Grant Executive Summary
Compelling 1-page overview of grant proposal
The Prompt
The Prompt
GRANT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GENERATOR
Purpose: Create a compelling one-page executive summary to accompany your full grant proposal.
STEP 1: QUICK START CHECKLIST
Fill in these core details first.
Basic Information:
- Organization: [ORGANIZATION NAME]
- Funder: [FUNDER NAME]
- Request amount: [$AMOUNT]
- Grant purpose: [PURPOSE – e.g., “general operating support” or “youth employment program”]
- Grant period: [TIMEFRAME – e.g., “12 months” or “July 2025–June 2026”]
- Total project/program budget: [$TOTAL BUDGET]
Program Details:
- Program name: [PROGRAM NAME]
- Number served: [NUM PARTICIPANTS]
- Geography: [GEOGRAPHY – city/county/region]
- Population: [POPULATION – be specific]
- Delivery model: [DELIVERY MODEL – e.g., “weekly workshops,” “1:1 case management,” “mobile clinics”]
- Key sites/partners: [SITES/PARTNERS]
Funding Context:
- Confirmed or matching funds: [MATCH/LEVERAGE]
- Estimated per-participant cost (if relevant): [$COST PER PARTICIPANT]
Tone: [Select ONE: FORMAL / WARM / CASUAL]
- FORMAL: Precise, reserved language for institutional funders (foundations, government)
- WARM: Approachable, community-centered for family/local funders
- CASUAL: Plainspoken for relationship-based grassroots funders you know well
STEP 2: DETAILED INFORMATION (INFORMATION YOU’LL NEED)
Need Statement:
- Geography: [GEOGRAPHY]
- Population most affected: [POPULATION]
- Key data points (2–3 stats showing scale/urgency): [KEY DATA POINTS]
- Specific impact/harms: [IMPACT DESCRIPTION]
Solution:
- Program name: [PROGRAM NAME]
- What will be done, where, and for whom: [PLAIN-LANGUAGE DESCRIPTION]
- Number served: [NUM PARTICIPANTS]
- Delivery model: [DELIVERY MODEL]
- Key sites/partners: [SITES/PARTNERS]
Request & Budget:
- Amount requested: [$AMOUNT]
- Purpose of funds: [PURPOSE]
- Grant period: [TIMEFRAME]
- Total project/program budget: [$TOTAL BUDGET]
- Confirmed/matching/leveraged funds: [MATCH/LEVERAGE]
- Per-participant cost (if applicable): [$COST PER PARTICIPANT]
Outcomes (3–5 measurable results with targets + timing):
[OUTCOMES – e.g., “Serve 250 youth; 85% on-time graduation within 12 months.”]
Evidence & Evaluation:
- Prior results or research base: [EVIDENCE]
- How results will be tracked: [EVALUATION APPROACH – e.g., “quarterly surveys, case records, database reports”]
Organizational Capacity:
- Track record/years operating/people served: [QUALIFICATIONS]
- Staffing/governance highlights: [STAFFING/GOVERNANCE]
- Fiscal health (if strong): [FISCAL STATUS – e.g., “clean audits, 6-month reserves”]
Funder Alignment:
- Funder priority phrases (use 1–2 explicitly): [FUNDER PRIORITY PHRASES]
- How your work connects: [ALIGNMENT STATEMENT]
Equity & Community Voice:
- Who benefits (demographics, barriers addressed): [EQUITY]
- Community input in design: [COMMUNITY INPUT]
- Access considerations (language, transportation, cultural responsiveness): [ACCESS]
Timeline (3–4 milestones):
[TIMELINE MILESTONES – e.g., “Months 1–2: hire staff; Months 3–6: enroll 100 participants; Month 9: midpoint evaluation; Month 12: final report.”]
Sustainability:
- How work continues post-grant (diversified funding, earned revenue, policy alignment, committed funders): [SUSTAINABILITY]
Contact Information:
- Contact (for questions; usually program/development staff): [CONTACT NAME, TITLE, EMAIL, PHONE]
- Signer (only if funder requires; usually ED/CEO): [SIGNER NAME, TITLE]
STEP 3: CONTENT REQUIREMENTS (GENERATE THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
Length:
- 250–400 words total.
Structure & Format:
- Use micro-headings for skimming, in this order: Need, Solution, Request, Outcomes, Evidence & Evaluation, Organizational Capacity, Funder Fit, Equity & Community Voice, Timeline, Sustainability, Contact
- Each section = 1 short paragraph of 2–3 sentences maximum
- Bold the funding request amount and 2–3 key metrics/targets
- Define acronyms on first use
- Use active voice; plain language; avoid jargon and superlatives
- Output as formatted text ready to paste into a Word document (clear section breaks)
- Adjust sections based on funder RFP; if space is tight, prioritize: Need → Solution → Request → Outcomes → Capacity
Content Priorities:
1) Need (1–2 sentences): Name the community, scale of need, who is most affected, and specific impact. Be concrete and local.
2) Solution (2–3 sentences): What will be done, for whom, where, and how many will be served; include delivery model and key partners.
3) Request (1–2 sentences): State prominently: [AMOUNT] for [PURPOSE] over [TIMEFRAME]; include total budget, confirmed/matching funds, and per-participant cost if relevant.
4) Outcomes (2–3 sentences): Provide 3–5 measurable outcomes with targets and timing.
5) Evidence & Evaluation (1–2 sentences): Cite prior results or research and how results will be tracked.
6) Organizational Capacity (1–2 sentences): Track record, staffing/governance, fiscal health.
7) Funder Fit (1 sentence): Explicitly align with [FUNDER NAME] priorities using their language once or twice (no overdoing it).
8) Equity & Community Voice (1–2 sentences): Who benefits, community input, and access considerations.
9) Timeline (1 sentence or short list): 3–4 milestones.
10) Sustainability (1 sentence): How work continues after the grant.
11) Contact (1 line): Brief invitation + contact details; include signer only if required.
Quality Standards:
DO:
- Be concrete and numeric (e.g., “served 450 families,” “92% retained housing”)
- Use funder’s priority language (accurately, 1–2 times)
- Lead with impact; make every sentence advance need, solution, or evidence
- Use specific place names and populations
- Keep paragraphs tight and focused
DON’T:
- Use clichés (“transformational,” “world-class,” “cutting-edge,” “game-changing”)
- Restate your mission statement
- Introduce ideas not in the full proposal
- Use undefined acronyms or jargon
- Make vague claims without data
- Write in passive voice
- Exceed 400 words
EXAMPLE SNIPPET (Need + Solution opening):
“In Riverside County, 1 in 4 seniors over 75 lives alone without regular social contact, contributing to cognitive decline and premature institutionalization. The Senior Companionship Project will provide evidence-based peer support to 150 isolated seniors across 12 rural townships, matching trained volunteers for weekly in-home visits, monthly group activities, and coordinated referrals with local health providers.”
Now generate the executive summary using the information provided above.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
Neighborhood-based immigrant services nonprofit in urban Oakland seeking a family foundation grant for ESOL-to-employment programming.
View scenario details
Need In Oakland’s Fruitvale and San Antonio neighborhoods, many recently arrived Latinx and Mam-speaking Guatemalan adults struggle to find steady work due to limited English and few networks. Here, 41% of adults speak English “less than very well,” recent-immigrant unemployment is 9.8% vs 4.3% citywide, and entry wages (~$19.50/hour) lag far below the $47.29 living wage for a single parent—driving rent burden and food insecurity.
Solution English to Employment (E2E) helps 50 low-income immigrant adults in Fruitvale and San Antonio learn workplace English and connect to jobs. We offer evening English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes twice weekly, 1:1 career coaching, employer-led mock interviews, and industry credentials (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] 10 and food handler cards). Partners include Oakland Adult & Career Education, Peralta Colleges, Goodwill of the East Bay, La Clínica de La Raza (referrals), and hiring employers like Durable Goods Co. and FreshGrocer.
Request We request **$45,000** from the Larkin Family Foundation for our workforce ESOL and job placement program from July 2025–June 2026. The total program budget is $120,000, with $40,000 confirmed from the City of Oakland Workforce Board, $20,000 from individual donors, and $5,000 in-kind classroom space; per-participant cost is $2,400.
Outcomes We will **serve 50 adults** and ensure 80% complete 60+ hours of instruction within six months. At least **65% obtain new or better employment within six months** at a **median starting wage of $22/hour**, and 75% retain employment at 90 days.
Evidence & Evaluation E2E blends evidence-based, contextualized ESOL with sector-focused placement; our 2024 cohort achieved 70% job placement and a $3.75/hour average wage gain. We track results via pre/post Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems (CASAS) language tests, coaching notes, employer verification, and 30/90-day follow-up surveys in Spanish and Mam.
Organizational Capacity Founded in 2016, Fruitvale Community Bridge has served 1,800 immigrants across education, legal navigation, and benefits access. Our TESOL-certified Program Manager, two credentialed ESOL instructors, and three career coaches are backed by an 11-member community board; we maintain balanced budgets, on-time city reporting, and 2.5 months of operating reserves.
Funder Fit E2E advances Larkin’s priorities around economic mobility and immigrant and refugee integration by pairing language learning with real job placement in Oakland.
Equity & Community Voice We center Latinx and Indigenous newcomers, serving all regardless of status. Participants shape curriculum and class times through quarterly councils and SMS polls; classes are in Spanish and Mam, near AC Transit lines, with childcare, transit vouchers, and culturally responsive coaching.
Timeline Months 1–2: recruit/enroll 50; Months 3–8: instruction and OSHA/food handler certifications; Month 6: employer hiring fair; Month 9: 90-day employment follow-ups; Month 12: final evaluation and report.
Sustainability We will continue through City workforce contract renewals, employer sponsorships, individual donors, and alignment with state Adult Education funding under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
Contact Questions welcome: [CONTACT NAME, TITLE, EMAIL, PHONE]. Signer (if required): [SIGNER NAME, TITLE].
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 7.8/10)
The output is well-structured, data-rich, and largely follows the template requirements. However, it exceeds the 400-word limit (currently ~475 words), fails to bold key metrics as instructed, and leaves contact placeholders unfilled despite having complete data. The casual tone is mostly appropriate but occasionally slips into formality.
- • Excellent use of concrete data and specific metrics throughout (41% speak English less than very well, $3.75 wage gain, 70% placement rate)
- • Strong narrative flow that connects need to solution to outcomes logically and compellingly
- • Authentic voice that balances accessibility with professionalism—avoids jargon while maintaining credibility
- • Effective use of micro-headings for skimability and clear section organization
- • Good integration of funder alignment language ('economic mobility' and 'immigrant and refugee integration') without overuse
- • Strong equity and access details (Spanish/Mam services, transit vouchers, community councils)
- • Appropriate acronym definitions (ESOL, OSHA, CASAS, WIOA) on first use
- • Exceeds 400-word maximum by approximately 75 words (19% over limit)—would require editing before submission
- • Contact section uses placeholders [CONTACT NAME, TITLE, EMAIL, PHONE] and [SIGNER NAME, TITLE] instead of the provided values (Marisol Vega, Ana Lucero, etc.)
- • Fails to bold the $45,000 request amount and key metrics (50 adults, 65% employment, $22/hour median wage) as explicitly required
- • Tone occasionally drifts toward formal rather than consistently casual (e.g., 'We request $45,000 from the Larkin Family Foundation' could be more conversational)
- • Minor redundancy: 'ESOL' is defined as 'English for Speakers of Other Languages' but the program name already includes 'English to Employment,' creating slight awkwardness
- • The 'Request' section could more prominently feature the dollar amount visually given the instruction to 'state prominently'
Mid-Size Professional Org
Regional conservation nonprofit serving rural Appalachian communities, seeking an institutional funder for measurable water quality improvements.
View scenario details
Need In the Monongahela and Youghiogheny River watersheds (Fayette and Greene Counties, PA, and Monongalia County, WV), family farmers and rural households using private wells face degraded water quality: 40% of tested stream miles are impaired for aquatic life (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, PA DEP, 2024), and 18% of private wells exceed 10 mg/L nitrate, with agriculture the leading sediment source. These conditions undercut farm productivity, elevate household health risks, and dampen recreation and tourism revenues.
Solution The Healthy Streams Initiative will help 120 farms keep manure and soil out of streams by installing best management practices (BMPs)—fencing, stream crossings, cover crops, and manure storage—paired with training and quarterly water testing. Delivery includes farm assessments, cost-share grants, and technical assistance in partnership with Penn State Extension, County Conservation Districts, the West Virginia University (WVU) Water Research Institute, Trout Unlimited chapters, and local suppliers.
Request Allegheny Watershed Conservancy requests **$250,000** for implementation of on-farm BMPs to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution from January–December 2026. The total program budget is $850,000, with $300,000 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) cost-share, $150,000 county conservation funds, $50,000 private donors, and $25,000 in-kind lab analysis; estimated cost per participant is $7,083.
Outcomes By December 2026, we will **enroll 120 farms**, **install 280 BMP projects**, and cut annual loads by 75,000 lbs nitrogen and **1,500 tons sediment**. We will document a 15% improvement in macroinvertebrate scores at eight monitoring sites within 12 months. All BMPs and sampling sites will be georeferenced and tracked.
Evidence & Evaluation USDA and Chesapeake Bay Program research shows farm BMPs measurably reduce nutrient and sediment loads; our 2023 pilot with 35 farms achieved 20% nitrate reductions downstream. We will collect quarterly grab samples, deploy continuous sensors, verify BMPs via GIS, survey farmer adoption, and use independent labs for validation.
Organizational Capacity Founded in 2003, we have protected 22,000 acres and restored 65 stream miles, with a staff of 24 including eight certified conservation planners led by a Professional Engineer. We maintain clean single audits (six years), a five-month operating reserve, and a federally approved indirect cost rate.
Funder Fit This Initiative advances the Appalachian Stewardship Foundation’s priorities by delivering measurable water quality improvements and strengthening rural community resilience.
Equity & Community Voice We prioritize small and historically underserved producers; conduct outreach through Grange halls and farm bureaus; and provide Spanish-language materials for dairy workers, stipends for time and fuel, and evening workshops. A farmer advisory group and township listening sessions guide site selection and design.
Timeline Q1: site assessments and contracts; Q2–Q3: BMP installation; Q3: mid-year monitoring report; Q4: post-install sampling and final report.
Sustainability Ongoing NRCS and state agriculture funding, a revolving cost-share fund from repayments, and 10+ year landowner maintenance agreements will sustain results beyond the grant.
Contact For questions, please contact [CONTACT NAME, TITLE, EMAIL, PHONE].
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.2/10)
This is a strong, professional executive summary that demonstrates excellent command of formal grant writing conventions and environmental conservation terminology. The content is well-organized, data-rich, and appropriately technical for an institutional funder. However, it has a critical error in the Contact section and slightly exceeds the word count target.
- • Excellent formal tone with appropriate technical language (macroinvertebrate scores, georeferenced BMPs, grab samples) that matches the institutional funder context
- • Strong use of concrete metrics throughout—bolded key numbers (120 farms, 280 projects, 1,500 tons sediment) make impact immediately scannable
- • Sophisticated demonstration of funding leverage ($525,000 in matching funds clearly itemized) and fiscal credibility (clean audits, reserves, indirect cost rate)
- • Effective integration of funder priority language ('measurable water quality improvements' and 'community resilience') without overuse
- • Well-structured equity section that goes beyond boilerplate—specific accommodations like Spanish materials for dairy workers, Grange hall outreach, and stipends show genuine access planning
- • Acronyms properly defined on first use (PA DEP, USDA, NRCS, EQIP, WVU, BMPs) following professional standards
- • Evidence section effectively combines external research validation with organization's own pilot data (20% nitrate reduction)
- • Timeline uses clear quarterly milestones appropriate for a 12-month project cycle
- • Contact section contains placeholder text '[CONTACT NAME, TITLE, EMAIL, PHONE]' instead of the actual contact information provided (Ian McCullough, Executive Director, etc.)—this is a significant error that would require correction before submission
- • Word count is approximately 425-450 words, exceeding the 400-word maximum specified in the prompt requirements
- • The signer (Dr. Leanne Porter) is not mentioned, though the prompt indicates this should be included 'only if funder requires'—unclear if this omission is intentional or an oversight
- • Some sentences are dense and could be tightened for better readability (e.g., the Request paragraph packs budget, match, and per-participant cost into one long sentence)
- • Minor: The phrase 'undercut farm productivity' in the Need section is slightly informal for the otherwise formal tone—'reduce' or 'diminish' would be more consistent
Large Established Org
Countywide housing nonprofit in Los Angeles partnering with a national foundation to scale family homelessness diversion.
View scenario details
Need In Los Angeles County, 28,458 people in families experienced homelessness in the past year; 69% of family heads are women, and an average two-bedroom rent is $2,781 while the median CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids) grant for a family of three is $1,233. A shelter entry disrupts work and school, deepens trauma, and delays return to permanent housing—impacts concentrated among Black and Latino single-mother households in Service Planning Areas (SPAs) 2, 4, and 6.
Solution The Family Diversion & Stability Initiative prevents a shelter stay before it starts by helping 1,200 families resolve immediate housing crises across Los Angeles County. Trained specialists conduct diversion screening at the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) Coordinated Entry System, mediate with landlords or family, provide flexible cash assistance, and offer 1:1 housing stabilization coaching. Key partners include the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) CalWORKs offices, Neighborhood Legal Services, 211 LA, and school district McKinney-Vento liaisons.
Request Metro Family Housing Partnership requests **$1,500,000** from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation for family homelessness diversion and rapid resolution from July 2025–June 2027. The total program budget is $6,500,000, leveraging $3,000,000 in Measure H funding, $1,250,000 from private donors/corporate partners, and $500,000 in-kind; estimated cost is $5,417 per family.
Outcomes We will **divert 1,200 families** from shelter, with **85% stably housed at 6 months** and 70% sustaining housing at 12 months. We will keep average assistance per family under $2,200 and **reduce average time to resolution to 10 days**. We will disaggregate results by SPA and race/ethnicity.
Evidence & Evaluation Diversion models in King County and Los Angeles County show 70–80% housing retention with flexible assistance; our 2023 pilot diverted 410 families with 83% six‑month stability. We will track outcomes via the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), case records, landlord verification, and 6- and 12‑month surveys, with quarterly dashboard reviews.
Organizational Capacity Founded in 1988, we served 18,000 people last year across prevention, shelter, and housing with 220 staff and a countywide footprint. A licensed clinical social worker leads our Housing Stabilization team, supported by multilingual navigators and an HMIS data unit; audits have been unmodified for 10 years with six months of operating reserves.
Funder Fit This Initiative advances family homelessness prevention through upstream prevention, aligning with Hilton’s focus on solutions that keep families housed.
Equity & Community Voice We target SPAs with the highest rates of Black family homelessness and deliver culturally responsive services; flexible aid also removes barriers for undocumented caregivers. A parent advisory council and McKinney‑Vento liaisons shaped program design; services include evening hours, English/Spanish support, childcare, and transit/Lyft assistance.
Timeline Months 1–3: hire and train 12 diversion specialists; Months 4–24: operate countywide; Month 12: midpoint evaluation; Month 24: final report and knowledge‑sharing brief.
Sustainability Post‑grant funding will come from Measure H renewal, Medi‑Cal Community Supports partnerships, and committed private co‑investors.
Contact For questions: [CONTACT NAME, TITLE, EMAIL, PHONE]. Signer (if required): [SIGNER NAME, TITLE].
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 7.8/10)
The output demonstrates strong formal tone and clear structure with effective use of data and metrics. However, it has critical completion errors (placeholder text in Contact section), exceeds the 400-word maximum at approximately 450 words, and includes minor formatting inconsistencies that would require editing before submission.
- • Excellent formal tone appropriate for institutional funder—precise, data-driven, avoids superlatives and jargon
- • Strong use of bolding for key metrics ($1,500,000, 1,200 families, 85% housed, 10 days) that aids skimmability
- • Concrete, specific data throughout (28,458 people, $2,781 rent vs $1,233 CalWORKs, 83% pilot success rate)
- • Effective acronym management—defines LAHSA, DPSS, HMIS, CalWORKs on first use
- • Clear alignment with funder priorities using their language ('family homelessness prevention,' 'upstream prevention')
- • Strong equity section that names specific populations and barriers (Black families, undocumented caregivers, SPAs)
- • Logical flow from need through solution to outcomes matches best practices for executive summaries
- • Contact section contains unformatted placeholder text '[CONTACT NAME, TITLE, EMAIL, PHONE]' instead of actual details provided (Jasmine Lee, CEO, etc.)—this is a critical error that makes the document unusable without manual correction
- • Exceeds stated 250-400 word limit at approximately 450 words; would need trimming for compliance
- • Minor inconsistency: 'Signer (if required)' appears with placeholder when the prompt indicates signer should only be included if funder requires it—should either populate or omit entirely
- • Funder Fit section is somewhat redundant ('prevention through upstream prevention') and could be tightened
- • Missing the explicit 'invitation' language in Contact section that the prompt requested ('Brief invitation + contact details')
Test Summary: Generated Nov 2, 2025 • 3 scenarios • 9 total outputs • Average quality score: 7.87/10 • Total validation cost: $0.1857