Connect the logic model
See this course’s project requirements
A practice grant proposal with funder-fit analysis, a traceable needs statement, logic model, evaluation plan, and submission-readiness review.
Keep your working files in your own notebook or software. Save a private description, checklist, and work link in My Proof.
What to include
- A notice checklist and justified fit decision.
- A bounded needs paragraph and evidence table.
- A four-column logic model with one explicit assumption.
- An evaluation plan with scoring rule, denominator and missing-data treatment.
- A concise proposal narrative and budget-consistency check.
- A final clearly labeled practice proposal with rubric review and evidence notes.
Review and revise
Use these criteria to check your work and choose what to improve.
- Every required section is present and traceable to the supplied case facts.
- Decisions separate known facts, assumptions, and unresolved questions.
- Records, calculations, and instructions agree with each other and the stated rules.
- The final revision addresses a changed case and explains what someone should do next.
Want more background?
The idea in everyday life
Reset facts for the fictional proposal: River Learning Fund accepts registered community nonprofits, a request up to $1,500, six weeks and 20 local learners; it prioritizes accessible evening participation. It requires a narrative of at most 400 words, budget, measurable outcome and evaluation plan by June 30 at 17:00. Bridge Club is a fictional registered nonprofit. Its survey invited 40 members and received 24 responses: 16 preferred evenings and 8 reported transport costs as a barrier; those groups may overlap and are not a town-wide sample. Proposed project: six evening sessions across six weeks for 20 learners. Target: at least 16 of 20 enrolled learners pass all three assessment tasks by the final session. Budget: materials $200, transport $400, facilitator $600, access supports $200, evaluation $100, total $1,500. Fictional program assessment checklist: T1 Schedule a 30-minute meeting when Mina is free 09:00–10:00 and Omar is free 09:30–10:30; pass only for 09:30–10:00, within both availability windows. T2 Compare 10 folders: Alpha $2 each plus $5 delivery; Beta $2.20 each plus $1 delivery; no other charges or differences. Pass only when both totals ($25 and $23) and lower-cost choice Beta are correct. T3 Draft a confirmation from record B7: Elm room, June 18, 10:00–11:00, 8 attendees. Pass only when the ID, room, date, full time span and headcount all match. Overall demonstration success requires all three task passes. The same task criteria are used at entry and at the final session; record each task as Pass, Retry or Missing using a fictional learner ID. These are supplied assessment cards and answer criteria, not activities with real participants. Bridge Club proposed resources: facilitator time, accessible room, materials and transport support. Activities: six evening sessions with guided practice. Outputs: six sessions offered and 20 learner places. Intended outcome: by the final session, at least 16 of 20 enrolled learners demonstrate three agreed practical tasks using a checklist. Assumption: transport support and evening timing help attendance; this has not been proven by the proposal.
A count of sessions is not the same as a change in learner ability.
Connect the logic model — guided practice
Distinguish resources, activities, outputs and changes.
Reset facts for the fictional proposal: River Learning Fund accepts registered community nonprofits, a request up to $1,500, six weeks and 20 local learners; it prioritizes accessible evening participation. It requires a narrative of at most 400 words, budget, measurable outcome and evaluation plan by June 30 at 17:00. Bridge Club is a fictional registered nonprofit. Its survey invited 40 members and received 24 responses: 16 preferred evenings and 8 reported transport costs as a barrier; those groups may overlap and are not a town-wide sample. Proposed project: six evening sessions across six weeks for 20 learners. Target: at least 16 of 20 enrolled learners pass all three assessment tasks by the final session. Budget: materials $200, transport $400, facilitator $600, access supports $200, evaluation $100, total $1,500. Fictional program assessment checklist: T1 Schedule a 30-minute meeting when Mina is free 09:00–10:00 and Omar is free 09:30–10:30; pass only for 09:30–10:00, within both availability windows. T2 Compare 10 folders: Alpha $2 each plus $5 delivery; Beta $2.20 each plus $1 delivery; no other charges or differences. Pass only when both totals ($25 and $23) and lower-cost choice Beta are correct. T3 Draft a confirmation from record B7: Elm room, June 18, 10:00–11:00, 8 attendees. Pass only when the ID, room, date, full time span and headcount all match. Overall demonstration success requires all three task passes. The same task criteria are used at entry and at the final session; record each task as Pass, Retry or Missing using a fictional learner ID. These are supplied assessment cards and answer criteria, not activities with real participants. Use a text editor, a free document editor, or paper. Start from the following fictional records; they reset this lesson even if your earlier answer differed. Bridge Club proposed resources: facilitator time, accessible room, materials and transport support. Activities: six evening sessions with guided practice. Outputs: six sessions offered and 20 learner places. Intended outcome: by the final session, at least 16 of 20 enrolled learners demonstrate three agreed practical tasks using a checklist. Assumption: transport support and evening timing help attendance; this has not been proven by the proposal.
1. Place resources
Put facilitator, room, materials and support in the input column.
You should see: Inputs are what the project uses.
Resources enable activities but are not results.
2. Place activities and outputs
Separate delivery actions from direct counts.
You should see: Run sessions; output six sessions and 20 places.
Activities and outputs describe delivery, not learning change.
3. State the outcome
Write who, what, how many and by when.
You should see: 16 of 20 enrolled learners demonstrate three tasks by final session.
A measurable change can be checked later.
4. Name an assumption
Record the attendance assumption and a way to review it.
You should see: Track attendance and voluntary barrier feedback.
The logic is a testable proposal, not proof of causation.
What to finish
A four-column logic model with one explicit assumption.
Watch for this
Writing “20 people attended” as proof that 20 people learned the target skills.
How can I tell I understand it?
Check your result against the worked example, then explain the changed case without using an unstated assumption.
Quick knowledge check
Answer all 3 questions. Get at least 2 right and the lesson completes automatically.
You’ll get an explanation for each answer. Signed in? Your results save to your account.
Pass the check. We’ll save the progress.
Answer all 3 questions above and get at least 2 right. You can review the explanations and try again.
Go to the knowledge checkOptional course overview video · same video as Lesson 1
Three top tips for writing grant proposals
From Candid. Watch here or open it on YouTube .
Optional course overview. Follow the written steps below at your own pace.Tools, templates, and lesson sources
Tools and templates
Tools open in a new tab so you can keep your place here.
Sources and further reading
Explore the references behind this lesson.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-12
Inspected resources, activities, outputs, outcomes and funder alignment.
Access: Public university extension page; no account.
Reuse: Reference only; no university text or graphics reproduced.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-12
Inspected audience, clarity and application-instruction guidance; research-grant context is identified.
Access: Public page inspected without an account.
Reuse: Reference link only. Course prose and practice data are original; no third-party text, figures, or templates are reproduced.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-12
Inspected opportunity, application preparation and review stages; no real registration or submission is assigned.
Access: Public page inspected without an account.
Reuse: Reference link only. Course prose and practice data are original; no third-party text, figures, or templates are reproduced.
Report a problem with this lesson
Tell us what went wrong. Please leave out personal information and private project contents.