What funders are really trying to understand before they approve
Anyone who has written a funding application knows this feeling: after hours carefully responding to every question, gathering info, checking budgets and refining the language… Eventually, you hit submit and hope for the best.
Over the years, I’ve been on both the assessor and the applicant side of these proposals. Working within and alongside nonprofits, social enterprises and foundations, I now realise that the main challenge for a funder is not just getting answers to the questions they have asked – but also, reducing risk and uncertainty in the grantees they select.
They need to be certain that this organisation can deliver what it promises. They need to feel they can trust this team, with their money and prestige. And of course there’s the ultimate question: will this funding create meaningful impact, for real?
Hidden behind all this is the unspoken question: what are we not being told? That’s a tricky one to answer.
So from the bidder’s side, the strongest applications recognise these unspoken questions, and get onto them without waiting to be asked. The result is a practical, credible, readable application that makes sense to any reader. (I think we underestimate the value of that as we all lean on AI tools to make our writing seem more authoritative. But ultimately what a reader wants to know is – will this actually work out?)
The application is only part of the assessment
Assessors will usually start with the application form. But way before the moment of selection, funders will almost always build a broader picture of an organisation. Whether that’s at an early stage or later in advanced due diligence, it will happen at some point. This means they will visit the website, read annual reports, look at leadership profiles, review social media channels, search for media coverage, and/or explore previous partnerships and projects. In some cases they will do this without asking you to provide this information, as a kind of secondary check that you are who you say you are.
This is something we explored in our recent blog, “Communications and fundraising can no longer sit in separate silos”. Funders assess the whole organisation, not just the document in front of them. So by the time a proposal reaches the final stages of consideration, a funder may already have formed impressions about credibility, clarity and organisational maturity. Making sure all the platforms reinforce the consistent message is essential to building that credibility – even more so, sometimes, than the application forms we all agonise over.
Assessors look for reasons to feel confident
“Avoidable uncertainty” is the great enemy of the grant writer. An application could be very strong in programmatic terms, but when someone reads it, doubt creeps into their mind because something isn’t crystal clear in the forms. Perhaps it is unclear who exactly will benefit, or the delivery plan is hard to follow. Perhaps the budget feels too broad without enough detail. Or sometimes, the proposal describes a strong need but does not show what will change by the end.
These are not always flaws in the programme itself. Sometimes, sure. But often, they are communication gaps – the reality and the descriptions don’t match. The challenge is to really help the assessor understand how that idea will work in practice.
What funders are often trying to assess
While every funder is different, many applications seem designed to answer a common set of underlying questions.
Can this organisation deliver?
Questions about staffing, governance, partnerships and previous experience are often less about structure and more about an organisation’s capability to deliver without putting the funder at risk.
Funders want to understand whether applicants have the capacity, systems and experience needed to achieve what they are proposing. This does not necessarily mean being large, because some small organisations deliver exceptional results. But what matters is demonstrating that your ambitions match your resources.
Do they understand the problem?
Many applications ask organisations to describe the challenge they are addressing. This might seem like a test of knowledge, or a way to educate the funders who are assessing across multiple geographies and sectors. But a helpful way to think about this is: this question is a test of judgement.
Donors and funders want to see whether organisations understand the context they are operating in, recognise complexity, and have thought carefully about where they can add value. Acknowledging the nuance in a problem statement can be a good shortcut to credibility here.
Are they realistic?
Unrealistic planning is the undoing of some great programmes. We tend to be optimists, in our sector. But the flip side is that we often try to squeeze too much into a timeline or budget. When funders ask about risks, timelines or sustainability, they are often trying to understand whether the organisation has thought honestly about what might go wrong. A proposal that presents every challenge as already solved can feel less convincing than one that demonstrates self-awareness. I have seen this myself – in questions about ethics and risks, those who gloss over the complex challenges come across as way less capable than those who acknowledge that risk is always present, and ethical operation is a constant process.
Interesting vs fundable
With budgets currently squeezed in many sectors, funding decisions are increasingly limited by uncertainty and limited resources. This has created a rush to differentiate projects and organisations on the basis of their credibility and ability to deliver. It’s increasingly the plan, rather than the idea, that gets a ‘yes’ for funding. This is yet another reason why the basics of every proposal need to be crystal clear to any reader:
- who will benefit
- what will change
- how delivery will happen
- who is responsible
- what success will look like
- what happens after the grant period
They reduce the number of assumptions a reviewer has to make, which de-risks them saying yes to you.
Sustainability leads to trust
It helps to show how the funding will create value beyond the immediate activity.
That might mean:
- skills transferred to staff, volunteers or partners
- stronger community ownership
- learning that can shape future work
- a model that can continue through local resources
- relationships that create longer-term change
Sustainability does not have to be grand, but it does need to be honest and believable. And even if there’s no explicit question about sustainability, it’s a great thing to include as that multiplier effect is a serious plus for a grant fund’s impact.
Make it easy to say yes
People reviewing applications often work through large volumes of information. I have done this myself and it’s exhausting. When key details are hard to find, assessors can miss important strengths. This is why clear structure, straightforward language and a logical flow improve readability and indicate your competence as a team.
A well-structured application helps the funder focus on the quality of the work itself, rather than the effort required to understand it.
In practice, this means:
- answering the question that was asked
- using clear headings or paragraph breaks where possible
- including specific evidence and numbers
- avoiding unnecessary complexity (resist AI’s tendency to big things up!)
- explaining delivery roles and timelines
This is great for getting your idea across but as any communicator will tell you, using plain language also shows respect for the reader’s time.
The signals beyond the proposal
Increasingly, organisations communicate long before they apply for funding. Their website, public messaging, reports and leadership communications all shape how they are perceived. When there is alignment between these touchpoints, trust is much easier to build.
When there are inconsistencies, questions emerge. Things to check are:
- Does the website reflect the priorities described in the proposal?
- Are claims supported by evidence?
- Is there a clear explanation of impact?
- Do leadership voices demonstrate thoughtfulness and credibility?
- Do public materials match the ambition of the ask?
None of these elements will win funding on their own, but together they contribute to a sense of organisational readiness.
The best applications answer questions that were never asked
One pattern I have noticed repeatedly is that the strongest applications anticipate concerns before they arise. If a project is ambitious, they explain how delivery will be managed. If a partnership model is complex, they clarify roles and decision-making. If sustainability may be questioned, they address it directly. If the budget is lean, they show how the work will still be delivered responsibly.
Rather than responding mechanically to the form, they engage with the thinking behind it. In other words, they answer the conversation happening in the funder’s mind. This is a real gift to any assessor – especially when you may not have the chance to answer questions live or present your pitch in a meeting. Leaning into the unaddressed uncertainties demonstrates confidence, not weakness.
And finally
Good grant writing matters. Clear answers, strong evidence and compelling narratives all play an important role. But the most successful applications help funders feel confident. They demonstrate judgement as well as competence. They reduce uncertainty. They show that the organisation understands both the opportunity and the responsibility that comes with funding.
Ultimately, grant applications are not only about explaining what you want to do. They are about helping someone believe that you can do it.
–
AMS supports purpose-driven teams with strategy, messaging and communications systems that help build trust over time. If your organisation is thinking about how communications, fundraising and organisational credibility fit together, we’d be glad to start a conversation.
