How to Write Grant Applications That Actually Get Funded

Most charity grant applications fail. According to the National Lottery Community Fund, success rates for some programmes sit below 20%, meaning four out of every five applications are rejected. Yet the same charities tend to win funding repeatedly, while others submit application after application without success. The difference is rarely the quality of the writing — it is the quality of the evidence behind it.

Too many charities approach grant applications as a creative writing exercise. They start from a blank page each time, craft emotionally compelling narratives, and hope the funder will be moved enough to say yes. But funders are not looking for good prose. They are looking for proof: proof that your organisation understands the problem, proof that your approach works, and proof that you can deliver what you promise. The charities that win grants consistently are the ones that can back up every claim with real data, verified outcomes, and documented case studies.

This guide breaks down exactly what separates funded applications from rejected ones, and shows you how to build the evidence base that makes grant writing dramatically easier. Whether you are submitting your first application or your fiftieth, the principles are the same: lead with evidence, not aspiration.

What you will learn

• How to structure a grant application that funders actually want to read
• The most common reasons applications get rejected — and how to avoid them
• How to use outcome data, case studies, and programme evidence to strengthen every section

Who this is for

• Charity managers and fundraisers writing grant applications in the UK
• Small and medium charities looking to improve their funding success rate
• Organisations submitting their first grant application

Why Do Most Charity Grant Applications Get Rejected?

The majority of grant applications fail not because the project is weak, but because the application does not give the funder enough confidence to say yes. Funders consistently report that a lack of clear evidence of need is among the most common reasons for rejecting applications. The project might be excellent, but if you cannot demonstrate that clearly on paper, you will not be funded.

Rejection typically falls into a few predictable categories. The application does not match the funder's priorities. The budget is vague or unrealistic. The outcomes are aspirational rather than measurable. Or the charity simply has not shown that it has the track record to deliver.

The good news is that most of these problems are fixable. They are not about writing talent — they are about preparation and evidence. Charities that invest in tracking their outcomes before they apply for funding find the application process dramatically easier, because the hard work of proving impact has already been done.

Research from New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) suggests that charities with established outcome measurement frameworks are significantly more likely to secure repeat funding. The evidence does the heavy lifting.

What Makes a Strong Grant Application Structure?

A winning application follows a clear, logical structure that mirrors how funders actually assess proposals. Most funders — whether trusts, statutory bodies, or corporate givers — are looking for the same core elements, even if their forms differ.

The essential components are:

1. Statement of need — What problem are you addressing, and how do you know it exists? Use local or national data to quantify the need.
2. Your approach — What will you do, and why will it work? Reference your theory of change and any evidence from previous delivery.
3. Outcomes and impact — What will change as a result? Be specific and measurable.
4. Organisational credibility — Why is your charity the right one to deliver this? Include track record, partnerships, and governance.
5. Budget and value for money — How much will it cost, and is that reasonable? Break down costs clearly.
6. Sustainability — What happens when the funding ends?

The Directory of Social Change has noted that the majority of rejected applications are missing at least one of these elements or address it too vaguely. Structure is not a formality — it is the framework that gives funders confidence.

The charities that consistently win funding often use templates built from their own data. Rather than writing from scratch, they pull verified outcomes, case studies, and programme metrics directly into each section. This is where tools like Plinth's AI grant writer make a measurable difference — drafting sections from your actual data rather than requiring you to remember and rewrite everything each time.

How Do You Write a Compelling Statement of Need?

Start with the problem, not your organisation. Funders want to understand the issue before they hear about your solution. The best statements of need combine hard data with human context — national statistics alongside the reality your beneficiaries face.

The Charity Commission's 2024 annual report noted that over 170,000 registered charities operate in England and Wales, many addressing overlapping needs. Your statement of need must explain why your specific intervention matters in your specific context. Generic claims about poverty or isolation are not enough.

A strong statement of need includes:

• Scale of the problem — How many people are affected, locally or nationally?
• Evidence of the gap — What is not being done, or not being done well enough?
• Beneficiary voice — What do the people you serve actually say they need?
• Urgency — Why does this need funding now?

NCVO's UK Civil Society Almanac 2024 reported that voluntary sector income reached approximately £69.1 billion in 2021-22, yet demand for services continued to outstrip supply across nearly every subsector. Funders know this. What they need from you is specificity — not that "young people face challenges" but that "in our borough, 340 young people were referred to mental health services last year with an average wait of 14 weeks, and 38% disengaged before receiving support."

If you are collecting data through beneficiary surveys and tracking outcomes through your programmes, this specificity becomes straightforward. You are not guessing at the need — you are documenting it in real time.

What Evidence Do Funders Actually Want to See?

Funders want evidence that is specific, credible, and relevant. Research by the Institute for Voluntary Action Research (IVAR) has consistently shown that funders place demonstrable evidence of past impact among the most important factors in their funding decisions, often ahead of innovation, partnerships, or cost efficiency.

This does not mean you need a peer-reviewed evaluation for every programme. But you do need more than anecdote. The hierarchy of evidence that funders respond to looks roughly like this:

The strongest applications combine multiple types. They lead with quantitative outcome data, support it with qualitative case studies, and bring it to life with direct beneficiary quotes. This layered approach gives funders confidence at every level — the numbers show it works, the stories show how, and the voices show it matters.

The applications that stand out are the ones where the evidence feels lived-in, not bolted on. Grants officers can tell when an organisation genuinely tracks its outcomes versus when they have scrambled to find something impressive for the form.

Charities using platforms like Plinth can pull this evidence directly from their impact reporting and AI-generated case notes, which means the data in the application matches the data in the system — verified, consistent, and ready to use.

How Should You Present Outcomes and Impact?

Present outcomes as specific, measurable changes — not activities. This is one of the most common mistakes in grant applications: confusing what you do with what changes as a result. Running 50 workshops is an output. The fact that 78% of attendees gained a recognised qualification is an outcome.

The National Lottery Community Fund's guidance explicitly asks applicants to distinguish between outputs (the things you deliver) and outcomes (the changes that result). Their evaluations of funded projects have repeatedly found that a significant proportion of grantees fail to meet their original outcome targets — often because the targets were poorly defined in the first place.

Good outcome statements follow the SMART framework, but with a crucial addition: they should be grounded in your existing data. If you have been delivering a similar programme before, your targets should reflect what you have actually achieved, not what you hope for.

Notice how the strong statements reference baselines and prior data. This is where systematic outcome measurement pays off — not just for reporting, but for making your next application credible.

When your data lives in a structured system, you can generate these statements quickly and accurately. Plinth's AI grant writer drafts outcome sections by referencing your actual programme data, so the targets you set in your application are grounded in what you have already delivered.

How Do You Write a Realistic Budget That Funders Trust?

A clear, honest budget signals organisational competence more than almost any other part of your application. Funders consistently cite poorly constructed budgets — figures that do not add up, unrealistic costings, or missing overheads — as one of the most common reasons for rejecting otherwise strong applications. They are not looking for the cheapest proposal — they are looking for one that makes financial sense.

Your budget should include:

• Staff costs — Broken down by role, hours, and salary (including on-costs such as National Insurance and pension contributions)
• Direct delivery costs — Materials, venue hire, travel, equipment
• Overheads — A proportionate share of rent, utilities, insurance, and management time
• Monitoring and evaluation — The cost of tracking whether the project works
• Contingency — Typically 5-10% for unforeseen costs

NCVO's True Cost of Delivering Public Services research found that 87% of charities delivering public services were subsidising underfunded grants and contracts with other income, and 40% said the value of government grants and contracts never covered the true costs of delivery. This dynamic feeds what the sector calls "the starvation cycle" — where charities consistently under-resource projects, deliver less than promised, and then struggle to demonstrate impact for the next application.

As NPC has argued in its work on full cost recovery: if your budget does not include the true costs of delivery, you are essentially telling the funder that your project can run on goodwill. That is not a funding proposition — it is a risk.

Be transparent about match funding, in-kind contributions, and what other funders are covering. Funders regularly check whether the numbers add up across multiple grants. If you are tracking programme costs and grant budgets in a system like Plinth, you can ensure consistency across applications and avoid the embarrassment of conflicting figures.

What Role Does Organisational Credibility Play?

Organisational credibility is the silent factor that determines whether a funder trusts your application enough to invest. You can have a brilliant project plan and compelling evidence, but if the funder doubts your ability to deliver, the application will fail. The Charity Commission's 2025 data shows there are over 170,000 registered charities in England and Wales — funders need reasons to back you specifically.

Credibility is demonstrated through:

• Track record — Previous projects delivered on time and within budget, with documented outcomes
• Governance — A competent, diverse board with relevant experience
• Financial health — Clean accounts, adequate reserves, and transparent reporting
• Partnerships — Relationships with other organisations that strengthen delivery
• Beneficiary involvement — Evidence that the people you serve have shaped your approach

For newer charities without an extensive track record, credibility can be built through pilot data, partnership endorsements, and evidence of organisational learning. Even a small-scale pilot with properly collected outcome data is more convincing than a grand vision with no supporting evidence.

This is why collecting impact data consistently — even when you are not currently applying for a grant — matters so much. Every programme you run is an opportunity to build the evidence base that makes your next application stronger. Charities that treat data collection as business-as-usual rather than a grant requirement are the ones that build lasting credibility with funders.

How Can AI Help You Write Better Grant Applications?

AI can dramatically reduce the time spent on grant applications — but only if it is working from your real data. The difference between useful AI and generic AI in grant writing is the difference between an application grounded in your actual outcomes and one filled with plausible-sounding generalities that any charity could have written.

The Charity Digital Skills Report 2025 found that 36% of UK charities were using AI tools specifically for grant fundraising, making it the most common organisational use of AI in the sector. Yet many are using general-purpose AI tools (like ChatGPT) to polish language or generate text from a brief. The output reads well but lacks the specific evidence that funders need.

The more effective approach is AI that draws on your organisation's own data. When your outcome metrics, case studies, beneficiary feedback, and programme reports are stored in a structured system, AI can draft application sections that include your real numbers, reference your actual delivery, and cite your verified results.

This is the approach behind Plinth's AI grant writer. Rather than generating generic text, it pulls from your impact reports, survey results, and case notes to produce first drafts that are specific to your organisation. You still review and refine everything — but you are editing a draft grounded in evidence, not staring at a blank page.

For small charities managing multiple grants, this can reclaim significant staff time. Instead of spending 15-20 hours on each application, teams report cutting drafting time by up to 60%, freeing capacity for the relationship-building and programme design that also matter.

What Are the Most Common Grant Application Mistakes?

Avoidable mistakes cost charities funding every year. Based on funder feedback published by ACF, IVAR, and the National Lottery Community Fund, the most frequent errors cluster around a few themes. Awareness of these patterns can immediately improve your next application.

1. Not reading the guidance. It sounds obvious, but funders consistently report that a significant proportion of applications — sometimes up to 30% — are ineligible because the applicant has not checked the criteria. Always read the full guidance document before writing a single word.

2. Leading with your organisation, not the need. Funders want to understand the problem first. Applications that open with "We are a wonderful charity that has been operating since 1997..." lose the reader immediately. Start with the issue, then introduce your organisation as the solution.

3. Vague outcomes. "We will make a difference" is not a measurable outcome. Every outcome should specify what will change, for whom, by how much, and how you will know. See the grant application best practices guide for more on this.

4. Ignoring the budget. A budget that does not match the narrative, omits core costs, or is clearly unrealistic undermines the entire application. Make the numbers tell the same story as the words.

5. No evidence of demand. Asserting that your service is needed is not the same as proving it. Include waiting lists, referral data, beneficiary feedback, or needs assessments.

6. Submitting at the last minute. Rushed applications show. Build in time for at least one colleague to review before submission.

7. Recycling old applications without updating. Funders can tell when an application has been repurposed from a previous submission without being tailored. Every application should speak directly to the specific funder's priorities and criteria.

How Do You Build a Repeatable Grant Application Process?

The most efficient fundraising teams do not treat each application as a standalone exercise. They build systems that make every subsequent application faster and stronger. This is where the compound benefit of good data collection becomes clear.

A repeatable process includes:

• An evidence library — A central store of outcome data, case studies, evaluation reports, and beneficiary quotes that can be drawn on for any application
• Template sections — Pre-written descriptions of your organisation, governance, safeguarding policies, and financial management that are updated quarterly
• A funder tracker — A record of which funders you have approached, when, with what result, and when you can reapply
• A review process — At least one internal review before submission, ideally from someone who has not written the application
• Post-submission learning — Recording funder feedback (when available) and incorporating it into future applications

Charities with documented fundraising processes consistently report more stable and growing income than those without. Process is not bureaucracy — it is the infrastructure that sustains funding.

When your evidence library lives in a platform like Plinth, the AI grant writer can access it automatically. New applications draw on the latest data, and you can ensure that the evidence you present is always current and consistent across submissions. This is fundamentally different from maintaining a folder of old Word documents — it is a living, structured knowledge base that improves with every programme you deliver.

For detailed guidance on managing the grants you do win, see our guide on grant management for small charities.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should a grant application be?

Follow the funder's word count or page limit exactly. Where no limit is given, aim for concise and complete rather than exhaustive — most applications should be 4-8 pages for the main narrative. The National Lottery Community Fund's standard application form typically allows 300-500 words per section. Reviewers read dozens of applications; brevity backed by evidence is more persuasive than length.

How far in advance should I start writing a grant application?

Allow a minimum of four weeks for a standard application, and eight to twelve weeks for complex statutory bids. According to the Directory of Social Change, the most successful fundraisers begin preparing three months before a deadline, starting with evidence collection and funder research before writing begins.

Can a new charity with no track record win grants?

Yes, but you need to compensate for the lack of track record with other forms of credibility. Pilot data — even from a small-scale trial — is extremely valuable. Partnerships with established organisations, strong governance, and evidence of beneficiary involvement all help. Some funders, such as the Tudor Trust and Lloyds Bank Foundation, specifically support early-stage organisations. Start with smaller grants to build your evidence base and funder relationships.

What is the average success rate for charity grant applications in the UK?

Success rates vary significantly by funder and programme, but sector-wide estimates suggest an average of 20-30% for competitive grant rounds. The National Lottery Community Fund's larger programmes often report success rates below 20%. However, charities with strong evidence, clear outcomes, and a good fit with funder priorities consistently outperform these averages. Improving your evidence base is the single most effective way to raise your success rate.

Should I use AI to write my grant application?

AI is a powerful drafting tool, but it should augment your process, not replace it. Generic AI tools can produce fluent text that lacks the specific evidence funders need. The most effective approach is AI that draws on your own programme data — your verified outcomes, case studies, and impact metrics — to produce drafts grounded in reality. Plinth's AI grant writer works this way, pulling from your actual data rather than generating generic content. Always review and personalise AI-generated drafts before submission.

How do I find the right grants to apply for?

Start with funders whose priorities align closely with your work — not the other way around. Use resources such as the Directory of Social Change's grant databases, Funds Online, and local infrastructure organisations (such as your local CVS or volunteer centre). Check funder websites for previously funded projects to gauge fit. The Charity Commission's register also shows which funders support which causes. Applying to fewer, better-matched funders is more effective than a scattergun approach.

What should I do if my grant application is rejected?

Request feedback if the funder offers it — and many do. IVAR's research on open and trusting grantmaking has found that a growing number of UK funders now provide some form of feedback on unsuccessful applications. Use this to identify specific weaknesses. Common reasons include poor fit with priorities, insufficient evidence, or a weak budget. Do not assume rejection means the project is bad; it often means the application needs strengthening. Review our guide on why grant applications keep getting rejected for a detailed breakdown.

How many grant applications should my charity submit per year?

Quality matters more than quantity. A small charity is better served by submitting 8-12 strong, well-researched applications per year than 30 rushed ones. NCVO data suggests that charities spending more time per application on evidence gathering achieve higher success rates overall. Prioritise opportunities where you have the strongest fit and the best evidence.

Recommended Next Pages

• Grant Application Best Practices — Detailed guidance on structuring and formatting your applications
• What Is Outcome Measurement? — Understanding how to measure and report the changes your programmes create
• Grant Management for Small Charities — Managing funding effectively once you have won it
• AI-Powered Grant Applications — How AI tools are transforming the grant writing process for charities
• Why Charities Struggle to Collect Impact Data — Common barriers to evidence collection and how to overcome them

Last updated: February 2026