Page 1 of 2

Fundraising Grants

How strong is your fundraising grants practice? This short, evidence-based self-assessment scores your organisation against fundraising standards, shows where your biggest gaps are, and puts the most useful fixes first.

It takes about 5 minutes. Every question is optional, and the more you can share, especially real numbers and documents, the more accurate your result.

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO verifies funder fit through prospect research before investing in a proposal, and declines poor-fit opportunities?

Proposals chased wherever money appears, regardless of fit

Some funder research but fit not rigorously assessed; chases tempting misaligned grants

Funder research precedes writing; fit verified; poor-fit opportunities declined

Systematic prospect research with documented fit criteria; pipeline limited to genuine matches; relationships built with priority funders before asking

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO builds and maintains relationships with funders rather than treating grants as one-off paperwork?

No funder relationship; submit-and-forget

Occasional contact but no deliberate relationship building

Deliberate relationship building with key funders before and after the proposal

Funder relationships actively managed across the grant cycle (pre-proposal contact, reporting, renewal), treated like donor stewardship

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Proposals contain the full set of core components, developed in planning sequence, plus a credibility-establishing organisational background?

Proposals missing core components or assembled ad hoc

Most components present but some weak or out of sequence; credibility section thin

All core components present and coherent; organisational background establishes capacity

Components developed in proper planning sequence, internally aligned, with a credibility section evidencing track record and capacity to deliver

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The problem statement is about the community's need, not the organisation's need for money, and avoids circular reasoning?

Problem framed as the organisation's need (for funds, staff, a building); or circular (lack of our program = the problem)

Some community focus but slips into organisational needs or circular logic

Problem statement squarely on the community served and its needs, tied to mission; no circular reasoning

Community need evidenced with data, clearly distinct from the organisation's needs, and free of circular logic; sets up the objectives logically

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Objectives state the change produced (outcomes), not just the activities performed (process)?

Objectives are activity lists (process), no outcome stated

Mix of process and outcome objectives; outcomes vague or unmeasurable

Objectives are outcome-focused and measurable, distinct from goals

Outcome objectives are specific and measurable, linked through a logic model from activities to outcomes; evaluation maps to them

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: A logic model links activities to outcomes and is used to design and explain the program?

No logic model; program logic implicit or absent

A logic model exists but is not used to drive design or proposal

A logic model links activities to outcomes and informs the proposal

Logic model drives program design, objectives, and evaluation, and is included or reflected in the proposal

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: How the program will be evaluated is decided before implementation, and serves learning, not just funder reporting?

No evaluation plan, or one bolted on at the end to satisfy the funder

An evaluation plan exists but designed late and aimed only at funder reporting

Evaluation designed before launch with the data needs built in; used to learn

Evaluation designed up front, tied to outcome objectives, capturing data from day one, used for program improvement and future planning

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The proposal includes a specific, credible plan for funding the program beyond the grant?

No sustainability plan, or a vague 'we will seek other funding'

A sustainability statement but generic and unconvincing

A specific, credible sustainability plan showing how the program continues beyond the grant

Concrete sustainability strategy (diversified income, earned revenue, partnerships) that gives the funder confidence in lasting impact

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Every activity in the narrative has a matching budget line, and the budget reads as the narrative in numbers?

Budget disconnected from the narrative; activities and costs do not correspond

Budget broadly related to the narrative but with gaps or mismatches

Each activity matches its cost; budget is the narrative in numbers

Line-for-line alignment between methods and budget, clearly organised income and expense, with continuity the reviewer can follow

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Each application follows the specific funder's published guidelines and format; the NGO does not send a single generic proposal to multiple funders?

The same generic proposal is sent to many funders; guidelines not checked

Some tailoring, but guidelines and eligibility not systematically verified

Every application follows the specific funder's guidelines, format, and deadline

A guideline-compliance check precedes every submission (eligibility, format, length, attachments, deadline all verified per funder), and the NGO declines funders whose requirements it cannot meet

Not applicable / not sure

Suggested uploads

These are optional. If you can share a few, we can check your answers against real evidence and give you a sharper, more useful result:

• Prospect research or funder-fit criteria the NGO uses
• Evidence of pre-proposal funder contact or relationship management
• A recent full grant proposal
• The organisation's standard proposal template if one exists
• The problem/need statement from a recent proposal
• Goals and objectives from a recent proposal
• A logic model if one exists
• Evaluation plan from a recent proposal
• Sustainability statement from a recent proposal
• Budget and methods section from a recent proposal for cross-check
• Two or more applications showing tailoring to different funders' guidelines
• Any pre-submission checklist or eligibility-screening step

Upload any of these documents (optional). You can add several files.

Size limit: 10 MB

A little context

Over the last 3 years, is your work in this area getting better, staying the same, or getting worse?

Getting better

Staying the same

Getting worse

Not sure

Fundraising Grants

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO verifies funder fit through prospect research before investing in a proposal, and declines poor-fit opportunities?

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO builds and maintains relationships with funders rather than treating grants as one-off paperwork?

Which best describes your organisation on: Proposals contain the full set of core components, developed in planning sequence, plus a credibility-establishing organisational background?

Which best describes your organisation on: The problem statement is about the community's need, not the organisation's need for money, and avoids circular reasoning?

Which best describes your organisation on: Objectives state the change produced (outcomes), not just the activities performed (process)?

Which best describes your organisation on: A logic model links activities to outcomes and is used to design and explain the program?

Which best describes your organisation on: How the program will be evaluated is decided before implementation, and serves learning, not just funder reporting?

Which best describes your organisation on: The proposal includes a specific, credible plan for funding the program beyond the grant?

Which best describes your organisation on: Every activity in the narrative has a matching budget line, and the budget reads as the narrative in numbers?

Which best describes your organisation on: Each application follows the specific funder's published guidelines and format; the NGO does not send a single generic proposal to multiple funders?

Suggested uploads

Upload any of these documents (optional). You can add several files.

A little context

Over the last 3 years, is your work in this area getting better, staying the same, or getting worse?

Where do you keep the relevant records?

Anything outside your control that recently affected this area? For example a crisis, a funder leaving, or a sector shock.

This is a demo of the tool. If you have any feedback on it, we would appreciate hearing it.