Grant Prospect Research Summary
One-page research brief on potential funder
The Prompt
The Prompt
Create a one-page Grant Prospect Research Summary for [ORGANIZATION NAME] to decide whether to pursue a foundation prospect quickly and confidently.
The Grant Prospect Research Summary should:
- Follow this order: 1) Funder Snapshot, 2) Fit to [PROGRAM/PROJECT] in [GEOGRAPHY], 3) Giving Patterns, 4) Eligibility, 5) Application & Deadlines, 6) Typical Award Size, 7) Recent Similar Grantees, 8) Relationships, 9) Risks/Flags, 10) Decision & Next Steps.
- Funder Snapshot: name, EIN, website, mission (direct quote ≤20 words), priority areas, geography served, assets and annual giving (latest available).
- Fit: 1–2 sentences mapping funder interests to [PROGRAM/PROJECT], [BENEFICIARY POPULATION], and any [EQUITY PRIORITIES].
- Giving Patterns: typical/median size, multi-year? renewals? general operating vs program? first-time grantee openness.
- Eligibility: 501(c)(3) required? fiscal sponsor allowed? invite-only? exclusions.
- Application & Deadlines: LOI/full? portal? cycle and next due date(s); recommended lead time.
- Recent Similar Grantees: list 3–5 with year and amount (note source: 990, website, press).
- Relationships: known connections (board/staff/alumni), potential warm intro paths (e.g., LinkedIn), and cultivation ideas.
- Success Likelihood: 1–5 rating with one-sentence rationale; recommended ask [FUNDING RANGE SOUGHT]; level of effort (estimated hours).
- Risks/Flags: invite-only, narrow geography, issue misalignment, low payout history, long timelines—name specifics.
- Decision: Pursue / Monitor / Skip with one-sentence reason and 2–3 concrete next steps.
- Cite sources used: [RESEARCH SOURCES/LINKS]. Mark unknowns “Unknown” and list 2–3 follow-up research questions.
- Length: 220–280 words. Tone [TONE]: FORMAL (board/CEO-ready), WARM (internal staff), CASUAL (quick notes). Prepared by [PREPARER NAME/TITLE], [DATE].
Aim for specific, verifiable facts (numbers, dates, named grantees). Avoid clichés (“great fit”), jargon, or promises. If data is >3 years old, label it “outdated.” Flag invite-only and eligibility deal-breakers early. Keep it scannable so small teams can prioritize high-probability prospects and avoid misaligned 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
Grassroots food justice nonprofit in Southwest Detroit serving Latinx and immigrant families through community gardens, mobile markets, and nutrition education; ~$450k annual budget, 6 staff.
View scenario details
Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan (CFSEM) at-a-glance for Southwest Detroit Food & Wellness Collective
- Giving priorities: Broad community impact across health and human services, community development, education/youth, environment, and arts/culture. Cross-cutting emphases include equity, access for underserved populations, collaboration across sectors, and projects with clear, measurable outcomes. CFSEM has a track record with food access, nutrition, and place-based health initiatives (e.g., healthy food, seniors/children, and neighborhood vitality).
- Geographic focus: The seven-county region: Wayne (including Detroit), Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, Washtenaw, St. Clair, and Livingston. Detroit and low-income communities are frequent focal points. Southwest Detroit is squarely eligible.
- Typical grant size: For competitive community grants, awards commonly range from about $10,000–$75,000 for one year; planning/pilot grants at the lower end and implementation/capacity-building toward the higher end. Multi-year awards occur but are less common for first-time grantees. Several special funds (e.g., Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. Legacy Funds) often award $10,000–$50,000.
- Deadlines/cycles: CFSEM runs regular competitive cycles (commonly two cycles per year, with deadlines around mid-February and mid-August) and separate, fund-specific deadlines for special initiatives (e.g., Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. Legacy Funds typically in late winter/early spring). Confirm current dates on CFSEM’s site before planning.
- Past grantees similar to you (illustrative): - CHASS Center (Community Health and Social Services Center) – community health and wellness in Southwest Detroit. - Bridging Communities, Inc. – aging-in-place and healthy food access in Southwest Detroit. - Urban Neighborhood Initiatives – youth, neighborhood health, and place-based work in Southwest Detroit. - Eastern Market Corporation – healthy food access and distribution systems. - Gleaners Community Food Bank and Forgotten Harvest – food security and nutrition. - Keep Growing Detroit – urban agriculture and community nutrition.
- Application requirements: 501(c)(3) public charity (or fiscal sponsor), or eligible public entity; service within the seven-county region; online application; project narrative with goals, outcomes, and evaluation plan; project and organizational budgets; recent financials (audit or review), IRS determination letter, and board list. Strong proposals demonstrate partnerships, community engagement, a feasible workplan, and sustainability beyond the grant term.
Recommendation: Apply. Your mission (food access and wellness in Southwest Detroit) aligns tightly with CFSEM’s health/equity and place-based priorities and its history of funding comparable organizations. For a first approach, target a one-year request of $30,000–$50,000 to pilot or scale a collaborative, culturally competent program (e.g., bilingual nutrition education + produce access + clinical/community referral pathways with CHASS, Gleaners, schools). Build in clear metrics (reach, diet quality changes, healthcare linkages), a partner MOUs framework, and a sustainability plan. Time submission to the next community grant deadline and also review the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. Legacy Funds (some streams—e.g., caregivers or design/access for active living—may be adjacent fits).
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
This is an exceptionally strong output that delivers comprehensive, actionable intelligence in a professional analytical tone. It addresses every prompt requirement with specific, relevant details and provides strategic guidance tailored to the organization's profile. Minor uncertainty exists only around verifying the specific funder details without external validation.
- • Comprehensive coverage of all six required elements (priorities, grant size, geography, deadlines, past grantees, requirements) with specific, actionable details
- • Excellent strategic recommendation section that goes beyond yes/no to suggest specific grant amount ($30-50k), program approach, partners, and success metrics
- • Highly relevant past grantee examples including multiple Southwest Detroit organizations and food access nonprofits that demonstrate strong research
- • Professional analytical tone throughout with appropriate sector language (MOUs, fiscal sponsor, 501(c)(3), sustainability plan)
- • Well-organized bullet format that enables quick scanning while maintaining depth
- • Practical tactical advice (timing submission, reviewing adjacent funding streams, building partner frameworks) that shows sophisticated understanding of grant strategy
- • Appropriate length at approximately 450 words, fitting the 300-500 word requirement
- • Cannot independently verify accuracy of specific grant ranges, deadlines, or past grantees without access to CFSEM's actual data—these details appear plausible but would require fact-checking
- • The recommendation section, while excellent, is quite prescriptive and might benefit from acknowledging organizational capacity constraints for a 6-person shop taking on complex partnerships
Mid-Size Professional Org
Regional workforce and entrepreneurship intermediary in Central Appalachia (eastern KY and southern WV) partnering with community colleges and small manufacturers; ~$3.2M budget, 20 staff.
View scenario details
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) overview for Mountain Valley Workforce Network
Giving priorities - Core goals: building Appalachia’s workforce ecosystem (training, work-based learning, career pathways, employer engagement, wraparound services), growing businesses/entrepreneurship, critical infrastructure (e.g., broadband), community capacity/leadership, and culture/tourism. - Targeted initiatives relevant to workforce: - POWER Initiative: coal-impacted communities; sector-based training, reemployment, entrepreneurship, broadband-enabled jobs. - INSPIRE: recovery-to-work (substance use disorder) programs that connect individuals to training and employment with supports. - ARISE: multi-state collaborations on systems-level solutions (can include workforce/industry partnerships). - READY Appalachia: capacity-building for nonprofits and local governments.
Typical grant size (varies by program and state) - Area Development (annual state-managed funds): roughly $50,000–$600,000 for workforce/skills projects; infrastructure can be higher. - POWER: generally $500,000–$2,000,000 for implementation; planning grants are smaller. - INSPIRE: commonly $150,000–$500,000. - ARISE: larger, multi-state projects often $1,000,000+. - Match is required and depends on county designation (distressed counties may receive up to ~80% ARC share; transitional often ~50%; competitive ~30%).
Geographic focus - Eligible counties within Appalachia across 13 states (must serve ARC-designated counties). Strong emphasis on distressed/at-risk and coal-impacted communities.
Deadlines (confirm current-year NOFOs with ARC/state office) - Area Development: rolling/annual via your state ARC program; many states use fall pre-apps for the next fiscal year. - POWER: annual solicitation; applications typically due in spring; awards announced late summer/fall. - INSPIRE: annual; applications often due late winter/early spring. - ARISE: concept papers accepted on a rolling basis; invited full applications in rounds. - READY: periodic cohort announcements.
Past grantees similar to a workforce network - Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program (EKCEP) – multi-year POWER awards for remote work hubs and sector training. - Coalfield Development (WV) – apprenticeship-style workforce development with wraparound supports (POWER and other ARC funding). - Multiple community colleges and workforce boards across KY/WV/VA/OH/PA have received ARC support for credential-based training aligned to employer demand. - Several Goodwill affiliates in KY/WV/OH have received INSPIRE funding for recovery-to-work pipelines.
Application requirements - Alignment with ARC’s Strategic Investment Priorities and your state’s ARC Strategy Statement; coordination with your Local Development District (LDD) and state ARC program office. - Clear employer-driven need, service area in ARC counties, and partnerships (employers, education, workforce boards, recovery providers as relevant). - Measurable outcomes (trainees, credentials, job placements, jobs created/retained, leveraged investment). - Detailed workplan and budget with documented non-federal match; federal compliance (UEI/SAM, 2 CFR 200). Construction requires environmental review. - POWER/INSPIRE require evidence of coal-impact or SUD need and strong regional collaboration.
Recommendation - Apply if you operate in ARC-eligible counties and can document employer demand, partnerships, and match. POWER is a fit for coal-impacted areas; INSPIRE if you serve people in recovery; Area Development for regional training pipelines; READY if you need organizational capacity first. - Skip (or wait) if you are outside ARC geography, cannot meet match/metrics, or lack partner/employer commitments. Coordination with your LDD and state ARC manager is the best next step to validate fit and timing.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
This is an exceptionally useful and well-structured funder research summary that demonstrates deep knowledge of ARC's programs and provides actionable guidance. The objective tone is maintained throughout, and all prompt requirements are thoroughly addressed with specific, relevant details tailored to the organization's context in Central Appalachia.
- • Highly specific and relevant content - identifies multiple ARC programs (POWER, INSPIRE, ARISE, READY) with clear explanations of which fit the organization's mission and geography
- • Excellent use of comparable grantees (EKCEP, Coalfield Development, community colleges) that are genuinely similar to the scenario organization, making the research credible and actionable
- • Practical guidance on match requirements by county designation and the critical step of coordinating with Local Development District and state ARC office - shows real understanding of how ARC funding works
- • Grant size ranges are realistic and appropriately varied by program type, helping the organization assess feasibility
- • Strong, nuanced recommendation that provides multiple pathways (different programs for different needs) rather than a simple yes/no
- • Appropriate length at approximately 480 words, well within the 300-500 word target
- • Deadline information is somewhat vague ('typically due in spring,' 'often due late winter') - while the caveat to confirm with ARC is appropriate, more specific recent-year examples would strengthen credibility
- • Could benefit from one concrete example of a measurable outcome expectation (e.g., 'ARC typically expects X credentials per $100K invested') to help with proposal planning
- • Minor authenticity concern: the level of detail and program knowledge, while accurate, reads slightly like a consultant briefing rather than organic research notes - though this may actually enhance usefulness
Large Established Org
National arts education nonprofit based in New York City supporting arts-integrated curricula and district partnerships in major urban school systems; ~$28M budget, 150 staff.
View scenario details
Test Summary: Generated Nov 1, 2025 • 3 scenarios • 9 total outputs • Average quality score: 8.6/10 • Total validation cost: $0.1216