What Grant Reviewers Actually Look For
Every grant program has a rubric — a scoring matrix that reviewers use to evaluate applications. What most applicants don't realize is that the rubric is a gift: it tells you exactly what to write. Reviewers are not looking for the most inspiring mission statement or the most creative solution. They are scoring specific elements against specific criteria, and the organizations with the highest scores win — regardless of whether their work is objectively more valuable than the second-place applicant.
The single most important shift you can make in your grant writing practice is to write to the rubric, not to your mission. This guide covers the mechanics of that shift, and the most common mistakes that cause strong organizations to lose grants they should have won.
Before You Write: The Fit Assessment
Most grant losses happen before a single word is written. Organizations apply to grants they are not well-positioned to win because the eligibility looks sufficient but the fit is weak. Before investing time in any application, score yourself honestly on these dimensions:
- Geographic alignment: Does your service area match the funder's geographic priority? A funder focused on rural Appalachia should not receive a proposal from an urban Philadelphia organization serving "rural counties in Pennsylvania."
- Population alignment: Does your primary population match the funder's target beneficiaries? A workforce funder focused on formerly incarcerated adults may rate your general workforce program lower than a competitor whose entire model serves that population.
- Budget alignment: If you're requesting $500,000 from a funder that typically makes $50,000 grants, expect rejection. Research the funder's grant history (available on Candid/Foundation Directory and in 990s) to confirm your ask is within their typical range.
- Track record alignment: Some funders explicitly require a minimum operating history (often 2–3 years). Others don't state it but rate established organizations higher. New organizations should target funders that explicitly support emerging nonprofits.
If you score weakly on more than one dimension, move to the next prospect rather than spending 40 hours on a low-probability application.
Writing the Needs Statement
The needs statement answers one question: Why does this problem require a solution now, in this community, funded by this grant? The most common failure in needs statements is using national statistics to describe a local problem. Reviewers are not funding a national problem — they are funding a local or regional intervention. Use local data.
Effective needs statement data sources include:
- U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (census.gov/data)
- County Health Rankings (countyhealthrankings.org)
- State agency reports (department of education, health, housing, labor)
- Your own program data from previous years
- Community needs assessments conducted by local governments or health systems
Frame the data around the specific community the grant will serve — not your service area in general. "In the three census tracts comprising the Southside neighborhood, 47% of households are food insecure, compared to 18% countywide" is a stronger needs statement opening than "food insecurity affects millions of Americans."
Writing the Program Description
The program description must connect your activities directly to the outcomes the funder cares about. Use a logic model framework, whether or not the application explicitly requires one: inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impact. Reviewers need to see that your activities will plausibly produce the outcomes you're claiming.
Common problems in program descriptions:
- Vague activities: "Provide job training services" is not an activity. "Deliver a 12-week industry-recognized welding certification program, 20 hours/week, to 25 adults per cohort, with classroom instruction, hands-on lab time, and paid internship placement" is an activity.
- Outcome inflation: Claiming your program will produce outcomes the evidence doesn't support. If your program runs for 6 months, you cannot plausibly claim long-term income gains as a direct program outcome — you can claim interim outcomes (certifications earned, job placements) and note that research links those to long-term gains.
- Missing implementation timeline: Most federal and large foundation grants require a timeline. Include one even if it's not required. It signals operational competence.
Building the Budget
Reviewers scrutinize budgets to assess two things: whether the proposed costs are reasonable for the scope of work, and whether the organization has budgeted enough to actually implement the program well. Both over-budgeting and under-budgeting are red flags.
- Personnel costs: Justify each FTE or fractional FTE with a description of their role. A program director at 0.5 FTE and a case manager at 1.0 FTE is credible for a 50-person caseload. One program coordinator at 0.25 FTE managing 200 clients is not.
- Indirect costs: Use your federally negotiated indirect cost rate if you have one. If you don't, most funders will accept up to 10–15% indirect as a de facto standard. Don't hide indirect costs in direct cost line items — this creates problems at audit.
- Match funds: When match is required, document the source and confirm its availability. Committed match (signed MOUs, board-approved commitments) is far stronger than anticipated match.
- Budget narrative: Every line item should have a one-sentence justification explaining the basis for the calculation. "$78,000 = Program Manager, $65,000 salary × 1.2 fringe rate, 100% dedicated to grant activities" is a complete justification.
The Evaluation Plan
Many applicants write perfunctory evaluation sections and lose points they could have kept. The evaluation plan answers: How will you know if the program worked? Federal grants increasingly require a logic model and a data collection plan with specific metrics and measurement timepoints.
At minimum, specify: what outcomes you will measure, how you will measure them (what data collection instrument or source), who will collect data, when they will collect it, and how you will use the data to improve the program. If you have access to an external evaluator, name them — it signals methodological rigor that reviewers reward.
Common Reasons Applications Are Rejected
- Application submitted after the deadline (even by minutes for electronic submissions)
- Required attachments missing (letters of support, audit, IRS determination letter, board list)
- Budget does not match narrative figures
- Outcomes are not measurable (no specific metrics, no timeframe, no baseline)
- Applicant eligibility is not clearly established
- Program description does not address every section of the application instructions
- Narrative exceeds page limits (some programs discard everything past the limit)
Build a Grant Prospect Pipeline First
The organizations with the highest grant win rates are not necessarily the best writers — they are the ones applying to the right funders. A well-matched application to a well-suited funder will almost always outperform a polished application to the wrong funder. FindGrants.io builds your prospect pipeline by matching your organization profile against 23,000+ grants, ranked by fit score. Start with the highest-match opportunities and your win rate goes up before you write a single word.