The grant office / Sample work
From a funding need to a package ready for your review.
This is the work you review together: why the grant belongs in the pipeline, what the application says, how the budget adds up, and what is needed before submission. The contents of a real package follow the funder's requirements.
01 / Funding decision
A grant tied to the program, not just the mission statement.
The need
The organization wants to run a weekly food distribution for 80 households over a 12-month period. Its illustrative annual grant goal is $120,000. This request supplies one part of that plan; it is not counted as secured funding.
The opportunity in this example
Cedar Grove Community Fund's fictional Community Food Access call supports direct food access in Cedar County. In this sample brief, requests of $25,000 to $50,000 are allowed, food purchases and delivery costs are eligible, and applicants must be qualifying nonprofits serving the county. The example deadline is November 30, 2026, at 5 p.m. local time, for a January to December 2027 project.
| Question | Conclusion in this example |
|---|---|
| Mission and program fit | Direct food distribution matches the call's food-access purpose. This is support for a defined program, not a generic request for an organization with a similar mission. |
| Geography | The proposed households and distribution site are in Cedar County. |
| Amount and eligible costs | The $40,000 request is within the sample range. Food, delivery, coordination and evaluation are allowed in the fictional brief. |
| Timing and capacity | The proposed start follows the example award decision. The director must confirm staffing and the site before approval. |
| Prior awards and eligibility evidence | No actual award history or IRS record exists for these fictional entities. A real recommendation would include source references and unresolved evidence here. |
Sample decision: pursue after confirming organizational eligibility, delivery capacity and the $10,000 contribution. No award probability is assigned. A promising fit is not an award.
02 / Application narrative
Weekly Food Access for Cedar County Families
Completed responses to the fictional call. Names, activities and targets are sample assumptions for review.
Project summary
Neighborhood Table requests $40,000 to provide a reliable weekly food distribution for 80 Cedar County households during 2027. The program will operate 48 distribution sessions from one community site, using purchased food and donated supplies. The grant will support food purchases, delivery, program coordination and evaluation. Neighborhood Table will contribute $10,000 toward the $50,000 project cost. The project is designed to offer a consistent source of food while gathering practical feedback on access barriers and the usefulness of the distribution.
Community need
For a household managing a limited food budget, knowing when and where food will be available matters. A one-time distribution cannot offer that predictability. This project addresses the need for regular local access by maintaining a weekly distribution schedule throughout the year, with four planned closure weeks communicated in advance. Rather than estimating countywide food insecurity without evidence, Neighborhood Table will document the needs of participating households through an enrollment conversation and optional feedback. Staff will use that information to adjust collection times and the mix of food offered.
Activities and delivery
The program coordinator will manage enrollment, food purchasing, volunteer scheduling and session records. Volunteers will help receive, pack and distribute food at the community site. Deliveries and purchases will be scheduled around each session to limit storage demands. Participants will receive the distribution schedule at enrollment, including planned closures, and may tell the coordinator about access difficulties.
Before launch, the coordinator will confirm the site, recruit volunteers, establish safe handling procedures and purchase the first food order. During delivery, the team will record sessions held, households served and food spending. The coordinator will review participation and budget use monthly. If demand exceeds available places, the team will maintain a waiting list and provide information about other local food resources rather than promise service it cannot fund.
Results and evaluation
The project targets 48 completed distribution sessions and enrollment of 80 households. At full attendance, that would represent up to 3,840 household visits; it does not mean 3,840 different households. The team will report actual visits and unduplicated households separately. An optional participant questionnaire at the midpoint and year-end will ask about ease of access, reliability of the schedule and usefulness of the food received. The final report will combine participation, spending and participant feedback, including limitations in response coverage. These are planned outputs and feedback measures, not a claim that food insecurity will be eliminated.
Organizational capacity
Neighborhood Table will assign one coordinator to the project and use scheduled volunteers for distribution. The project budget includes 200 paid coordination hours at $30 per hour. The director will oversee spending and review progress with the coordinator each month. Launch depends on confirming the site and volunteer coverage. If those arrangements cannot support the proposed schedule, the organization will resolve the shortfall with the funder before changing the project scope.
Continuation after the grant
This request funds one year of delivery. Neighborhood Table plans to use the year's participation and spending records to support subsequent funding requests and local donor conversations. It will begin those conversations during the project rather than wait for the grant to end. No future grant or renewal is assumed in this budget. Before committing to another year, the director will assess confirmed resources and adjust the operating plan accordingly.
Delivery schedule
- January: confirm staffing and site, enroll households and begin distribution.
- January through December: operate 48 scheduled sessions; reconcile activity and spending monthly.
- June: review participant feedback and address access issues.
- December: complete delivery, reconcile the budget and prepare the year-end report.
03 / Budget and justification
A request that reconciles to the work.
| Expense and calculation | Total | Grant request | Organization contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food purchases: 48 sessions × $750 | $36,000 | $30,000 | $6,000 |
| Transport and supplies: 48 × $125 | $6,000 | $5,000 | $1,000 |
| Coordination: 200 hours × $30 | $6,000 | $4,000 | $2,000 |
| Evaluation: 40 hours × $50 | $2,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Total | $50,000 | $40,000 | $10,000 |
Food: a $750 purchased-food allocation per session supplements donated supplies. It is not presented as the cost of meeting every household's complete nutritional needs.
Transport and supplies: $125 per session covers food collection, local delivery costs and distribution materials.
Coordination: 200 hours cover planning, purchasing, volunteer scheduling and records. Distribution relies on additional volunteer time, which is not assigned a cash value in this budget.
Evaluation: 40 hours cover questionnaire preparation, collection, analysis and reporting. This time is separate from coordination.
Contribution: the example assumes $10,000 from unrestricted organizational resources. The director must confirm availability before the application describes it as committed. Donated food and volunteer hours are excluded from both the cash total and the stated contribution.
04 / Review memo
The weak spots are visible before you approve.
| Issue caught | What changed or remains |
|---|---|
| Overstated reach | The narrative distinguishes 80 households from up to 3,840 repeat visits. |
| Impact claim without evidence | Removed an unsupported claim about reducing countywide food insecurity. Kept measurable delivery outputs and participant feedback. |
| Unclear food purchasing assumption | Explained that purchased food supplements donations and does not cover full household nutritional needs. |
| Contribution could be mistaken for secured funding | Marked the $10,000 contribution for director confirmation. |
| Delivery capacity | Flagged the site, volunteer coverage and 200 paid hours for review. These must support the promised schedule. |
| Budget reconciliation | Expense lines total $50,000. The $40,000 request and $10,000 contribution reconcile to that total. |
Awaiting organization confirmation and approval. Not submitted.
05 / Approval and submission handoff
One review, with the open items in one place.
Cover note prepared for the director
The application narrative and budget are assembled below. Please confirm that the 80-household target, 48-session schedule, staffing and site arrangements are accurate, and that the $10,000 contribution is available.
The review removed unsupported impact language and reconciled the budget. We still need the organizational records listed below. Once those are checked and you approve the final package, Sharke can handle submission where permitted. If the portal requires your account, we will prepare the material for that final step with you.
Package manifest
- Prepared in this sample: decision brief, narrative responses, project schedule, budget and justification, review memo and director cover note.
- Organization supplies for this fictional call: IRS determination letter, current board list, latest organizational financial statements and confirmation of the project contribution.
- Sharke checks before submission: document requirements, narrative limits, budget consistency, current deadline and portal instructions.
- Authorized organization representative: confirms facts, approves the final version and completes any required certifications.
Legal and financial records must come from the organization. They are deliberately not fabricated or included as purported attachments in this example.
Submission record
Status: sample only; no approval requested and no submission made. A real handoff records the approved version, submission date, portal confirmation or receipt, and follow-up requirements. A request for approval is never recorded as a submission.
You can print this page or use your browser's Save as PDF option. The print layout includes the full package.