Writing the Proposal: Need, Design, Outcomes, and Review Criteria

A grant proposal is an evidence-based implementation argument:

a defined need/opportunity + a credible response + capable people/partners + measurable outcomes + a complete budget + feasible administration

Beautiful prose cannot cure a weak program. Strong programs can lose when the proposal makes reviewers infer the logic.

Start with the scoring rubric

Create a compliance matrix:

Requirement/criterion	Points	Evidence needed	Section	Owner	Status
community need	20	data, listening, partner evidence	need	program	amber
project quality	25	design, artists, timeline	methods	lead	green
access	15	barrier analysis/accommodations	access	program	amber
management	20	roles, history, systems	capacity	executive	green
outcomes	20	measures/targets/use	evaluation	evaluator	red

Use the funder’s exact current language without parroting unsupported claims.

Need statement

Structure:

1. who/where;
2. specific condition or opportunity;
3. evidence and source/date;
4. barriers/assets;
5. why now;
6. how the project addresses—not solves everything.

Avoid deficit stories that portray Mineral Point residents, youth, or artists as props. Include community assets and voices. The Wisconsin Arts Board’s Phase 1 guidance emphasizes community involvement and planning, not an organization deciding what a community needs by itself ¹.

Weak:

Rural communities lack culture.

Better pattern:

Listening with [partners/groups] identified [specific access or opportunity]. Current [data/observation] shows . Mineral Point already has [artists, institutions, traditions, spaces]; the remaining barrier is . This project co-designs ___.

Project design

Answer:

• participants and selection/recruitment;
• activities, sequence, intensity, location;
• artists/instructors and selection;
• partners and exact commitments;
• access/accommodations;
• youth/safety/risk controls;
• timeline and milestones;
• who owns each element;
• contingency;
• connection to existing work without double charging.

Use a work plan:

Month	Activity	Owner	Output	Decision/dependency
1	community design sessions	partner + program	3 sessions/30 voices	final scope
2–3	artist selection/curriculum	artistic lead	contracts/curriculum	checks/access
4–7	learning series	instructors	8 sessions	attendance threshold
8	public sharing/reflection	program	event/archive	consent
9	analysis/report	evaluator/finance	report/closeout	board learning

Logic model

Example:

Inputs	Activities	Outputs	Near outcomes	Longer direction
artists, campus, partner, $38k, staff	co-design + 8 workshops + sharing	72 seats; 8 sessions; 12 scholarships	skill, confidence, connection, access	ongoing creative practice/community network

State assumptions:

• targeted participants can access schedule/transport;
• selected instructors can teach the defined skill;
• safe facilities and materials are available;
• dosage is sufficient;
• partner referrals reach intended participants.

Then design mitigations.

Write measurable outcomes

Formula:

By time, number/percentage of whom will change what by how much, measured by tool/source, reviewed by which groups/use.

Examples:

• By final session, 75% of completing learners demonstrate at least two of three defined techniques on an instructor rubric.
• At least 60% of first-time participants report intent and a specific plan to continue creative practice at 60-day follow-up.
• The project reaches 30 participants from defined priority groups, with completion gaps no greater than X percentage points; barriers and adaptations are reviewed monthly.
• Two partner organizations adopt a specific continuation action by closeout.

Do not promise causation a short project cannot prove.

Evaluation plan

For each outcome:

Measure	Source	Baseline	Target	Timing	Owner	Use
technique rubric	work sample	first session	75% threshold	first/final	instructor	adapt teaching
belonging	3-item survey	start	+0.5 average	start/end	program	access design
continuation	follow-up	n/a	60% plan	60 days	partner	next phase

Protect privacy, obtain consent, minimize child data, define denominators, and plan for missing responses.

Add qualitative evidence:

• structured interviews/focus groups;
• artist reflection;
• partner observation;
• participant-created work with permission;
• outcome stories that include context and do not overclaim.

Organizational capacity

Do not paste a history chronology. Connect capability:

• mission and relevant program history ²;
• named staff/artist/partner roles;
• financial/control systems;
• facilities and risk;
• prior results and learning;
• governance/board oversight;
• what capacity the grant funds rather than assumes.

If there is a gap, name the mitigation. Honest risk management is more credible than perfection.

Sustainability

Avoid “we will seek other grants.” Explain:

• what ends at grant close;
• what becomes part of core operations and at what annual cost;
• earned/contributed/partner sources;
• which assets/curriculum/relationships persist;
• what evidence controls continuation;
• no promise of permanence before evaluation.

Editing in passes

1. compliance: every prompt, limit, attachment, file type;
2. logic: need → activity → outcome → budget;
3. evidence: source/date and no unsupported adjectives;
4. specificity: people, counts, roles, dates;
5. equity/access: who shaped, benefits, barriers, data;
6. plain language: short sentences, defined acronyms;
7. cross-document: narrative, budget, timeline, letters match;
8. cold review: someone scores only against rubric.

Cut organizational praise before cutting project mechanics.

Board review question

The board does not need to edit prose. For a material grant it asks:

Is the proposal truthful, within mission/authority, completely costed, operationally feasible, ethically designed, and acceptable under the award terms?