A grant announcement can be an exciting moment. I felt that excitement when sharing the launch of TurnUp Jigawa's Local Government Accountability and Performance project. But the announcement is only the beginning of what the organisation must deliver. That is why I think a proposal should describe work that people can actually carry out. The promises need to remain sensible when they become someone's daily responsibilities.
The starting point should be the need and the organisation's relevant capacity. A funding opportunity may help make useful work possible, but its language should not become the only reason the work is proposed. The plan needs a basis that would remain understandable even without the donor's application headings.
Connect the activity to the problem
A proposal should explain why the chosen activity is likely to address the identified need. Training, equipment, outreach, and dialogue are different responses. The writer should show the reasoning behind the choice rather than assume that an activity is justified because it is familiar or easy to describe in a budget.
The intended participants should be defined clearly enough to plan delivery. Broad labels can hide important differences in access, scheduling, and support requirements. Where community input informed the design, describe that input accurately. A planned consultation should not be written as if it has already occurred simply to make the proposal appear better grounded.
Make capacity and commitments visible
Describe relevant experience without turning an application into a catalogue of exaggerated achievements. The organisation should distinguish its own contribution from a partner's work. A prospective partnership should remain prospective until confirmed. These distinctions help the reviewer understand which parts of the delivery plan are established and which still require agreement.
Imagine a proposed school support programme. The plan needs to explain the schools involved, the basis for selection, the activities, responsible people, and the arrangements required before delivery. If school participation has not yet been confirmed, that should appear as a preparatory step rather than a completed commitment. The timeline should allow for it.
Costs should correspond to the work. Staff time, materials, travel, monitoring, and follow-up should be considered according to the actual design. A tidy total is not enough if essential tasks have no resources. Equally, a budget line should have a clear purpose rather than exist because similar proposals usually include it.
The final application should be read as one connected plan. Participant numbers, activity dates, staffing, and budget assumptions need to agree across sections. Contradictions between otherwise polished paragraphs can reveal that the proposal's parts have not yet been brought together.
Define success at a realistic level
The proposal should separate what will be delivered from the change it hopes to support. Attendance, materials distributed, learning demonstrated, and later behaviour are different kinds of results. The monitoring plan should match the claim. Promising a lasting outcome without a suitable way to examine it weakens the proposal's credibility.
Risks should be practical enough to influence planning. If an activity depends on permission, transport, or a particular specialist, explain the dependency and the response if it becomes difficult. Generic assurances that challenges will be managed provide little evidence that the team has examined the work carefully.
A good proposal makes ambition understandable through implementation. It tells the reviewer what the organisation knows, what it can do, and what it must still arrange. Winning support matters, but delivering responsibly matters afterwards. The application should be written with both moments in view.
0 Comments