A project proposal is assessed against published criteria by people reading many of them in sequence. It is not admired; it is scored. That single fact should shape how it is written, and it is the difference between a proposal that is good writing and one that succeeds.
Answer the criteria, in their order
Most funders publish what they are assessing — artistic merit, feasibility, public benefit, value for money, fit with a stated priority. Some publish the weighting too.
Answer each one explicitly, in the order given, using the funder's own words as the hinge of the paragraph. An assessor scoring feasibility should not have to hunt for the feasibility evidence, and a proposal that makes them hunt scores lower than one that does not, regardless of the work.
The seven things a plan has to contain
- What you will make, concretely enough to picture.
- Why now, in terms of your practice rather than of the funder's fashion.
- How it will be made: process, materials, technical requirements, anything unresolved.
- When, as a timeline with dates that fit inside the funding period.
- Where, including whether you have the space and access secured.
- Who else is involved, and whether they have agreed.
- What it costs, itemised.
Uncertainty stated plainly is stronger than uncertainty concealed. A named risk with a named response reads as competence; a plan with no risks in it reads as one that has not been thought through.
Building a budget that supports the plan
Every budget line should be traceable to a sentence in the plan, and every substantial element of the plan should appear in the budget. Assessors read the two against each other, and mismatches are the most visible weakness in an application.
Base figures on quotes where you can — a fabricator, a framer, a technician, a carrier. Where you estimate, say so and say how. Include your own time as a line unless the funder forbids it. Add contingency where the guidelines allow it, and do not pad elsewhere instead.
If the total does not equal the amount requested, explain the difference: matched funding, in-kind support, your own contribution.
Build an evidence map against the criteria
A proposal evidence map links each criterion to something the assessor can inspect. It prevents an appealing narrative from leaving feasibility or public benefit unanswered.
| Criterion | Claim in the proposal | Supporting evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Artistic purpose | Develop a series using participant-contributed local images | Relevant prints and a clear description of the process |
| Feasibility | Deliver three workshops and a small display | Venue agreement, session plan and delivery dates |
| Participation | Reach a defined local group | Confirmed partner and an accessible recruitment plan |
| Budget | Pay the artist and cover materials and access | Day-rate calculation, supplier quotes and itemised access costs |
Do not substitute a partner's logo for an agreement. State whether discussions are exploratory, a booking is provisional or support is confirmed. A realistic dependency and a fallback are more useful than a false impression that every arrangement is complete.
Reconcile the budget, schedule and scope
A budget should be reproducible from its quantities and rates. A hypothetical £4,800 project might include £2,000 artist time, £800 materials, £600 venue hire, £500 technical support, £500 access provision and £400 documentation. These example amounts are not fee guidance; they demonstrate an itemised total.
Explain the basis of each line. Artist time should say how many days or hours and what they cover. A materials line should identify quantities or a quotation. Access provision should connect to the participants and activities, rather than appearing as a token amount with no delivery plan.
Put the same activities on a schedule. If venue hire covers three sessions but the narrative promises six, resolve the mismatch. If an invoice is due before the funding decision, check whether that cost is eligible and whether the project depends on money not yet secured.
Separate confirmed income from pending grant applications. Where a second application is necessary, describe what changes if it fails: fewer sessions, another resource or postponement, subject to the funder's approval. Avoid presenting the same expense as wholly paid by two sources.
Before submission, ask another person to find the intended output, delivery dates and total request without explanation from you. Where they hesitate, clarify the application itself.
What makes a proposal fail?
Avoidable problems include unanswered criteria, a budget that does not match the plan, dates outside the funding period and an ineligible applicant. Those checks help improve an application; they do not explain every rejection. See eligibility rules before preparing the full proposal.
How specific should the work be?
Specific enough to be assessed, open enough to be made. Funders know work changes; what they are testing is whether you have thought concretely enough to have a real intention. "A series of six large paintings on Y using Z" is assessable. "New paintings" is not.
Should you apply with work already started?
Read the guidelines. Some funders will not pay for work already underway, some prefer evidence that it is real, and a few require a start date after the decision. It is a rule rather than a judgement, and it is stated.
What if you cannot get quotes in time?
Estimate, label the estimate, and explain the basis. An honest estimate with a stated method is acceptable; an unlabelled guess that turns out to be wrong is what causes problems later.
Do you need letters of support?
Where the call asks for them, yes, and they should be specific — see references and letters of support. Where it does not, unsolicited letters rarely help and sometimes breach a page limit.
When there is no proposal to write
Exhibition and prize calls select from work that already exists, and there the document that matters is the work sample set rather than a plan. Writing a proposal into an application that did not ask for one is time spent on the wrong task.