to this funder (if they accept reapplications) and to other funders.

Maintain the relationship: Even a declined application is a connection with a funder. Stay in touch through newsletters, social media, or sector events. Funders who know your organisation are more likely to fund it in future rounds.


Tahua's grants management platform helps grant seekers and funders alike — with configurable application forms designed to elicit the information that matters, and the workflow tools that make managing multiple applications straightforward.

Book a conversation with the Tahua team →