Writing a winning application: avoid these 3 common mistakes

When applying for funding, your application is your opportunity to prove that your project is worth supporting. A well-structured, realistic, and compelling proposal is key to securing the support you need. Here, we highlight three common mistakes that often lead to rejection and offer tips to avoid them.

1. Vague Problem Statement

Mistake: A vague problem statement is one of the biggest pitfalls. For example: “There is poverty in our community, and we want to help.”

Why it’s weak: This statement doesn’t provide specific information about the issue, the affected population, or the urgency. It leaves funders wondering: Why should we care?

How to improve it: Be specific and show a clear connection between the problem and the need for your project. “Over 30% of families in our community live below the poverty line, with limited access to education and healthcare. This results in long-term disadvantages, including poor health and unemployment.”

By highlighting specific statistics and the impact of the issue, you make a stronger case for why your project matters.

2. Taking on Too Much: Over-ambitious Projects

Mistake: Many applicants try to solve everything with one project, often aiming for too broad or too ambitious an outcome. For example: “Our project will address homelessness, poverty, education, and employment issues all in one go.”

Why it’s weak: While it’s admirable to want to help, this approach is unrealistic. It’s impossible to tackle such a large range of issues effectively in a single project with limited resources and time.

How to improve it: Focus on one specific issue that you can address within the scope of your available time and resources. Break down your goal into smaller, achievable objectives. “Our project will focus on providing job training and employment placement services for 100 homeless individuals over 12 months.”

This shows funders that you understand the complexity of the issue and are committed to delivering realistic, measurable results. The key is depth, not breadth.

3. Ignoring Sustainability

Mistake: Failing to address sustainability is a critical oversight in many proposals. For instance: “Our project will run for one year, and once the funding is used up, we’ll stop.”

Why it’s weak: Sustainability is a key concern for most funders, as they want to see that their investment will lead to long-lasting impact. Ignoring this aspect can make your project seem like a one-time effort with no lasting effects.

How to improve it: You must address how your project will continue after the funding ends. This doesn’t always mean securing additional funding. For some projects, like Erasmus+ mobility or certain local fund initiatives, a short-term focus is acceptable, and sustainability might not be required. However, for most large-scale projects, funders expect a plan for long-term impact.

Example of a solid sustainability plan: “After the first year, we will transition to a model where local community organizations take over the program’s core activities. We will also seek additional funding from local businesses and government grants to scale the project.”

This shows funders that you’re not just planning for the short-term, but you’re also thinking about how your project will continue to create value beyond the initial funding period.

Takeaway Tip:

Always think about how your project will continue to create value after the funding runs out. This shows that you’re committed to long-term success, not just short-term results.

---

Share this post

#GrantWriting#SocialImpact#Projectproposal

Evgenia ZavelaFounder of MIRA