-
Submitting a generic proposal
-
Using the same proposal for every funder leads to poor alignment. -
Avoid it: Tailor each proposal to the funder’s mission, language, and priorities.
-
-
Weak problem statement
- The need is unclear, unproven, or overly emotional.
- Avoid it: Use data, citations, and clear logic to show why the project matters.
-
Vague goals and objectives
-
Objectives that can’t be measured or evaluated. -
Avoid it: Use SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) objectives.
-
-
Overly ambitious scope
-
Proposing too much for the time frame or budget. -
Avoid it: Match your plan to realistic capacity and resources.
-
-
Poorly constructed budget
-
Numbers that don’t match the narrative or seem unreasonable. -
Avoid it: Align budget items with activities; justify each cost.
-
-
Lack of clarity or too much jargon
-
Technical language or vague writing frustrates reviewers. -
Avoid it: Write clearly and concisely for a general audience.
-
-
No plan for evaluation
-
Funders want to know how you’ll measure success. -
Avoid it: Provide specific evaluation methods, tools, and metrics.
-
-
Ignoring funder guidelines
-
Wrong formatting, exceeding word/character limits, or missing deadlines. -
Avoid it: Follow instructions exactly—they matter.
-
-
Weak sustainability plan
-
Funders worry the program will collapse after the grant. -
Avoid it: Explain how activities will continue after the funding ends.
-
-
Not demonstrating organizational capacity
-
Failing to show your expertise, partners, or past success. -
Avoid it: Highlight your track record, team qualifications, and existing resources.
-
-
Last-minute writing and poor proofreading
-
Rushed proposals often include errors, inconsistencies, and weak arguments. -
Avoid it: Build in time for review, editing, and outside feedback.
-

