Free resource · Grant Resource Studio™
Grant Readiness Starter Kit
Organise the information behind your applications in a reusable grant knowledge document. Free, with practical instructions for charities, CICs and community organisations.
Level 1 is a free, optional experiment with a proposal-style AI draft. Level 2 helps you build reusable knowledge and can be a sufficient lasting option for your organisation. Level 3 is an optional commissioned build when the detail or review work calls for it.
Why this exists
Most organisations piece together the same grant answers from different places, every time
What is your organisation? Who do you support? What difference does your work make? Why now? These questions appear in almost every grant application. And most small charities, CICs and community organisations answer them again without organisational context each time, in slightly different ways, under time pressure.
AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude can help. But they only produce strong, specific output when they have real knowledge to work from. Without it, the text is fluent but generic, and you end up editing heavily anyway.
Choose among an optional AI experiment, a reusable knowledge document and a commissioned full build. These are independent options. You do not need to work through them in order.
Level 1, Optional experiment
An optional external experiment
If you want to explore a proposal-style AI draft, Charity Excellence publishes a separate bid-writing resource. It is not required for the GRS document or Review method. Check its current access terms and keep sensitive information out.
Level 2, Make it reusable
Build one grant knowledge document you can reuse
Level 2 is a complete reusable drafting workflow for teams that can maintain one document. Instead of squeezing your organisation into a short form each time, you write down the core knowledge once, keep one maintained version, and draw on it for each new application.
Level 2 uses a reusable question framework, adapted from Charity Excellence, to organise your information. Keep the answers in a knowledge document, check them and reuse the relevant material for each funder’s questions.
The practical gain is control. You can give the AI the full list of funder questions, ask it to plan the application as a whole, then work through each answer one at a time. When the knowledge document is not enough, the AI can ask targeted questions before drafting instead of filling the gap with plausible but generic text.
Six building blocks for your own reusable grant knowledge workflow
Choose a place your team can use consistently. It is having one maintained knowledge document and a repeatable way of using it. You can attach the latest version manually to each grant conversation if that works for you. A persistent workspace can reduce repeated setup if your tool and plan support it. Check that the assistant can read your chosen file and follow the instructions you give it.
Test a short drafting session with a cleaned example before choosing a tool or paying for a plan.
Free accounts can have usage or file restrictions that interrupt a longer drafting session. Compare the limits you actually encounter with the provider’s current terms. A paid plan can change limits; it does not by itself establish suitable privacy settings or permission to use personal information.
Use cleaned organisational information and keep sensitive personal records out. Before you upload anything, do these three things.
Check the provider’s current training, activity and privacy controls before sharing material. Where the account permits it, turn off use of your content for model improvement or training. Check retention separately, and follow your organisation’s rules even when a setting is off.
A first paid plan may offer higher usage limits or different file features. Check the provider’s current terms and privacy controls separately: paying does not itself establish how training, retention or access are handled. Use cleaned descriptions of your work, outcomes, governance and past grant wording, with permission to use that material.
It is still not the same as a private in-house system. Even with training turned off, AI providers may retain, process or exceptionally review content for service operation, abuse prevention, safety, legal compliance, feedback handling or technical support.
Never enter:
Safe to enter:
Create one master knowledge document in plain text. You can upload it to a Project, a Notebook or a Gem, or attach the latest version manually when you start a grant conversation. The template uses the Charity Excellence question set as its starting framework, then turns it into an AI-ready knowledge document: answer-led, easy for the AI to read, and designed for repeated use beyond a single form submission.
Aim for at least 50 words per answer. Use plain paragraphs and avoid heavy formatting like bullet points. Write what is true and evidenced.
The Resources page has a blank template with all four sections, writing-style guidance and final checks, plus a fictional worked example showing the same document filled in.
Get the template and worked exampleThese four content areas are the sections of the knowledge document. Open each one to see what to include.
The funder probably knows nothing about you. Tell them about your charity, what you do and how. Avoid jargon or acronyms they may not understand.
You can reuse most of these answers across future bids, write them carefully and adapt them to each application.
This is the core of any application. Address the funder’s requirements and the needs of the people your work supports.
For project-specific questions (dates, partners, particular outcomes), write a version for your current project. For the need and urgency, write something that can be reused and updated over time.
Funders want to know what they will be paying for and that your budget is reasonable. Be clear and proportionate.
Never enter bank details, account numbers or payment information in any AI tool. Budget totals and narrative descriptions are safe.
These are the details that move a competent application to a compelling one. Build this section up over time as you gather evidence and feedback.
For quotes, use role titles or “anonymous”, never include full names or any identifying details about the people you support.
The AI does not always automatically read your knowledge document when you open a new conversation, even inside a Project or Notebook. Follow this prompt sequence in order at the start of every drafting session.
First, load your document into context
Replace [name of your file] with the filename you used. If you downloaded the template here, it will be: Grant Knowledge Document Template.txt
Once the AI confirms it has read the document, keep the knowledge document as it is. Do not paste the application questions into the file. The questions are provided separately in the next message.
Then, share all the application questions at once
[Paste all application questions here, with the maximum word count or character limit for each question]”
Optional but recommended: if the funder has a programme page or guidance document, add this line immediately after the question list in the same message. Paste the URL, attach the document, or both.
[Paste the programme page URL here, or attach the guidance document]”
For example, if you are applying to National Lottery Awards for All, paste the link to the programme’s guidance page here. If you do not have a programme page or guidance document, leave this out. It is optional.
Finally, set the rules for how it works through them
This gives each answer a focused exchange. Each answer gets a targeted exchange, the AI surfaces what it needs, you supply it, and the draft uses the information you have checked.
First drafts will still need work. The AI will identify gaps; you supply them; the draft improves. When you add new information to answer the AI’s questions, add it back to your knowledge document too. Each application, your document gets richer. Each subsequent draft, less iteration is needed.
Once the answers are in place, ask the AI to review them. Do this in a new message, after you have finished drafting, in the same Project or Notebook.
Give it this round’s funder page: a link or an attachment. If the funder also publishes how it assesses or scores applications, share that too. Then ask it to go through each answer and compare it with those requirements. Keep the request open. You want feedback on the answers you already have, question by question.
Two ways that work. If the draft is already in the conversation, point the AI at the live page and ask it to review the answers you have just agreed. If you would rather put everything in one message, paste or attach the page (and any scoring material), paste the draft, and ask for feedback on each question.
A prompt you can paste
Funder page:
[Paste the URL or attach the document]
How they assess or score applications, if they publish it:
[Paste, attach, or leave blank]
Draft, if it is not already in this conversation:
[Paste the answers, with question titles]”
After that, you will have a set of comments. Apply the ones you accept, then ask the AI to review the revised answers against the same funder page. Repeat until the remaining notes are small enough that you are ready to submit.
For a fuller method, including a written report shape and a one-screen HTML summary, use the Grant Application Review pack. The review page explains it.
A reusable document for regular applications
A maintained document gives repeated drafting a consistent source. You have one maintained source of grant knowledge, a repeatable way to use it, and a process that lets the AI draft individual answers, ask for missing detail, and improve over time. For organisations with the confidence to maintain that routine, this is already a significant shift in how grant work feels.
- The document introduces the seven Case for Support modules at overview level. A full build holds more detailed source material and reviewed evidence. Choose the amount of structure your team needs and can maintain.
- Repeating yourself remains part of the game. For each new application you still need to guide the AI toward the right angle for that funder, adapt the language, and review the draft. The document reduces repetition but does not eliminate it.
- Maintaining one master document and using it consistently takes discipline. A Project, Notebook or Gem can make that easier, but it does not replace the need to keep the document current.
- Supply current funder guidance alongside your knowledge document. Sharing the funder’s programme page or guidance document as part of Step 2 helps the AI calibrate its answers to that funder’s priorities. Without it, the AI is working from the question list alone and will produce more generic output. A full build can organise a larger body of reviewed material and past funder requirements. It does not remove the need to check each programme’s current guidance.
- Asking the AI to compare a finished draft with the funder’s page is useful, and it is only as strong as what you gave it this session. The Application Review Kit can use a checkable Starter Kit document or a fuller Funding Knowledge Base as supporting knowledge. Choose the depth that matches your material and the review you need.
Level 2 can remain your lasting setup. Its value depends on reviewing new information and keeping the document current. The free Context and Review methods can be useful independently; a commissioned FKB is an option when you want source review, team elicitation and a fuller asset. A short conversation can help you decide the right next step →
Level 3, Optional full build
An optional deeper build
The difference lies in the detail, review and structure of the knowledge. Choose a suitable workspace around the way your team works. Check your tool’s current file limits, but choose the knowledge structure around the work rather than the amount of storage available. The difference is the data model: the architecture of what you store, how it is structured, and what an orchestration layer can do with it.
Building a Funding Knowledge Base is a guided process that takes time, effort and expertise. The scope depends on the material, gaps and reviewers. The good news is that most of the raw material already exists inside your organisation: past applications, monitoring reports, evaluation data, impact case studies, funder correspondence. The build structures existing material and captures important knowledge that has not yet been written down.
What a Funding Knowledge Base is, and why it changes the output
Grant Resource Studio™ builds this with organisations and hands it over for their teams to maintain. Optional later refresh support is separately scoped. A Funding Knowledge Base holds distinct sections of approved knowledge, each with a specific job. They can be maintained separately and used independently or in combination. Open any section below to go deeper.
These modules are held together by an orchestration layer, a set of rules that tells the AI which modules to load for which funder and application type, how to weight them, what the funder prioritises, and how to adapt your voice and evidence to their specific programme. It also gives the AI two operational modes: a fast first-draft mode for lower-stakes applications, and a deeper mode for strategic bids where it reviews modules carefully and asks clarifying questions before drafting.
Keep checking what each application still needs. A full knowledge base provides more reviewed material, but each application still needs current project information, costs and funder guidance. An assistant asking for more detail may reveal a gap or a changed fact. A person checks the source and approves any update.
The Theory of Change and Case for Support are the two components that make the biggest difference to output quality, and the two that take real time, expertise and iteration to develop well. A flat document typically lacks both, or contains thin versions. Getting them right, with the right evidence, the right logic and the right voice, is most of the work of a guided build. Historical applications and funder intelligence then layer on top, turning the system from a strong knowledge base into one that learns and compounds with every application submitted.
The guided build draws on everything the organisation already has: past bids that worked, monitoring data sitting in spreadsheets, evaluations written for funders, strong passages from old applications. None of that is wasted. It is structured, approved and made reusable, with links to the sources that support it. That is what makes the process less painful than it might sound, and what distinguishes it from another round of hunting through past applications under time pressure.
A guided Funding Knowledge Base build is a one-off, fixed-price engagement. A written proposal follows discovery and reflects the source material, gaps, reviewers and agreed outputs. Tool subscriptions are separate. The knowledge base is yours to keep and use with a suitable AI tool; check file access and limits for your account. It becomes more useful when reviewed evidence and approved changes are added.
The build can sit alongside broader fundraising support your organisation has commissioned. GRS’s scope remains the agreed knowledge build, AI-assisted workflow and handover; this does not add bid writing, grant finding or pipeline management. See the core project and optional follow-on support.
A commissioned Funding Knowledge Base is an option when you want help reviewing sources, capturing unwritten practice and developing a fuller approved asset. Your existing Level 2 document can contribute useful material. Continuing to maintain that document is also a complete choice.
See the output difference concretely, the same funder question answered without organisational context, pieced together by hand, and from a structured Funding Knowledge Base:
See the difference for yourself →
In the 18 months after their Funding Knowledge Base went live, Early Years Cocoon, a CIC in Barking and Dagenham, secured 52% of their all-time grant income, with application preparation time down from 10 to 20 hours to 3 to 6:
Discuss a full Funding Knowledge Base build
If you would like to find out what a full Grant Readiness engagement involves, or just to talk through where your organisation is with its grant knowledge, book a free discovery call.