Program Description for Grant
Concise program overview for grant applications
The Prompt
The Prompt
Write a concise, funder-ready program description for [PROGRAM NAME] at [ORGANIZATION NAME], tailored to [FUNDER NAME] and aligned with [FUNDER PRIORITIES].
The program description should:
- Be 250-350 words, in active voice, at a 9th–11th grade reading level.
- Use [TONE]: FORMAL (precise, objective, grant-ready), WARM (community-centered, accessible, still professional), or CASUAL (plain-spoken, minimal jargon; avoid slang).
- Assume reviewers are not experts in [FIELD]; define any acronym on first use and avoid jargon.
- Follow this exact structure and order:
1) One-sentence program summary; 2) Why: local need with 1–2 data points; 3) Who: target population and size; 4) What: core services/activities; 5) How: model/methods/evidence base; 6) When: frequency, duration, timeline; 7) Where: delivery setting(s); 8) Outputs/outcomes and how measured; 9) Capacity/partners/equity and access.
- Quantify specifics: [ANNUAL UNDUPLICATED PARTICIPANTS], [TARGET POPULATION DESCRIPTION], [STAFFING/FTE AND ROLES], [DOSAGE/FREQUENCY/DURATION], [CASELOAD OR RATIO], [LOCATIONS/GEOGRAPHY], [PARTNERS].
- Cite or name the evidence base or practice model (e.g., “grounded in [MODEL/RESEARCH SOURCE]”) and note fidelity/adaptations relevant to [COMMUNITY CONTEXT].
- Describe equity and access strategies (language access, ADA, transportation, outreach) relevant to [TARGET POPULATION].
- Include concrete outputs and outcomes with indicators: [EXPECTED OUTPUTS], [SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES], [METRICS], and [DATA COLLECTION METHODS].
- Briefly note organizational capacity and fit: [RELEVANT EXPERIENCE], [YEARS RUNNING], [SYSTEMS/TOOLS], and how the scope matches a small team’s resources.
- Explicitly connect to [FUNDER NAME] priorities using 1–2 mirrored keywords from the RFP.
- Attribution: no signature needed; write in [ORGANIZATION NAME]’s voice.
Aim for clarity and credibility: be specific, measurable, and realistic. Avoid clichés (“transformational,” “game-changing”), over-claims, and value judgments about participants. Do not include budget details unless requested. Keep sentences tight, prefer concrete numbers over adjectives, and ensure every claim is supported by a method, partner, or metric reviewers can recognize.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 programs 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
Volunteer-led nonprofit in rural Appalachian Kentucky improving food access through mobile distribution and nutrition education for low-income families.
View scenario details
1) Program summary: Cumberland Roots Collective (CRC) will run the Cumberland Mobile Market & Nutrition Coaching to bring affordable produce, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) help, and practical nutrition education to low-income residents of Harlan and Letcher Counties, advancing rural access to basic needs and equity in health.
2) Why: Mountain communities here face limited grocery stores, low car ownership, and long distances—conditions that create food deserts. With a 28% poverty rate and many households relying on SNAP, broadband gaps also hinder benefits recertification and access to nutrition resources.
3) Who: We will serve 320 unduplicated residents—low-income households, seniors, and families with children in Harlan and Letcher Counties, KY. Many are SNAP-eligible, face high transportation barriers, and include a mix of older adults and young families.
4) What: Core services include a Mobile Market with fresh produce and staple foods; on-site SNAP application/recertification assistance; monthly group nutrition classes; and optional one-to-one coaching on meal planning, budgeting, and cooking skills.
5) How: The model is grounded in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed) Toolkit strategies (Healthy Food Pantry Strategies, Retail Environment Change) and produce prescription evidence (Wholesome Wave; JAMA Network Open, 2019). We adapt for mountainous terrain and low car ownership by rotating community stops, offering phone-based pre-orders, and using simple, low-cost recipes. We accept SNAP via Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). Capacity: Mobile Market up to 75 households per route day; classes at a 1:20 educator-to-participant ratio; coaching caseload 1:50 households.
6) When: March–November. Mobile Market operates two days per month (18 market days). Group classes run monthly at three rotating sites (60 minutes each; 6-session cycle per site; 18 classes total). Optional coaching provides three 30-minute sessions over three months per household.
7) Where: Harlan and Letcher Counties with rotating stops at Cumberland Senior Center, Lynch Black Lung Association Hall, Harlan County Public Library (Cawood), and St. Mary’s Episcopal Church (Middlesboro hub).
8) Outputs/outcomes and measurement: Outputs—serve 320 residents; 18 market days; 35,000 pounds of produce distributed; 18 classes; 150 coaching sessions; 120 SNAP assists. Outcomes—food security improved (+15 percentage points on USDA 6-Item Module); average +1 daily serving of fruits/vegetables; 90 of 120 SNAP assists approved; class retention 75%. Measurement—Link2Feed intake/service logs; USDA 6-Item pre/post; class sign-ins; Benefits.gov confirmations; monthly partner referral logs.
9) Capacity/partners/equity and access: CRC has operated a pantry and garden for 3 years and piloted two pop-up markets in 2023 serving 180 residents. Staffing totals 2.0 full-time equivalent (FTE): Program Coordinator (0.8), Mobile Market Driver/Logistics Lead (0.6), Nutrition Educator (0.4), Data & Outreach Assistant (0.2). Tools: Link2Feed; Google Workspace; Square point-of-sale with EBT; Route4Me; Canva for multilingual outreach. Partners include University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension—Harlan County, Appalachian Regional Healthcare—Harlan, Harlan County Schools Family Resource Centers, and St. Mary’s Episcopal Church. Equity strategies include ADA-accessible sites, Spanish and large-print materials, phone/text scheduling for low broadband, and bringing services to neighborhoods—fit to a small team and aligned with the Rural Access Fund’s focus on rural access and basic needs.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.6/10)
This is a strong, funder-ready program description that adheres closely to the template structure and successfully balances warmth with professionalism. It provides concrete, measurable details and avoids common grant-writing pitfalls like jargon and hyperbole. Minor weaknesses include slightly mechanical transitions and dense formatting that could benefit from strategic paragraph breaks.
- • Excellent adherence to the 9-part structure with clear numbered sections that make reviewer navigation easy
- • Strong quantification throughout—specific participant counts, service volumes, ratios, timelines, and outcome targets with baseline metrics
- • Appropriate warm tone that remains professional: 'We will serve' creates community voice without being overly casual
- • Effective acronym handling (SNAP, USDA, EBT, FTE) with full spelling on first use as requested
- • Credible evidence base with specific citations (USDA SNAP-Ed Toolkit, Wholesome Wave, JAMA Network Open 2019)
- • Thoughtful equity strategies tailored to context (phone/text for low broadband, multilingual materials, neighborhood delivery)
- • Clear funder alignment—explicitly mentions 'Rural Access Fund's focus on rural access and basic needs' and weaves priorities naturally throughout
- • Realistic scope for a 2.0 FTE team with appropriate caseload ratios and service volumes
- • Concrete data collection methods tied to each outcome (Link2Feed, USDA 6-Item Module, Benefits.gov confirmations)
- • Avoids clichés and over-claims; uses active voice and grade-appropriate language
- • Word count appears to exceed the 250-350 target (approximately 450 words)—would likely need trimming for strict RFP compliance
- • Section 5 (How) becomes dense with multiple concepts compressed; could benefit from a line break between model/evidence and capacity details
- • Transitions between numbered sections feel slightly mechanical; a few connecting phrases could improve flow without adding much length
- • Minor redundancy: 'rural access' appears in both the opening sentence and closing, which could be streamlined
- • The phrase 'fit to a small team' in the final sentence is slightly awkward—'designed for' or 'scaled to' would be smoother
Mid-Size Professional Org
Immigrant-serving workforce nonprofit in urban Houston offering sector-based IT training and placement with employer partnerships.
View scenario details
BridgeWorks Tech Pathways equips work-authorized immigrants and refugees in Houston with CompTIA A+ training, English support, and job placement to enter entry-level Information Technology (IT) and help desk careers.
Why: Houston is 37% foreign-born and a leading refugee resettlement city; local employers report steady demand for entry-level IT/help desk talent, yet many skilled newcomers remain underemployed due to child care, credential recognition, and limited networks.
Who: We will serve 350 work-authorized immigrants and refugees ages 18–35 from Gulfton, Alief, and the East End with intermediate English; many hold foreign credentials and speak Spanish, Arabic, Dari, or Vietnamese.
What: A 12-week cohort delivers 8 hours/week technical training for CompTIA A+, 2 hours/week contextualized English as a Second Language (ESL), digital literacy, employer info sessions and mock interviews, certification vouchers, case management, job development, and a weekly 90-minute job club post-training.
How: Grounded in sectoral training and Integrated Education & Training (IET), aligned to MDRC’s WorkAdvance and the National Skills Coalition IET framework, using the CompTIA A+ industry curriculum. Adaptations fit Houston’s context—37% foreign-born and strong entry-level IT demand—through multilingual outreach, credential review, child-care navigation, and evening/weekend options. Ratios: Career Coaches 1:40; Technical Instructor 1:20 in lab; Employer Engagement Manager 1:50 active job seekers.
When: Each cohort runs 12 weeks; learners attend 8 hours/week technical and 2 hours/week ESL; they receive 1:1 coaching twice monthly for up to six months and join the job club for 12 weeks after training.
Where: Houston, TX; classes at our Gulfton community center and Alief satellite; lab access at Houston Community College Southwest; employer mock interviews citywide.
Outputs/outcomes and measurement: Enroll 350; 300 complete; 240 earn A+; 210 placed at $17+/hour; 280 receive ongoing coaching; 24 employer info sessions; 60 employers engaged. Targets: 85% completion; 80% certification; 70% placement; 75% 90-day retention; $18 average starting wage. Measured via attendance logs; Learning Management System (LMS) exports; CompTIA verification; Salesforce Nonprofit Success Pack (NPSP) records; pre/post Northstar Digital Literacy; paystubs and employer Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
Capacity/partners/equity: HIAC brings 10 years of workforce programs with 1,200 placements; a 2023 tech pilot placed 60 with 78% 90-day retention. Staff (6.5 FTE): Program Director (1.0), Career Coaches (2.0), Technical Instructor—A+ (1.0), Employer Engagement Manager (1.0), Digital Literacy Instructor (0.5), Data & Evaluation (0.5), Case Manager (0.5). Tools: Salesforce NPSP, Northstar, Google Workspace, Formstack, DocuSign, Slack, Moodle LMS. Partners: Houston Community College Southwest, BakerRipley, World Relief Texas, CompTIA Tech Career Academy, AIG Houston Technology Center, City of Houston Information Technology Services. Access: translated materials and interpretation, ADA-accessible sites and assistive tech, METRO passes and evening schedules, neighborhood outreach. BridgeWorks advances Comerica Bank Foundation priorities in skills training, career pathways, and economic mobility.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.4/10)
This is a strong, funder-ready program description that hits all structural requirements and maintains the requested casual tone effectively. It's dense with specifics and credible evidence, though the final paragraph becomes somewhat mechanical in listing capacity elements, slightly reducing authenticity.
- • Excellent adherence to the 9-part structure with clear labels and logical flow
- • Casual tone executed well—plain-spoken without being unprofessional ('many skilled newcomers remain underemployed,' 'fit Houston's context')
- • Strong quantification throughout: specific ratios, targets, metrics, and realistic numbers that build credibility
- • Appropriate acronym handling (IT, ESL, IET, LMS, NPSP, MOUs all defined on first use)
- • Evidence base clearly cited (MDRC WorkAdvance, National Skills Coalition) with thoughtful adaptation to local context
- • Equity and access strategies are concrete and relevant (multilingual, METRO passes, evening schedules, ADA)
- • Explicit funder alignment in final sentence using mirrored language from priorities
- • Avoids clichés and over-claims; maintains active voice and specificity
- • The Capacity/partners/equity paragraph becomes list-heavy and slightly robotic, sacrificing readability for comprehensiveness—could benefit from smoother integration
- • Word count appears to exceed the 250-350 target (approximately 420 words), which may be a concern for strict RFP requirements
- • Minor redundancy: 'entry-level IT/help desk' appears in both the opening sentence and the Why section
- • The phrase 'local employers report steady demand' in the Why section lacks the concrete data point promised by the template (could cite a specific statistic or source)
Large Established Org
Established multi-site youth services agency in Chicago delivering school-based behavioral health with clinical staff and data systems.
View scenario details
1) SchoolWell Behavioral Health delivers a school-based, multi-tiered program that expands access to timely, culturally responsive prevention and treatment for Chicago Public Schools students on the South and West Sides.
2) Why: Youth in Englewood, North Lawndale, Little Village, and Austin face chronic stress and community violence, yet care is hard to reach. In our partner schools, 85% of students are low-income, and families report language, transportation, and stigma barriers to mental health care.
3) Who: We will serve 1,200 students in grades 6–12—predominantly Black and Latino—with many exposed to trauma and with bilingual Spanish/English needs; we will also engage caregivers and school staff.
4) What: Services include Tier 1 classroom Social Emotional Learning (SEL) workshops (45 minutes monthly, 8 sessions/year); Tier 2 skill-building groups (weekly, 60 minutes for 12 weeks); Tier 3 individual therapy (weekly, 50 minutes, up to 16 sessions); and crisis response within 24 hours. We add caregiver education and staff professional development.
5) How: The model follows a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) grounded in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Trauma-Focused CBT, Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), and SEL aligned to CASEL, with evidence from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. Fidelity is supported through supervision, checklists, and Credible Electronic Health Record (EHR) templates; adaptations address high violence exposure, stigma, a shortage of bilingual clinicians, and caregiver work-shift barriers (bilingual care, telehealth, evening hours).
6) When: Services run September–June. Therapist caseload is 1:25 for Tier 3; group facilitator 1:10; Tier 1 ratio ~1 clinician per 250 students with school staff support.
7) Where: Ten Chicago Public Schools in Englewood, North Lawndale, Little Village, and Austin, using on-campus wellness rooms with a telehealth option as needed.
8) Outputs/outcomes and measurement: Screen 1,200 students; deliver 8,000 Tier 1 encounters; enroll 300 in Tier 2; provide therapy to 250; reach 400 caregivers; conduct 10 staff trainings. Outcomes: reduced depressive/anxiety symptoms, improved coping/help-seeking, and 3-point attendance gains among Tier 2/3. Measures: PHQ-A and GAD-7 (target 3-point mean decrease), Coping Skills Inventory (+20%), referral follow-through >70%, Credible EHR notes, REDCap caregiver surveys, CPS Aspen attendance via MOUs, and fidelity/supervision records.
9) Capacity/partners/equity and access: An 18.0 FTE team—Program Director (1.0), Clinical Supervisors (2.0), Licensed Clinical Social Workers—LCSWs (12.0), Community Health Workers (2.0), Data Analyst (0.5), Training Coordinator (0.5)—matches scope across 10 schools. Partners: CPS Office of Student Health & Wellness, Sinai Chicago, Enlace Chicago, UCAN, and NAMI Chicago. Equity strategies include bilingual services, ADA accommodations, onsite and telehealth access, transportation supports, and stigma-reducing outreach. Lakeshore Youth Services brings 15 years of school-based care, 22 current school partners, Joint Commission accreditation, a 2022 Chicago Community Trust–funded external evaluation, and data systems (Credible EHR, REDCap, Tableau, encrypted Zoom for Healthcare, Chicago Data Collaborative standards) to deliver data-driven impact aligned with youth mental health, access to care, and racial equity.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.4/10)
This is a strong, grant-ready program description that follows the template meticulously and demonstrates sophisticated understanding of school-based mental health funding. The formal tone is appropriate, data points are specific and credible, and the structure mirrors what experienced grant reviewers expect. Minor weaknesses include dense paragraph construction that sacrifices some readability and a few mechanical phrasings that feel template-driven rather than organic.
- • Exceptional specificity and quantification throughout—caseload ratios, validated instruments (PHQ-A, GAD-7), concrete targets (3-point decrease, +20% gains), FTE breakdowns, and named data systems (Credible EHR, REDCap, Tableau) all build credibility
- • Strong evidence base integration with appropriate acronym expansion (MTSS, CASEL, SBIRT, SAMHSA) and explicit fidelity mechanisms (supervision, checklists, EHR templates) that demonstrate clinical rigor
- • Excellent alignment with funder priorities—explicitly names 'data-driven impact,' 'youth mental health,' 'access to care,' and 'racial equity' while weaving in supporting details (bilingual services, community violence context, Joint Commission accreditation, Chicago Community Trust evaluation history)
- • Comprehensive equity and access strategies that go beyond boilerplate—bilingual care, telehealth, evening hours, stigma-reducing outreach, transportation supports, and ADA accommodations are contextualized to the specific barriers named (work-shift conflicts, clinician shortage, stigma)
- • Realistic scope and capacity match—18 FTE across 10 schools with 1,200 students is proportionate and credible; the organizational track record (15 years, 22 schools, accreditation) supports the scale
- • Readability suffers in sections 5, 8, and 9 due to extremely long, comma-heavy sentences that pack multiple concepts without breathing room—section 8 is a 90-word single sentence that would benefit from breaking into 2-3 sentences
- • The numbered structure, while following instructions, creates a mechanical feel that some funders may find overly formulaic—section headers like '2) Why:' and '9) Capacity/partners/equity and access:' read as outline scaffolding rather than flowing narrative
- • Minor redundancy: 'bilingual Spanish/English needs' appears in section 3 and 'bilingual services' in section 9; 'Chicago Community Trust' is named three times; tighter editing could reduce repetition
- • The phrase 'matches scope across 10 schools' in section 9 is slightly awkward—'supports delivery across' or 'enables coverage of' would be clearer
- • Word count appears to exceed the 250-350 target (approximately 450+ words by rough count), which could be a disqualifying issue if funder guidelines are strict
Test Summary: Generated Nov 2, 2025 • 3 scenarios • 9 total outputs • Average quality score: 8.38/10 • Total validation cost: $0.2505