Sample — fictional nonprofit, invented for this page

Sample — a fictional after-school tutoring program, invented for this worked sample. Every name and number is made up.

Grant & nonprofit documents · a worked sample

What a small grant application looks like when it’s written well.

Sample — a worked sample built around a fictional after-school tutoring program, invented for this page. Not a client, and every name and number is made up.

Three artifacts a small foundation application actually needs — a narrative that makes the case in specifics, a budget that sums, and a logic model that connects money to outcomes — shown end to end for one invented program.

See the narrative Email about a grant

The case, in specifics

The narrative

Funders read dozens of these. The ones that survive the first pass name a specific problem, a specific population, and a measurable target — no mission-statement fog. Here is an excerpt at that standard, written for the fictional program this sample is built around.

Sample document — fictional program

Cedar Landing Reading Project

Narrative excerpt · A fictional after-school tutoring program, invented for this sample

Statement of need

Third-grade reading level is the strongest single predictor of on-time graduation, yet 38% of third-graders at Cedar Landing Elementary scored below proficient on last spring’s state reading assessment — nearly double the state average of 21%. The school funds no after-school academic support, and the nearest free tutoring program is a forty-minute bus ride away. For the 62% of Cedar Landing families living below 200% of the federal poverty line, private tutoring is out of reach. These students are not struggling for lack of ability; they are struggling for lack of access.

Program description

The Cedar Landing Reading Project will provide 40 second- and third-graders with two 60-minute small-group tutoring sessions per week for 24 weeks, at a ratio of one trained tutor to three students. Four paid lead tutors, supported by screened volunteers and a part-time coordinator, will deliver a structured phonics-based curriculum aligned with the classroom reading block. Each student is assessed at entry, midyear, and program end; our target is for 70% of participants to gain at least one grade level in reading fluency. Three family literacy nights will send 120 books home and show caregivers how to sustain the gains.

What makes it work: every claim is a number a reviewer can check against the budget and the logic model below, and the ask is framed as access, not charity. In a real engagement the same excerpt would be built from your program’s actual facts and the funder’s own guidelines.

Every line has a basis

The budget

A budget a program officer can trust shows its arithmetic: each line carries the calculation behind it, the lines match the narrative, and the total is the sum of its parts — not a round number worked backward.

Sample budget — fictional program, one 24-week cycle. Every figure is invented for this sample.
Line item Basis Amount
Lead tutor stipends 4 tutors × 48 sessions × $25 per session $4,800
Part-time program coordinator 8 hrs/week × 26 weeks × $22/hr (24 program weeks plus setup and wrap-up) $4,576
Reading materials & take-home books 40 students × $45 (workbooks plus the 120 take-home books) $1,800
Reading assessments 40 students × 3 administrations × $8 (entry, midyear, program end) $960
Volunteer background checks 12 volunteers × $32 $384
Family literacy nights 3 events × $260 (space, food, materials) $780
Total program cost — amount requested $13,300

The 48 sessions are the narrative’s 2 sessions per week × 24 weeks; the three assessments match “entry, midyear, and program end.” In a real application this table gets restated in whatever format the funder requires — the arithmetic underneath stays the same.

Money → activity → change

The logic model

Many funders ask for one; most applicants fake one. A real logic model is just the program’s theory laid flat: what goes in, what happens, what that produces, and what changes because of it. Same fictional program, same numbers.

The logic model reads left to right: inputs lead to activities, activities produce outputs, and outputs drive outcomes.

Inputs

  • 4 paid lead tutors and 12 screened volunteers
  • Part-time coordinator, 8 hrs/week
  • Phonics curriculum and assessment kit
  • Classroom space donated by the school
  • $13,300 requested grant

Activities

  • Twice-weekly 60-minute small-group tutoring, 1 tutor : 3 students
  • Reading assessment at entry, midyear, and program end
  • 3 family literacy nights with take-home books

Outputs

  • 40 students served across 24 weeks
  • 48 tutoring sessions delivered
  • 120 assessments administered
  • 120 books sent home to families

Outcomes

  • 70% of participants gain at least one grade level in reading fluency
  • Caregivers report reading at home more often
  • Longer term: students enter fourth grade reading at grade level

Notice the chain holds: the 48 sessions in Outputs are the twice-weekly schedule in Activities; the 70% target in Outcomes is the same one the narrative promised. Reviewers check exactly this.

Honest scope

What I do — and don’t

What I do

  • Draft and edit narratives — need statements, program descriptions, and organizational background, written in specifics.
  • Build the budget — a line-item budget with the basis shown for every figure, restated in the funder’s required format.
  • Logic models and outcome statements — connecting what you spend to what changes, in the structure reviewers expect.
  • Letters of inquiry and follow-up reports — the shorter documents that open and close a grant cycle.
  • Plain-English rewrites — turning program jargon into language a reviewer outside your field can follow.

What I don’t do

  • Find funders for you. Prospect research and funder relationships stay with your organization — I write for opportunities you’ve already identified.
  • Guarantee an award. A well-made application improves your odds; nobody honest promises more than that.
  • Submit on your behalf. I prepare everything to final form, but the application goes out under your organization’s name and signature.
  • Manage your finances. I structure the budget document; your own financial records and reporting remain yours.

How an engagement runs

  1. Gather. A call plus your existing materials — program facts, prior applications if any, and the funder’s guidelines.
  2. Draft. I write the narrative, budget, and any required attachments, flagging every place where I need a real number from you.
  3. Revise together. You correct the facts and the voice; I tighten the writing until it fits the funder’s limits.
  4. Final form. You receive submission-ready documents, formatted to the funder’s requirements — you review, sign, and submit.

The service

Have an application to write?

Grant and nonprofit documents: applications, reports, and supporting materials for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. You bring the program and the opportunity; I bring the writing and the structure — a narrative in specifics, a budget that sums, and a logic model that holds together.

$500–$2,000

Fixed price, quoted before work begins — scoped to the documents the application actually requires.

Email about a grant See all services

The Cedar Landing Reading Project is fictional — a program invented for this worked sample so the documents could be shown end to end. It is not a client, and every name, statistic, and dollar figure on this page is made up. Real engagements start from your program’s real facts.