Proposal guide

what funders look for, by category
A reference for reviewers and applicants. Items with a source link are published, verifiable requirements; the rest are things funders generally look for. Each organisation's own published criteria always govern; the Proposal analysis tool checks a request against those.

What almost every funder checks first

These gate most requests before category-specific merit is even considered.

  • ✓Tax-exempt status — a recognised 501(c)(3) (or fiscal sponsor). Verified against the IRS Exempt Organizations file. source ↗
  • ✓Eligible geography — the applicant serves the funder’s defined service area or region.
  • ✓Mission alignment — the request advances the funder’s stated charitable purpose, not just the applicant’s.
  • ✓A budget that reconciles — line items sum to the amount requested, with no unexplained gap.
  • ✓Cleared prior obligations — no outstanding reports or unspent funds from a previous award.
  • ✓Realistic, specific outcomes — a countable result ("place 40 people in jobs"), not a vague aspiration.
  • ✓Organisational capacity — evidence the applicant can actually deliver (staff, track record, systems).
  • ✓A sustainability answer — what happens to the work when this money runs out.

Workforce development

Goodwill’s core. Funders here care most about employment OUTCOMES and can benchmark your claims against published federal data — so realistic, defensible numbers matter more than ambitious ones.

What funders look for
  • ✓Placement outcomes stated against a real denominator — "X placed of Y served", not a raw served count.
  • ✓Retention, not just placement — employed at 6 and 12 months. Funders increasingly ask for this.
  • ✓A credential or measurable skill gain tied to the training, where relevant.
  • ✓A target wage at placement — ideally above the local entry-level median for the occupation. source ↗
  • ✓Alignment to WIOA-style performance indicators if any public workforce money is involved. source ↗
  • ✓A named employer partner or a demonstrated demand for the jobs being trained for.
Red flags
  • △Claiming a placement rate far above the WIOA national ~74% without explaining how.
  • △Counting "people served" as if each were a placement.
  • △Reporting one quarter of earnings as if it were an annual salary.
Benchmark: The impact-comparison tool sets your claims beside WIOA PY2023 national figures (Adult ~74.1% employed Q2 after exit; median Q2 earnings $8,677; credential ~72.2%) — all citable to dol.gov.

Community projects & small community grants

The $500-scale community-support requests. Funders here weigh reach and local benefit — but note there is NO published "people served per dollar" benchmark at this scale, so your own past grants are the best comparison.

What funders look for
  • ✓A concrete count of who benefits and how (often a stated minimum, e.g. ≥12 individuals).
  • ✓Local, direct benefit — the money reaches the community the funder serves.
  • ✓A small, itemised budget that adds up, with no administrative bloat.
  • ✓A short, specific outcome the applicant can report back on.
  • ✓Evidence the applicant is embedded in the community (not a pass-through).
Red flags
  • △Borrowing a "$1 → $X community value" (SROI) figure and presenting it as a reach benchmark — there is no universal SROI benchmark.
  • △Reach claims with no denominator or no way to verify them after the fact.
Benchmark: Rigorous published benchmarks for small community-grant reach do NOT exist (grants at this scale are too heterogeneous and under-evaluated — see the 2024 systematic review, PMC10983705). Compare against your OWN funded history instead; the tool does exactly that once you have enough recorded outcomes.

Youth & education programs

Programs for ages 16–24 and school-linked work. Outcomes stretch further out, so funders look for engagement and pathway evidence, not just an end number.

What funders look for
  • ✓Age-appropriate outcomes — education, training, OR employment (a broader definition than adult placement). source ↗
  • ✓Engagement and completion metrics, not only a final placement.
  • ✓Barrier support (transportation, childcare, mentoring) that keeps youth enrolled.
  • ✓A credential or a documented skill gain where the program is training-based.
Red flags
  • △Comparing youth "placement" rates directly to adult placement rates — the definitions differ.
  • △Over-promising long-term outcomes a short grant period cannot demonstrate.
Benchmark: WIOA Youth PY2023 ~74.6% in education/training/employment Q2 after exit — a broader measure than adult placement; do not compare the two directly.

People with disabilities & significant barriers

A population central to Goodwill’s mission. Funders accept that outcomes take longer and cost more per person, and they value honesty about that.

What funders look for
  • ✓Recognition that this population needs more intensive, longer support — and a budget that reflects it honestly.
  • ✓Barrier-resolution outcomes (housing stability, transportation, benefits navigation), not only jobs.
  • ✓Individualised plans rather than a one-size funnel.
  • ✓Appropriate handling of protected data (disability, justice involvement) — kept separate from general records. source ↗
Red flags
  • △A cost-per-outcome that looks "efficient" only because it excludes the hardest-to-serve.
  • △Comparing this population’s placement rate to the general WIOA rate without noting the difference.
Benchmark: Higher cost per outcome is expected here and is not a weakness — funders penalise programs that hit efficiency targets by creaming the easiest cases.

General nonprofit operations & capacity

What nonprofit funders may cover beyond a specific program — the things that keep an organisation able to deliver at all.

What funders look for
  • ✓General operating support — unrestricted funds for the mission (increasingly favoured over restricted project grants).
  • ✓Capacity building — staff development, technology, evaluation systems, strategic planning.
  • ✓A reasonable, honest indirect/overhead rate — the sector has moved AWAY from "overhead obsession". source ↗
  • ✓A healthy program-expense ratio where a funder still uses one (Charity Navigator ≥70%; BBB ≥65%). source ↗
  • ✓Sound governance — an active board, audited financials for larger asks.
  • ✓Equipment, supplies, and direct client-assistance funds (bus passes, emergency aid) tied to program delivery.
Red flags
  • △Presenting a program-expense ratio as proof of impact — the ratings agencies themselves say it is a poor proxy.
  • △An overhead rate so low it is not credible (a sign of hidden costs or under-investment).
Benchmark: Program-expense ratios (Charity Navigator ≥70%, BBB ≥65%) measure spending EFFICIENCY, not reach or impact — cite them as what they are.
Where the sourced items come from