The problem
Writing for yourself instead of the reviewer. You know why the work matters. A reviewer with a stack of proposals needs to be told, early and plainly, in the terms the funder uses.
Good science is not enough to win funding. Proposals are read quickly, often by people outside your immediate specialty, against criteria set by the funder. A strong idea can lose because the aims are vague, the approach does not obviously deliver them, or the significance is buried on page six.
The other common problem comes earlier. Many applications go to funders whose priorities only partly match the work, because the deadline was close and the call looked roughly right. The writing cannot fix a poor fit.
And proposals are written in the margins of everything else: teaching, clinical work, running a lab, running an organization. By the last week there is no time left to step back and read the whole thing as a stranger would.
Who this is for
- Investigators preparing a federal research grant, a career development award or a fellowship application.
- Nonprofits applying to foundations for program or evaluation funding.
- Research-driven startups and small organizations pursuing research grants or industry partnerships.
- Anyone revising an application after an unsuccessful round who wants a clear plan for resubmission.
What we do
Aims page. A one-page summary many funders ask for, or that works well even when they do not: the problem, the gap, your aims and what changes if you succeed. Reviewers often decide how they feel about a proposal here.
- Find the right fit. We review funding opportunities against your work and say plainly which are worth the effort, which are long shots, and why.
- Shape the aims. We work with you on the aims page until each aim is specific, achievable, and clearly connected to the problem you described.
- Draft or strengthen the narrative. Significance, innovation, approach, or whatever sections the funder uses, written so the logic is visible to a reader outside your field.
- Support the budget justification. We help you explain each cost in terms of the work it makes possible. You and your institution remain responsible for the budget figures and their compliance.
- Edit for review. Structure, clarity, consistency between sections, figures that earn their space, and the many small things that tire a reviewer.
- Run a mock review. We read the full application against the funder's published criteria and give you a written critique of the kind a panel might produce.
- Plan a resubmission. We go through the reviews with you, separate the fatal points from the fixable ones, and help you write a response that shows the changes clearly.
How it works
Funders change formats, page limits and required sections. Before writing, read the current call and instructions in full, and check them again a week before you submit. We will work from whatever the current documents say.
Discovery conversation
We talk about the work, the funder or funders you have in mind, the deadline, and what already exists in draft.
Written scope and schedule
You receive a short proposal with what we will do, what you will receive, and a working schedule counted back from the submission date.
Aims and outline first
We agree the aims and the structure before anyone writes long sections, because changes here are cheap and changes later are not.
Drafting and review rounds
Sections are drafted or edited in agreed rounds, with comments you can accept, reject or discuss.
Final read and handover
A full read of the assembled application for consistency and clarity, followed by a short note on anything to watch at submission.
What you receive
- A funding fit summary, when you ask us to look at options.
- A finished aims page and an agreed outline of the application.
- Drafted or edited narrative sections in your preferred format, with tracked changes and comments.
- Budget justification text aligned with the work plan.
- A written mock review against the funder's published criteria, if included in scope.
- For resubmissions: an analysis of the reviews and a draft introduction or response section.
How we can work together
- Project
- One application, from fit and aims through to the final read, or a defined part of it such as the narrative or the resubmission response.
- Retainer
- For groups or organizations that apply for funding through the year and want consistent support and a shared memory of past applications.
- Hourly review
- A mock review or a focused edit of an aims page or a full draft, with written comments and a call to talk them through.
Timelines
Grant work runs to the funder's deadline, so the schedule matters more than with most services. The time needed depends on the size of the application, how much is already drafted, and how many people must sign off. Typical ranges are agreed in the proposal.
The earlier we start, the more useful we can be. With very little time left, the most valuable help is usually a mock review and a focused edit rather than new writing.
An illustrative twelve-week plan, not a promise of timing. Real schedules depend on the application, what is already drafted and who must sign off. The review and sign-off stages are the ones most often squeezed.
Questions
We can draft substantial sections, but the ideas, the expertise and the final text must be yours. Reviewers fund investigators, not consultants, and you need to be able to stand behind every sentence. Some funders also have rules about who may contribute, so check the current instructions.
No one can. Funding decisions depend on panels, budgets and priorities outside anyone's control. What we can do is make sure the proposal is clear, coherent and aimed at the right funder, so it is judged on the strength of the work.
Yes. The writing principles are the same, but the expectations differ a great deal. We work from each funder's current guidance and adapt structure and tone to it.
No. Submission, institutional sign-off and compliance with funder rules stay with you and your institution's research office. We are glad to help you document what you need for that process.
Yes, and it is often where outside help pays off most. Reviews can be hard to read objectively when the work is yours. We help you sort the comments, plan the changes and write a response that makes them easy to see.
Yes. We treat unpublished ideas and drafts as confidential, and we are happy to sign a reasonable confidentiality agreement before you share anything detailed.