Grant Budget Narrative
Written justification for grant budget line items
The Prompt
The Prompt
Draft a grant budget narrative for [ORGANIZATION NAME]’s [PROGRAM NAME] to submit to [FUNDER NAME], aligning precisely with the program description and [FUNDER BUDGET CATEGORIES/ORDER] for the [GRANT PERIOD].
The budget narrative should:
- Stay within 350-550 words and mirror [FUNDER BUDGET CATEGORIES/ORDER] exactly, using the same headings.
- Open with a 1-2 sentence summary: total request [REQUEST AMOUNT], total program budget [TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET], participants served [NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS], and key outcomes [KEY OUTCOMES].
- For Personnel: list each role with FTE, duties tied to [KEY ACTIVITIES LIST], salary basis, and math (e.g., “0.50 FTE Program Manager at $[ANNUAL SALARY] = $[AMOUNT]”).
- For Fringe: state [FRINGE RATE %], what it covers, and apply to the correct base.
- For Non-Personnel: justify each item with unit x quantity x months and program link (e.g., “[UNIT COST EXAMPLES]”).
- For Shared/Allocated costs: explain [ALLOCATION METHOD] (e.g., by FTE, sq. ft., participant count) and why it’s fair.
- For Indirect/Admin: state [INDIRECT RATE %] and base [INDIRECT BASE: MTDC/TDC], give a brief rationale (e.g., audited rate, historical awards), and clarify what is included to avoid double-charging.
- For Match/Cost Share: indicate [MATCH REQUIREMENT %/AMOUNT], sources [MATCH SOURCES (cash/in-kind)], status (committed/pending), and in-kind valuation method (note 2 CFR 200 if federal).
- Include cost-effectiveness: cost per participant and, if possible, cost per outcome.
- Note key assumptions and exclusions [CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS] and confirm totals equal [REQUEST AMOUNT] and align with the budget table.
- Address sustainability: how costs will be maintained or decrease post-grant.
- Cite allowability/compliance notes or link: [ALLOWABILITY NOTES or LINK].
- Tone options: [TONE] = FORMAL (government/foundation; precise, neutral), WARM (foundation/community; accessible, confident), CASUAL (internal drafting only; plain).
- Closing line: “Prepared by [AUTHOR NAME, TITLE].”
Deliver concrete justifications, plain language, and transparent math. Avoid clichés (“transformational”), vague labels (“miscellaneous,” “overhead”), or unexplained percentages. Every dollar requested should connect to planned activities and outcomes, match the funder’s categories, and pass a quick calculator check to prevent math errors that can sink proposals.How to Customize
- Replace all [BRACKETED] fields with your specific information
- Adjust tone and length as needed for your audience
- Review and personalize before using
Pro Tips
- Test this prompt with your preferred AI tool before using in production
- Always review AI output for accuracy and appropriateness
- Customize outputs to match your organization’s voice and brand
Related Prompts
(See other prompts in the fundraising category)
Example Outputs
Compare scenarios: We tested this prompt with 3 different nonprofit contexts. Each scenario shows outputs from GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini. Select a model above each scenario to compare.
Small Community Org
Eastside Roots Community Coalition is a volunteer-led, neighborhood nonprofit in an urban food desert supporting youth employment and food access through community gardening and pop-up markets.
View scenario details
Eastside Roots requests $45,000 toward a $78,500 total program budget to serve 24 youth. Outcomes: 22 youth (92%) complete 60 paid hours; 18 youth (75%) show job-readiness and food systems knowledge gains; 1,500 lbs of produce distributed at low/no cost, July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026.
Personnel - 0.20 FTE Program Manager at $54,000 = $10,800: leads recruitment/enrollment; coordinates 24 weekly sessions; oversees farm stand; supervises staff; partner liaison. - 0.03 FTE Garden Educator at $48,000 = $1,440: delivers hands-on garden training, safe tool use, harvest practices. - 0.0305 FTE Data/Evaluation Assistant at $40,000 = $1,220: maintains timesheets, stipend logs, attendance; pre/post surveys; outcomes reporting. - 0.02 FTE Youth Development Coordinator at $45,000 = $900: mentorship, job-readiness coaching (resumes, punctuality), and workshop facilitation. Total Personnel = $14,360.
Fringe Benefits Calculated at 12% of salaries to cover employer FICA, state unemployment, and prorated health/dental for eligible staff: 12% x $14,360 = $1,723.
Program Supplies - Soil/compost: $35/yard x 40 yards = $1,400 (builds beds for training/production). - Hand tools/gloves: $25/unit x 60 units = $1,500 (trowels, pruners, gloves for safe, hands-on instruction). - Printing: $0.10/page x 1,000 pages = $100 (training sheets, food safety checklists). - Seeds/starts: $3/packet x 20 packets = $60 (seasonal plantings). Total Program Supplies = $3,060.
Participant Stipends $12/hour x 60 hours x 24 youth = $17,280. Timesheets will verify hours; stipends reinforce attendance and workforce expectations.
Travel & Transportation Bus passes: $25/month x 6 months x 24 youth = $3,600 to ensure reliable access to garden, workshops, and farm stand shifts.
Facilities/Utilities Allocated by square footage and season to reflect occupancy and effort: office rent + utilities at $1,180/month x 6 months x 12.5% (200 sq. ft. of 800 = 25% x 6/12 year = 12.5%), rounded to include Wi-Fi/solid waste = $886. This blended space/time method is fair, consistently applied, and aligns with program staff use.
Indirect/Admin 10% of Total Direct Costs (TDC) reflects our board-approved, historically awarded rate covering finance, audit, insurance, IT, and HR, excluding items already charged direct (rent, supplies, stipends) to avoid double-charging. TDC = $40,909; Indirect (10%) = $4,091. Total RCF request = $45,000. Match/Cost Share: 0% / $0 (no match required); sources N/A; status N/A. If in-kind arises, valuation will follow fair market standards (per 2 CFR 200, if federally applicable), but none is claimed here.
Cost-effectiveness: $45,000/24 = $1,875 per participant; $45,000/22 completers ≈ $2,045; $45,000/18 job-ready youth ≈ $2,500. Key assumptions/exclusions: 6‑month season; 24 youth, 60 hours each; 24 weekly sessions; 90% retention; $12/hour stipend; office rent allocation based on 0.5 FTE program staff and 200 sq. ft. shared space. Per RCF guidelines: food for participant learning is allowable; capital improvements are not; no alcohol or lobbying; participant stipends are allowable with timesheets.
Sustainability: One-time tool purchases reduce future supply needs; expanded volunteer support and modest farm stand earnings will offset supplies; as curricula and partnerships stabilize, staffing per youth should decline.
Prepared by Alex Martinez, Grants Manager.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 7.4/10)
The output demonstrates strong structure and follows most template requirements with clear calculations and appropriate warm tone. However, it contains critical errors: the author name doesn't match the scenario (Alex Martinez vs. Lena Ortiz), math errors in facilities calculation and TDC totals, and FTE precision that appears artificially exact (0.0305 FTE). These accuracy issues would require significant correction before submission.
- • Excellent budget category organization matching funder requirements exactly, with clear headings and logical flow
- • Strong opening summary hitting all required elements (total request, program budget, participants, outcomes) concisely
- • Transparent, verifiable math for most line items with clear unit × quantity × rate formulas that pass quick calculator checks
- • Effective cost-effectiveness analysis showing multiple per-participant calculations ($1,875, $2,045, $2,500)
- • Good sustainability narrative explaining how one-time purchases and earned revenue will reduce future costs
- • Appropriate warm tone that balances accessibility with professionalism suitable for community foundation audience
- • Clear allocation methodology for facilities explaining the square footage and FTE blended approach
- • Proper fringe benefits explanation showing what's covered and correct calculation base
- • Critical error: Author name is 'Alex Martinez, Grants Manager' but scenario specifies 'Lena Ortiz, Program Coordinator' - this would be immediately flagged
- • Math error in Facilities calculation: states '$1,180/month x 6 months x 12.5%' but 25% space × 50% time = 12.5% is correct logic, yet the result of $886 doesn't match ($1,180 × 6 × 0.125 = $885, close but shows rounding inconsistency)
- • TDC calculation error: Listed line items sum to $40,909 but adding Personnel ($14,360) + Fringe ($1,723) + Supplies ($3,060) + Stipends ($17,280) + Travel ($3,600) + Facilities ($886) = $40,909 is correct; however, 10% of $40,909 = $4,090.90, not $4,091 (minor rounding)
- • Total request verification issue: $40,909 + $4,091 = $45,000 checks out, but the precision feels forced
- • Unrealistic FTE precision (0.0305 FTE, 0.03 FTE) suggests over-engineering rather than practical staffing - nonprofits rarely track to four decimal places
- • Garden Educator calculation appears inconsistent: 0.03 FTE × $48,000 = $1,440 is correct, but where did $48,000 salary come from? Not provided in scenario
- • Match/Cost Share section is verbose for a 'not applicable' item - could be streamlined to one sentence
- • Missing explicit confirmation that budget table totals match narrative totals, though implied
- • Allowability notes placement at end of assumptions paragraph makes them easy to miss - should be more prominent or separate
Mid-Size Professional Org
TechBridge Workforce Alliance is a mid-sized nonprofit serving an urban metro region, delivering employer-aligned IT training and placement for underemployed adults through partnerships with community colleges and tech firms.
View scenario details
TechBridge Workforce Alliance requests $150,000 toward a total program budget of $420,000 to serve 120 participants in 2026. Outcomes: 96 (80%) complete training; 84 (70%) earn CompTIA A+ or Google IT Support; 78 (65%) placed in IT roles within 90 days at a median $22/hour.
Salaries & Wages ($61,700) - Program Manager, 0.15 FTE at $80,000 = $12,000: oversees outreach/screening; schedules employer panels/mock interviews; compliance/data approvals. - IT Instructor, 0.35 FTE at $72,000 = $25,200: delivers 240-hour IT training; leads certification prep sessions. - Career Coach/Case Manager, 0.20 FTE at $60,000 = $12,000: case management, barrier resolution, retention coaching. - Employer Engagement Specialist, 0.15 FTE at $64,000 = $9,600: job development, internship placement, mock interviews. - Data & Evaluation Coordinator, 0.05 FTE at $58,000 = $2,900: data entry, verification, reporting.
Employee Benefits ($14,808) - Calculated at 24% of salaries ($61,700). Covers FICA, health/dental/vision, retirement, workers’ comp, and state unemployment. Applied only to eligible salary base.
Program Supplies & Software ($12,860) - LinkedIn Learning licenses: $25/user x 120 = $3,000 (supplements certification prep). - Laptop loaners for participants with device gaps: $525 x 12 = $6,300 (enables attendance and labs). - Practice test licenses (e.g., A+/Google prep): $89 x 40 = $3,560 (raises first-time pass rates).
Participant Supports ($38,910) - Certification vouchers: CompTIA A+ $246 x 40 = $9,840; Google IT Support $49 x 30 = $1,470. - Transportation supports: $60/month x 6 months x 50 participants = $18,000. - Childcare stipends: $200/month x 4 months x 12 participants = $9,600. These supports directly address barriers to completion, testing, and early employment.
Professional Services ($1,500) - Employer panelist/mock interviewer honoraria: $125 x 12 events = $1,500.
Travel ($1,300) - Staff site visits/employer outreach: $0.67/mile x 1,940 miles = $1,300 to arrange mock interviews, internships, and placements.
Facilities ($1,851) - Pro-rata rent and utilities allocated by staff FTE supported and scheduled classroom hours; methodology is consistent across funders and fairly reflects usage. Shared software with multi-program use is allocated by licensed users.
Evaluation ($1,000) - Outcome verification (wage/placement checks) and dashboards to track Bank of America metrics; distinct from indirect to avoid double-charging.
Indirect/Admin ($16,071) - 12% of Total Direct Costs ($133,929). Audited organizational rate; within Bank of America guidance (≤15%). Covers finance, HR, audit, cybersecurity/IT, and governance; excludes costs charged directly above.
Match/Cost Share - No formal match required. Voluntary cost share 20% ($84,000): Cash—United Way Workforce Grant $50,000 (committed); In-kind—employer mentors/mock interviewers 1,360 hrs x $25/hr = $34,000 (pending MOUs; in-kind valued per market rates and consistent with 2 CFR 200).
Cost-effectiveness - Cost/participant: $3,500 (program); $1,250 (Bank of America share). Cost per completer: $4,375 (program) / $1,563 (grant). Cost per placement: $5,384 (program) / $1,923 (grant).
Key assumptions and exclusions - Two cohorts of 60; average 75% first-attempt exam pass; transportation support for 6 months; childcare for one-third of participants; staffing totals 4.2 FTE across instruction, case management, and placement. Totals equal $150,000 (Direct $133,929; Indirect $16,071) and align with the budget table.
Sustainability - Costs maintained via diversified revenue (WIOA, employer sponsorships, United Way, modest corporate gifts). Laptop pool and digital content reduce per-participant costs over time; expanded employer partnerships lower placement costs.
Compliance - See Bank of America grantmaking guidelines: indirect typically ≤15%; equipment under $5,000 allowed; no lobbying: https://about.bankofamerica.com/en/making-an-impact/grantmaking-guidelines.
Prepared by Jordan Lee, Director of Development.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 7.4/10)
The output demonstrates strong structure and follows most template requirements with clear cost justifications and transparent math. However, it contains multiple calculation errors that would undermine credibility with funders, and some inconsistencies between the scenario data and the generated narrative reduce accuracy significantly.
- • Excellent adherence to funder budget category order with clear section headings matching Bank of America's expected format
- • Strong opening summary hitting all required elements (total request, program budget, participants, outcomes) in accessible language
- • Transparent math throughout with clear formulas (e.g., '0.15 FTE at $80,000 = $12,000') that enable quick verification
- • Comprehensive participant supports section with specific unit costs and barrier-reduction rationale that aligns well with workforce development priorities
- • Cost-effectiveness metrics presented multiple ways (per participant, per completer, per placement) showing strong value proposition
- • Thoughtful sustainability narrative identifying specific revenue streams and cost-reduction strategies
- • Appropriate warm tone that balances professionalism with accessibility, avoiding jargon while maintaining credibility
- • Good indirect cost explanation that clarifies what's included and explicitly notes exclusions to prevent double-charging concerns
- • Critical math errors: Salaries total $61,700 in the narrative but individual line items sum to only $61,700 when Program Manager should be $12,000 (0.15 × $80,000), yet scenario specified $78,000 annual salary and $58,500 amount that don't appear; fringe calculation $61,700 × 24% = $14,808 is correct but salaries don't match scenario inputs
- • Participant Supports section shows only $38,910 but the unit cost examples in scenario total much higher ($24,600 + $2,940 + $21,000 + $43,200 + $32,000 + $3,000 = $126,740); the AI drastically reduced quantities without explanation (e.g., only 40 CompTIA vouchers vs. 100 in scenario, only 50 participants getting transportation vs. 120)
- • Total Direct Costs stated as $133,929 but line items sum to $133,929 only if we accept the reduced participant supports; this doesn't align with the robust scenario inputs provided
- • Author name inconsistency: scenario specifies 'Marcus Chen, Director of Programs' but output says 'Jordan Lee, Director of Development' - a red flag error that suggests template confusion
- • Facilities allocation at only $1,851 seems unrealistically low for a year-long program serving 120 participants with classroom training; no clear calculation shown
- • Missing explicit confirmation that totals reconcile to budget table as promised in the template requirements
- • The 4.2 FTE assumption mentioned in Key Assumptions doesn't match the 0.90 FTE actually budgeted (0.15+0.35+0.20+0.15+0.05), suggesting either the assumption is wrong or significant staffing is unfunded
Large Established Org
Northern Sierra Conservancy is a large, established regional conservation nonprofit serving rural mountain communities, operating field crews and workforce pipelines for forest resilience and wildfire mitigation.
View scenario details
Northern Sierra Conservancy requests $2,400,000 (total program budget $3,200,000) for the Forest Resilience Corps (10/1/2025–9/30/2028) to train and place 180 participants. Outcomes: 150 trainees earn FFT2/Red Card; 120 placed in forestry/wildland jobs within 6 months; support treatments on 5,000 acres via crew deployments and partner projects.
Personnel - Program Director (0.20 FTE) at $120,000/yr x 3 yrs = $72,000: overall leadership; employer partnerships; reporting. - Program Manager (0.50 FTE) at $95,000/yr x 3 yrs = $142,500: recruitment in rural communities; cohort coordination; work-based learning. - Field Supervisors (2 x 0.25 FTE) at $80,000/yr x 3 yrs = $120,000: field safety; sawyer training; prescribed burn support. - Training Coordinator (0.40 FTE) at $78,000/yr x 3 yrs = $93,600: NWCG/FFT2 curriculum; Red Card documentation. - Employment Specialist (0.30 FTE) at $70,000/yr x 3 yrs = $63,000: employer outreach; placements; follow-up. - Data/Evaluation Manager (0.11 FTE) at $76,000/yr x 3 yrs = $25,900: performance monitoring; USDA reporting. Total Personnel = $520,000.
Fringe Benefits Fringe at 30% of salary base covers FICA, health/dental/vision, workers’ comp, retirement, and unemployment insurance: 30% x $520,000 = $156,000.
Travel - Per diem (GSA CONUS M&IE): $59/day x 50 days/yr x 3 yrs x 12 staff = $106,200. - Mileage (field meetings, employer outreach): $0.67/mile x 30,000 miles (3-year total) = $20,100. - Airfare/registrations (statewide coordination, Rx fire workshops): $925 x 4 trips = $3,700. Total Travel = $130,000.
Equipment Towable chippers (> $5,000): $32,000 x 2 = $64,000 to increase capacity for roadside/right-of-way fuels work.
Supplies - PPE kits: $450 x 180 = $81,000; Chainsaws: $650 x 40 = $26,000; Chains/maintenance: $150 x 40 = $6,000; Hand tools: $120 x 180 = $21,600; First-aid/trauma kits: $1,200 x 6 = $7,200; Drip torches: $180 x 20 = $3,600; Fuel/oil: $18,000; NWCG/ICS course materials: $6,600. Total Supplies = $170,000.
Contractual - Subaward to regional RCD/Fire Safe Council to host crews, secure fleet/ops, and implement partner fuels projects supporting 5,000 acres: $1,018,143 (the portion >$25,000 excluded from MTDC). - Evaluation contractor: $150/hour x 300 hours = $45,000 (independent outcome verification, cost-effectiveness). - Prescribed burn instructors (RXB2/ENGB cadre): $1,450/day x 20 days = $29,000. Total Contractual = $1,092,143.
Other Shared services (HR, finance, IT) allocated by program FTE and office sq. ft. = $30,000; vehicle insurance allocated by number of program vehicles/miles = $10,800; satellite comms/data (safety): $80/device/month x 6 devices x 6 months/yr x 3 yrs = $8,640; background checks/drug screens: $85 x 180 = $15,300; rural recruitment ads: $3,117. Total Other = $67,857. Allocation methods are proportional and equitable across programs.
Indirect Costs 17.5% of MTDC (audited historical rate). MTDC excludes equipment >$5,000, the portion of subawards >$25,000, and participant support: Base = $1,142,857; IDC = $200,000. Indirect covers rent, utilities, general liability, and admin not charged elsewhere (no double-charging).
Match/Cost Share (25% = $800,000) - Cash: CAL FIRE Workforce Grant $500,000 (committed). - In-kind: Volunteer Fire Departments training time 12,000 hours x $25/hr = $300,000 (pending MOUs; valued per 2 CFR 200.306).
Cost-effectiveness $2,400,000/180 = $13,333 per participant; $2,400,000/150 = $16,000 per FFT2; $2,400,000/120 = $20,000 per job placement.
Assumptions and compliance Six 10-member crews per season; 3 seasons; 85% retention; GSA CONUS rates used. Totals equal $2,400,000 and align with the budget table. Federal allowability per 2 CFR 200 and CWDG guidance: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200 and https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/cwdg.
Sustainability Post-grant, costs decline as equipment is in place, partner subawards taper, and placements generate fee-for-service thinning/burn contracts and county cost-share to sustain core staff.
Prepared by [AUTHOR NAME, TITLE].
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
This is an exceptionally strong budget narrative that demonstrates sophisticated understanding of federal grant requirements. It follows the USDA Forest Service category structure precisely, provides transparent calculations throughout, and addresses complex compliance issues (MTDC exclusions, cost share valuation) with appropriate technical detail. The formal tone is appropriate for a federal proposal, and the narrative would be immediately usable with minimal editing.
- • Excellent mathematical transparency with clear formulas (e.g., '$59/day x 50 days/yr x 3 yrs x 12 staff = $106,200') that allow easy verification
- • Sophisticated handling of federal compliance requirements including MTDC calculation, 2 CFR 200 citations, and proper treatment of equipment and subaward thresholds
- • Strong cost-effectiveness section with multiple metrics ($13,333 per participant, $16,000 per FFT2, $20,000 per placement) that demonstrate value
- • Personnel section effectively links each role's FTE and duties to specific program activities from the KEY ACTIVITIES LIST
- • Thoughtful sustainability narrative explaining how equipment capitalization and fee-for-service contracts will reduce future costs
- • Proper allocation methodology explanations for shared costs (FTE, square footage, vehicle miles) that meet federal reasonableness standards
- • Clear distinction between what's included in indirect vs. direct costs to prevent double-charging concerns
- • The closing line reads '[AUTHOR NAME, TITLE]' instead of 'Prepared by Priya Nanduri, Grants and Compliance Director' - a template placeholder was not replaced
- • Minor arithmetic discrepancy: Chainsaws listed as '$650 x 60 = $39,000' in the prompt examples but calculated as '$650 x 40 = $26,000' in the output (the output appears correct for the actual budget, but the inconsistency could cause confusion)
- • The subaward amount of $1,018,143 is very precise but lacks a brief explanation of how it was calculated, which might raise questions during review
Test Summary: Generated Nov 2, 2025 • 3 scenarios • 9 total outputs • Average quality score: 8.27/10 • Total validation cost: $0.5265