How to apply for charity grants

1. Start with the funder, not the project

Strong applications begin with funders who are already looking for what you do. The single biggest predictor of success is fit — a well-matched funder with a mediocre application will almost always beat a poorly-matched funder with a polished one. Spend at least a third of your total application time on research before you write a single word of narrative. Build a shortlist by cross-referencing your beneficiary group, geography, organisation type and project theme against active funders. Read each funder's most recent published grant list to see what they've actually funded in the last 12–24 months, not just what their guidance says they'll fund. Where possible, look for funders who have supported comparable organisations at comparable scale.

• Check eligibility: location, beneficiary group, organisation type, income band, minimum age of organisation
• Check fit: does your project match one of the funder's stated priorities and their recent grant history?
• Check timing: when do they decide, and does that work for your project start date?
• Check exclusions carefully — a single excluded activity or geography ends the application
• Check whether they fund core costs, restricted project costs, capital, or all three

2. Build the case for support before you write

A one-page case for support captures the need, your response, the outcomes and the ask. Write it once, keep it up to date, and every future application becomes faster and stronger. The case for support is not marketing copy — it's a working document that forces you to be specific about what you do, for whom, and why it matters. Most charities discover, when they try to write theirs, that some of their outcomes are vaguer than they thought or that the evidence base is thinner than assumed. Fix those gaps in the case document, not in the pressure of a live application. Once you have a robust case for support, you can tailor it to each funder's language and priorities rather than starting from a blank page.

• Need: what's the problem, who's affected, what does national and local evidence show?
• Response: what will you do, with whom and for whom, over what timeframe?
• Outcomes: what will change for beneficiaries, measured using what tools?
• Distinctiveness: why your organisation is credibly placed to do this
• Ask: how much, over what period, for what — split into core, project and capital where relevant

3. Answer the questions they asked

Funders evaluate against their own framework, not yours. Use their language, answer the specific question in front of you, and stay within character limits. Copy-pasting a previous bid unedited is one of the most reliable ways to get rejected — assessors read hundreds of applications each round and can spot generic content instantly. Where a funder asks a question you don't have a perfect answer to, address it honestly rather than dodging it: assessors trust organisations that acknowledge trade-offs. Structure each answer with a clear opening sentence that directly addresses the question, then evidence and specifics, then a closing sentence that links back to the funder's priorities.

4. Build a credible budget

Budgets win or lose applications as often as narrative does. Include realistic overhead recovery (15–20% is reasonable for most charities and full cost recovery is defensible for organisations that can evidence it), match funding where required, and a clear narrative explaining each line. Round numbers signal an estimate rather than a plan — where possible use figures derived from actual costs, supplier quotes, or recent comparable projects. If the funder caps overhead at a lower rate than your true cost, be transparent about how the shortfall is covered rather than hiding it. Where you're asking for multi-year funding, show year-on-year phasing and explain any variation between years.

• Direct project costs itemised with unit costs where possible
• Staff time costed at full employment cost, not just salary
• A realistic overhead allocation with a defensible methodology
• Match funding secured or in the pipeline, clearly labelled
• Contingency of 5–10% on capital and delivery-heavy budgets

5. Prepare your attachments before the deadline

Missing or out-of-date attachments are one of the most common reasons applications are rejected without ever being read on merit. Assemble a standard attachment pack — accounts, safeguarding policy, equal opportunities policy, reserves policy, trustee list, governing document, insurance certificates — and keep it up to date. When a funder asks for something you don't yet have, the honest answer is often to say when it will be in place rather than to submit a placeholder document. Assessors would rather see 'our reserves policy is scheduled for trustee approval in March 2026' than a policy dated three years ago with no evidence of review.

6. Run the submission checklist

Before submitting: check word and character counts on every field, confirm all totals match between the narrative and the budget, upload all required attachments in the correct format, run a plain-English check by someone outside the project team, and confirm contact details and bank details are correct. Save the confirmation email and any submission reference number in a shared location — you will need it if the funder gets in touch and you may need it months later for reporting. Note the expected decision date in your calendar with a two-week buffer, and plan the next steps for both a yes and a no.

7. Follow up thoughtfully

Whether you win or lose, follow-up matters. On a successful application, acknowledge the grant quickly, confirm start dates, and set up your reporting schedule. On a rejection, ask politely for feedback where the funder offers it — many do — and log the feedback centrally so it improves your next application. Rejected applications are not wasted work: the research, the case for support, the outcomes framework and the budget can all be recycled into the next well-matched opportunity.