Grant writing has a reputation for being a dark art. It isn't. It's a scoring exercise, and the people scoring it are working through a rubric with a finite amount of time per application.
Once you understand that, almost everything about how to write one becomes obvious.
01 / Eligibility firstMost failures happen before merit.
A large share of unsuccessful applications are never actually assessed on merit. They fail a threshold test — wrong entity type, no insurance, no tenure, wrong geography, ineligible cost category — and are set aside before anyone reads the good bit.
Figure 01 · The threshold checklist
Confirm all of these before you write a word.
About your group
- Entity type — incorporated, auspiced or individual: which does this round accept?
- ABN and, if required, charity or DGR status
- Current insurance certificate — not expiring mid-project
- Land tenure documentation if the project is on a site
- Acquittals up to date on any previous grants
About the project
- Eligible cost categories — are wages, insurance or operating costs excluded?
- Timeframe — can you genuinely deliver inside the funding period?
- Co-contribution — is one required, and can you evidence it?
- Geography — does your site fall inside the eligible area?
- Permits and approvals — are any needed, and how long do they take?
If any box can't be ticked, either fix it before applying or find a different round. Applying while ineligible costs you volunteer hours and returns nothing.
02 / Choose the right roundFit beats ambition.
The strongest predictor of success is how closely your project matches what the funder said they wanted to fund. Not how good your project is in the abstract — how well it fits their stated purpose.
What loses
Reshaping a project to chase available money, then hoping the assessor doesn't notice the seams.
What wins
Finding the round whose stated purpose your existing project already serves, then describing it in that round's language.
03 / Write to the criteriaLiterally.
Assessment criteria are usually published with weightings. That is the marking scheme, handed to you in advance. Use it as your structure.
Figure 02 · How to structure answers
Four habits that lift a score.
| Habit | Why it works |
|---|---|
| Use the funder's own words as headings | An assessor scoring against "demonstrated community need" can find your evidence for community need instantly. Never make them hunt. |
| Lead each answer with the answer | First sentence states the claim. Following sentences evidence it. Assessors read a great many applications and reward clarity. |
| Quantify everything you can | "412 households surveyed, 380 responded, 71% nominated this as their first priority" outperforms "strong community support" every time. |
| Match effort to weighting | If a criterion is worth 40%, it deserves the most words and the best evidence. Do not write your longest answer on a 10% criterion. |
Assessors are not looking for the most passionate application. They are looking for the one that lets them award points without having to infer anything.— David Greenwood OAM
04 / The budgetWhere credibility is won or lost.
Figure 03 · Budget red flags
Four things that make an assessor doubt you.
Round numbers
A budget of $2,000 / $3,000 / $5,000 reads as an estimate. $1,847 / $3,120 / $4,910 reads as quotes. Get real quotes and use them.
No contingency
Nothing ever comes in exactly on estimate. A small, stated contingency signals experience rather than uncertainty.
Ineligible items included
Wages, food, insurance and general administration are excluded by many programs. Including them suggests the guidelines weren't read.
No in-kind contribution shown
Volunteer hours, donated materials and free venue access are real value. Count and state them — they demonstrate genuine local commitment.
05 / Evidence of needCollect it before you need it.
The criterion most applications answer worst is community need, because the evidence has to be gathered before the round opens. Start now, independent of any application: a simple survey with counted responses, a photo record of the problem, attendance figures at your activities, letters of support from other local organisations, a short waiting list.
A group with two years of counted attendance data and a survey in hand can write a strong application in an evening. A group starting from scratch cannot, no matter how good the writer.
06 / AcquittalThe part that decides your next grant.
Funders keep records. A group that acquits early, cleanly and with photographs is a group that gets looked on favourably next round. A group that acquits late, or not at all, quietly becomes ineligible.
Figure 04 · Acquitting well
Five habits that make it painless.
Working on an application for something in Greater Geelong? Send me the draft and the guidelines and I'll give you honest feedback on whether it answers the criteria. I'd rather spend an hour improving an application than watch a good project miss out on a technicality. Email david@centrestage.org.au with "Grant" in the subject.
