Application review
The Assessor's Read
Assessors read hundreds of applications and fund the ones that could only have been written by one organisation. Paste an answer here and it comes back marked the way an assessor reads it: what carries evidence, what is filler, and which sentences another charity could copy word for word and still be telling the truth.
Paste one answer, about 2 minutes. Or press a demo button below to see it work on an example first. Your draft saves in this browser as you type.
Your answer, marked
On its way
We will send this over shortly, along with an honest read on what it would actually take to close the gaps. If we think you do not need us, we will say that too.
Block by block score
The markup above is mechanical: it finds filler and missing specifics. This reads the answer against what the block has to achieve in an assessor's mind, and scores it 0 to 3.
Facilitator notes
Use the markup, not your opinion. Telling someone their writing is vague starts an argument. Showing them that eleven of their fourteen sentences could be copied by any other charity ends one. The grey sentences do the teaching, so put the screen in front of them and stay quiet for a minute.
The one rule underneath all of this. Every claim carries a number, a name or a date. If a sentence has none of the three, it is not evidence. Either attach one or cut it. That single rule fixes more applications than any amount of writing coaching.
Never fill a gap. When a specific is missing, the answer is a visible marker saying what is needed and who can supply it, not a plausible estimate. A fabricated figure is worse than a visible gap, because it cannot be defended when the funder asks, and it exposes the organisation later. Groups will push to smooth over gaps to make the draft read well. Do not let them.
Ask where the figure lives, not for more detail. "Can you send me more on need?" gets nothing. "What does your case management system say about referrals you declined last year?" gets a number. Every request should name a system, a record or a person.
Two things almost nobody includes, and both are cheap.
- A direct quote, wherever the funder allows narrative.
- One honest account of something that did not work and the change made in response. This is among the strongest trust signals available to a small organisation and it costs nothing but nerve.
Borrowed reach. Where an organisation supports other organisations that in turn serve people, the reach of those organisations belongs to them. State direct reach first. An assessor reads a multiplier argument as defending a high unit cost rather than justifying it.
Order of work in a review session. Filler first, because it is the fastest win and it builds trust in the process. Then figures, tracing each number to a stated source and removing anything untraceable rather than adjusting it to something safer. Then gaps, each resolved by a person with access to the records. A review that changes nothing has not been a review.