ChatGPT Prompts for Grant Writing

<context> Organization: [ORGANIZATION] Community served: [GEOGRAPHY / POPULATION] Problem: [THE PROBLEM] Data I have: [PASTE STATISTICS, SOURCES] Project: [PROJECT] </context> <task> Draft a needs statement of 300-400 words that: 1. Defines the problem with cited data, scaling from national to the local population we serve. 2. Explains the consequences of the problem going unaddressed. 3. Identifies the gap in current services (without disparaging other organizations). 4. Positions [PROJECT] as the logical response. Keep it evidence-led, not emotional. Mark every place that needs a citation with [SOURCE]. </task>

<context> Current problem statement: [PASTE] What reviewers said (if any): [PASTE FEEDBACK] </context> <task> Critique my problem statement against these criteria: specificity, data support, local relevance, logical flow, and absence of solution-bias. For each criterion, give a score out of 5 and one concrete fix. Then rewrite the statement applying every fix. Keep my real facts; do not invent statistics, but mark where stronger data would help with [ADD DATA]. </task>

<context> Raw data: [PASTE STATISTICS / SURVEY RESULTS] Audience: [FUNDER / REVIEW PANEL] </context> <task> Turn this raw data into 2-3 narrative paragraphs that make the scale of the problem felt, not just stated. For each key number: 1. Translate it into a human-scale comparison. 2. Connect it to a real consequence for [ORGANIZATION]'s population. 3. Keep every figure exactly as I provided it; do not round or alter. End with one sentence that frames why action is urgent now. </task>

<context> Problem: [THE PROBLEM] Population: [WHO] What I know about causes: [PASTE NOTES] </context> <task> Develop a root-cause analysis I can use in the needs section. Provide: 1. The presenting problem (what people see). 2. 3-5 underlying root causes, each with a one-line rationale. 3. Which root cause(s) [PROJECT] directly targets. 4. A short paragraph explaining why addressing the root cause beats treating the symptom. Note any cause that I should validate with local data before claiming it. </task>

<context> National/global problem: [PROBLEM] National statistics: [PASTE] Our service area: [GEOGRAPHY / POPULATION] Local data I have: [PASTE OR "none yet"] </context> <task> Write a passage that bridges the national problem to our specific community. Structure it as: national framing, then the funnel to local relevance. Where I lack local data, suggest exactly which local sources to pull from (e.g., census tract data, school district reports, county health rankings) and what metric to look for. Do not invent local numbers. </task>

<context> Project: [PROJECT] Goal: [PROJECT GOAL] Key activities: [PASTE LIST] Timeline: [DURATION] Staffing: [WHO DELIVERS IT] </context> <task> Write a project narrative of 600-800 words covering: project overview, who it serves, the core activities in logical sequence, the implementation timeline, the team responsible, and how activities lead to outcomes. Use confident present/future tense ("we will"), tie each activity to an objective, and keep paragraphs short. Add subheadings. </task>

<context> Project: [PROJECT] Approach/model: [EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL OR APPROACH] Why this approach: [RATIONALE] </context> <task> Write a methodology section that explains HOW we will deliver [PROJECT]. Include: 1. The model or framework we use and the evidence behind it. 2. The step-by-step delivery process. 3. Why this approach fits our population better than alternatives. 4. How we will adapt if early results lag. Cite the evidence base generically and mark exact citations needed with [SOURCE]. </task>

<context> Project: [PROJECT] Duration: [TOTAL MONTHS] Key activities: [PASTE LIST] </context> <task> Create an implementation timeline as a table with columns: Phase, Months, Key Activities, Responsible Party, Milestone/Deliverable. Break the project into 3-4 logical phases. Make sure every activity I listed appears, and add a launch and a close-out phase. Keep milestones concrete and verifiable. </task>

<context> Project: [PROJECT] Resources available: [STAFF, FUNDING, PARTNERS] Activities: [PASTE] Intended change: [WHAT SHOULD IMPROVE] </context> <task> Produce a logic model as a table with these columns: Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Short-Term Outcomes, Long-Term Outcomes/Impact. Keep outputs countable (numbers served, sessions delivered) and outcomes about change (knowledge, behavior, condition). Below the table, add a 3-sentence "theory of change" narrative connecting them. </task>

<context> Organization: [ORGANIZATION] Years operating: [N] Relevant past results: [PASTE METRICS / OUTCOMES] Key staff and qualifications: [PASTE] Partnerships: [PASTE] </context> <task> Write a capacity statement (250-350 words) proving [ORGANIZATION] can deliver [PROJECT]. Cover: track record with quantified past results, relevant staff expertise, infrastructure/systems, and strategic partnerships. Lead with the strongest proof. Be specific and confident without overclaiming. Mark any metric I should verify with [CONFIRM]. </task>

<context> Project goal: [GOAL] Project: [PROJECT] Population: [WHO] Timeframe: [DURATION] </context> <task> Write 3-5 SMART objectives for [PROJECT]. Each objective must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound, and follow the format: "By [date], [target number/%] of [population] will [measurable change], as measured by [data source]." After each objective, add a one-line note confirming which SMART criterion is strongest and which I should double-check for realism. </task>

<context> My current goals/objectives draft: [PASTE] </context> <task> Review my draft and: 1. Identify which statements are true goals (broad, aspirational, the big change) versus objectives (specific, measurable steps). 2. Rewrite into a clean hierarchy: one or two goals, each with 2-3 supporting measurable objectives. 3. Flag any objective that is actually an activity in disguise and rewrite it as an outcome. </task>

<context> Project: [PROJECT] Objectives: [PASTE YOUR OBJECTIVES] Data capacity: [WHAT YOU CAN REALISTICALLY COLLECT] </context> <task> Design an evaluation plan as a table mapping each objective to: Indicator, Data Source, Collection Method, Frequency, and Responsible Party. Distinguish process measures (was it delivered) from outcome measures (did it work). Recommend one simple, low-cost method per indicator given my stated data capacity. Add a 2-sentence note on how findings feed back into the program. </task>

<context> Project: [PROJECT] Intended change: [WHAT IMPROVES] Population: [WHO] </context> <task> For [PROJECT], propose: 1. 2-3 outcome statements (the change we expect in the population). 2. For each outcome, 1-2 quantitative and 1 qualitative indicator. 3. A realistic baseline-and-target approach for each indicator. Keep indicators measurable and tied to the outcome, not the activity. Note which indicators a funder is most likely to want reported. </task>

<context> Organization: [ORGANIZATION] Project: [PROJECT] Grant period: [DURATION] Current/potential revenue sources: [PASTE] </context> <task> Write a sustainability section (200-300 words) explaining how [PROJECT] continues after the grant ends. Address: diversified funding strategy, earned revenue or partnerships if relevant, capacity built that outlasts the grant, and any plan to institutionalize the work. Be realistic; do not promise permanent funding you cannot show a path to. Flag claims I must back up with [EVIDENCE]. </task>

<context> Project: [PROJECT] Total request: [$AMOUNT] Duration: [MONTHS/YEARS] Known costs: [PASTE STAFF, MATERIALS, TRAVEL, ETC.] Funder restrictions: [PASTE ANY, e.g. no indirect over 10%] </context> <task> Build a line-item budget as a table with columns: Category, Line Item, Calculation, Amount, Funding Source (this grant vs. other). Group into Personnel, Fringe, Supplies, Travel, Other Direct Costs, and Indirect. Show the math in the Calculation column. Total it and confirm it equals [$AMOUNT]. Respect every funder restriction I listed and flag anything that exceeds a stated cap. </task>

<context> Budget: [PASTE LINE-ITEM BUDGET] Project: [PROJECT] </context> <task> Write a budget narrative/justification that explains WHY each line item is necessary for [PROJECT]. For every category: 1. State what it funds and how it connects to a specific project activity or objective. 2. Show the calculation basis (rate x quantity x time). 3. Justify any item a reviewer might question. Keep each justification to 2-3 sentences. Use the same category order as the budget. </task>

<context> Roles on the grant: [TITLE, ANNUAL SALARY, % EFFORT for each] Fringe rate: [%] Grant duration: [MONTHS] </context> <task> For each role, calculate the charged salary (annual salary x % effort x portion of year on grant) and the fringe (charged salary x fringe rate). Present as a table: Role, Salary, % Effort, Months, Charged Salary, Fringe, Total. Sum personnel and fringe separately and combined. Show every calculation. Flag any role where % effort across all grants might exceed 100%. </task>

<context> Funder indirect policy: [PASTE, e.g. "10% de minimis" or "negotiated rate"] Our negotiated/de minimis rate: [%] Direct cost base: [$AMOUNT or "to be calculated"] </context> <task> Explain in 2-3 plain-language sentences what indirect costs cover for our organization. Then calculate the allowable indirect amount given the funder policy and our rate, showing the formula and the base it applies to. If the funder caps or disallows indirect, state how we will cover those real costs instead. Do not exceed the stated cap. </task>

<context> Project: [PROJECT] Total cost: [$AMOUNT] People served: [NUMBER] Expected outcomes: [PASTE] Comparison/alternative cost if known: [PASTE OR "none"] </context> <task> Write a short cost-effectiveness argument. Calculate cost-per-participant and, where possible, cost-per-outcome. Frame these figures favorably and honestly. If I provided a comparison, contrast our cost against the alternative or the cost of inaction. Keep it to one tight paragraph plus the key figures. Do not invent comparison data. </task>

<context> Funder: [FUNDER] Info I have (990s, website, past grants): [PASTE OR SUMMARIZE] Our project: [PROJECT] </context> <task> From the information I provide, build a funder profile covering: stated priorities and focus areas, typical grant size and range, geographic scope, application process and deadlines, and recent grantees or patterns. Then assess fit with [PROJECT] on a 1-5 scale with reasoning, and list 3 questions I should answer before applying. Only use facts from what I pasted; mark gaps as [RESEARCH NEEDED]. </task>

<context> Funder priorities: [PASTE] Funder typical grant size: [RANGE] Funder geography: [SCOPE] Our project: [PROJECT], requesting [$AMOUNT] in [GEOGRAPHY] </context> <task> Score the fit between [FUNDER] and our project across four dimensions: thematic alignment, grant-size match, geographic eligibility, and stage/type fit. Give each a 1-5 score with one sentence of reasoning. Give an overall go / no-go / clarify recommendation. If "clarify," list exactly what to confirm with the program officer first. </task>

<context> Funder: [FUNDER] Program officer name: [NAME or "unknown"] Our project: [PROJECT] What I want to ask: [QUESTION / FIT CHECK] </context> <task> Write a brief, professional email (under 150 words) to a program officer that: introduces [ORGANIZATION] in one line, states the specific reason for reaching out, asks 1-2 focused questions, and respects their time. Tone: warm, concise, no fundraising pitch. Provide a clear subject line. Offer a short alternative version that requests a 15-minute call instead. </task>

<context> Funder's own language (mission, priorities, RFP): [PASTE] My draft section: [PASTE A NARRATIVE OR LOI SECTION] </context> <task> Identify the 8-12 key terms, framings, and value-words [FUNDER] uses repeatedly. Then revise my draft to naturally adopt that vocabulary where it honestly fits, without changing any facts or overclaiming. Output: (1) the term list, (2) the revised draft, (3) a short note on any term I should NOT adopt because it would misrepresent our work. </task>

<context> Master proposal: [PASTE OR SUMMARIZE KEY SECTIONS] New funder: [FUNDER] with priorities: [PASTE] New funder requirements: [WORD LIMITS, REQUIRED SECTIONS, ELIGIBILITY] </context> <task> Adapt my existing proposal for [FUNDER]. Specifically: 1. Map my existing sections to this funder's required structure and flag missing sections. 2. Re-angle the framing toward this funder's priorities. 3. Trim or expand to hit their word/page limits. 4. List anything in my master proposal that should be removed because it does not fit this funder. Keep all factual data identical across versions. </task>