Sample application plan
This is the paid Application Plan QualiGrant generates for a grant worth pursuing, shown for the sample evaluation. See the sample evaluation report.
Application Plan
STEM Access Innovation Grant
This plan turns the verdict into an execution roadmap for the STEM Access Innovation Grant. Work top to bottom: lock the two required letters of support, draft the high-weight project design section first, then build the budget and evaluation plan around it.
- Email two partner organizations today to request letters of support; give them three weeks and a short template.
- Outline the project design and activities section; it carries 35% of the score and everything else builds on it.
- Pull last year's attendance and outcome numbers from your site to evidence reach and impact.
Strategy
Biggest positive factors
- ✓Mission directly matches the funder's STEM-equity priority.
- ✓Meets every stated eligibility requirement (501(c)(3), serves K-12).
- ✓Program model fits the funder's out-of-school-time focus.
Biggest risks
- ⚠Single-site reach scores lower than the multi-site programs the funder favors.
- ⚠Two partner letters of support are required and not yet in hand.
- ⚠Budget detail and an evaluation plan will need strong justification to be competitive.
Strengths to emphasize
- ✓A tight mission match with the funder's STEM-equity priority.
Evidence to gather: A one-paragraph mission statement that echoes the funder's priority language.
- ✓A hands-on, after-school model with demonstrated student engagement.
Evidence to gather: Attendance and retention data from the past two program years.
- ✓Deep local roots in the communities the funder wants to reach.
Evidence to gather: Quotes or letters from school partners and families.
Weaknesses to mitigate
- ⚠Single-site reach: frame a credible expansion or partnership plan to widen impact.
- ⚠Limited large-grant track record: emphasize sound financial controls and a clear budget.
Reviewer concerns to address early
- •How outcomes will be measured and sustained after the grant period.
- •Whether a single-site program can deliver the reach the funder expects.
- A local organization closing a concrete STEM-access gap for the students who need it most.
- A proven, hands-on model ready to deepen impact and expand reach.
- Strong community partnerships that extend the program's value beyond the grant.
Risks
Letters of support arrive late and weaken the submission.
Mitigation: Request them in week one with a clear template and a deadline two weeks before submission.
Reviewers see single-site reach as too narrow.
Mitigation: Include a concrete partnership or phased multi-site expansion plan.
The evaluation plan reads as an afterthought.
Mitigation: Define 3-4 measurable outcomes with baselines and a simple data-collection method.
Documents
Gather first (critical)
- IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter
- Two signed letters of support from partner organizations
Gather next (important)
- Line-item project budget and budget narrative
- Most recent financial statements or annual report
- Board of directors list
Nice to have
- Program photos and participant testimonials
- Letters from school administrators or families
Sections to write
Suggested lengths follow the limits stated in this RFP. Always follow the funder's official instructions.
What to cover
- Your mission, founding, and the community you serve.
- Track record: years running, students served, notable results.
- Why your team is positioned to run this specific program.
Evidence to gather
- Year founded and a one-line history.
- Cumulative students served and headline outcomes.
- Key staff bios relevant to STEM programming.
Funder tip
Reviewers reward organizations that clearly fit the funder's mission. Mirror the funder's priority language without overclaiming.
Draft this section with AI
Preview prompt
What to cover
- Quantify the STEM-access gap for the students you serve.
- Connect the need to the funder's stated priorities.
- Show why existing resources are insufficient.
Evidence to gather
- Local or regional data on STEM access and outcomes.
- Demographics of the students you serve.
Funder tip
Pair credible data with one concrete student story; reviewers remember the human stakes.
Draft this section with AI
Preview prompt
What to cover
- Goals, activities, and the logic connecting them to outcomes.
- Who is served, how many, and over what timeline.
- What makes the design innovative or especially effective.
Evidence to gather
- A simple logic model (inputs, activities, outcomes).
- A staffing and delivery plan with a rough schedule.
Funder tip
This section carries about 35% of the score. Be concrete and specific; vague activities lose points fastest here.
Draft this section with AI
Preview prompt
What to cover
- 3-4 measurable outcomes with baselines and targets.
- How and when you will collect data.
- How findings will inform improvement and sustainability.
Evidence to gather
- Baseline metrics from your current site.
- A simple data-collection tool or survey.
Funder tip
Reviewers favor a lean, realistic plan over an ambitious one you cannot deliver. Keep metrics few and measurable.
Draft this section with AI
Preview prompt
What to cover
- Line items tied directly to project activities.
- Reasonable personnel, materials, and evaluation costs.
- A short narrative justifying each major category.
Evidence to gather
- Staff time and rates for the program.
- Materials and supplies estimates.
Funder tip
Make every line traceable to an activity in the project design. Unexplained costs invite skepticism.
Draft this section with AI
Preview prompt
Timeline
This report is AI-generated decision support to help you prioritize grant opportunities. AI can make mistakes. It is not legal, financial, or professional advice and does not guarantee eligibility or funding. Always follow the funder's official instructions and verify requirements directly before applying.
Get a plan like this for your own grant
Every paid evaluation includes a full Application Plan. Start with a free verdict, then unlock the plan when a grant is worth pursuing.