Services / Full Grant Proposal — Written To Your Funder’s Solicitation / Sample

Sample: Full Grant Proposal — Written To Your Funder’s Solicitation

The applicant is invented. The solicitation is real. We made up an applicant — nobody named below exists — and ran this exact service against a genuine published federal notice: HRSA-27-099, the notice PDF as published on grants.gov. Open it and hold it against the draft below. An AI system wrote that text, not a human writer — the same system that writes the paid deliverable, unedited. Yours is written from your own notice and the details you type in, so it will read differently. Where a fact is yours to supply (a figure, a date, an award number) the draft leaves a labelled bracket rather than inventing one — and there will be a lot more of them than the handful in this short extract. Measured on every full run of this service we have on record, the finished drafts came back carrying 40, 48, 74 and 466 bracketed blanks — a median of 61, or roughly 12 to 37 blanks per thousand words, the longest document carrying the most. Working through them is the job the draft leaves you, and you should budget for it before you spend $399. One more thing about what you are looking at: the number of sections is HRSA-27-099’s, not ours — that notice is what set the count below, not a template of ours. Yours will have as many sections as your own solicitation requires, which may be more or fewer. You are seeing 2 of the 8 sections; the full deliverable also includes Project abstract summary, Need, Collaboration, Capacity, Support Requested.

Response

The Riverbend Community Health Collaborative (RCHC) is a Health Center Program award recipient with an active H80 award, satisfying the eligibility requirement that "you can apply if you are a Health Center Program award recipient with an active H80 award." Individuals are not eligible applicants under this NOFO, and RCHC is a qualifying entity.

The Riverbend Nutrition Access Program (RNAP) will embed registered dietitians and a produce-prescription benefit into primary care at all three clinic sites and the mobile unit. RNAP directly addresses the ENS purpose of expanding nutrition services for low-income, food-insecure populations. The program will:

integrate standardized food-security screening into every adult primary-care visit;
provide a produce voucher to patients who screen positive and have a diet-related chronic condition; and
deliver dietitian-led counseling focused on increasing fruit and vegetable intake and improving glycemic control for patients with diabetes.

All activities are consistent with HRSA guidance for the Fiscal Year 2027 Expanding Nutrition Services (HRSA-27-099) and will be implemented within the project period of [add project period]. The requested amount of [add amount requested] falls below the award ceiling of $350,000 and will be spent on dietitian salaries, produce vouchers, screening tools, and evaluation. No cost-sharing is required, as the solicitation states "this program has no cost-sharing requirement."

Cost compliance is assured. Each expense is reasonable, necessary, and allocable to the award. Salaries will not exceed the current appropriations limit of $228,000 per individual. All costs are documented in accordance with HRSA and CFR requirements, and no profit will be derived from the federal award. Expenses already funded by other federal awards will be excluded. The budget does not include gift cards or cash-equivalent incentives, does not fund purchase or upgrade of an electronic health record, and does not contain items unrelated to the ENS purpose.

Baseline data indicate a food-insecurity rate of [add baseline] among the current patient panel of [add current patient panel]. RNAP will measure progress through increased screening rates, voucher redemption, and changes in hemoglobin A1c for enrolled diabetic patients. Evaluation methods will follow HRSA's evaluation guidelines and will be fully documented for audit.

In summary, RCHC meets all eligibility criteria, adheres to the cost-share and cost-rule provisions of the solicitation, and proposes a program that aligns precisely with the HRSA ENS objectives. The project is ready for award consideration before the deadline of 09/09/2026.

Impact

Riverbend Community Health Collaborative will leverage its active H80 award to expand nutrition services in direct accordance with HRSA's Expanding Nutrition Services (HRSA-27-099) initiative. As a Health Center Program award recipient, we meet the ENS eligibility requirement that applicants be a federally qualified health center with an active H80 award; individual applicants are excluded under the NOFO. The Riverbend Nutrition Access Program will embed registered dietitians and a produce-prescription benefit into primary care at all three clinic sites and the mobile unit, thereby aligning with HRSA's goal to reduce diet-related chronic disease among low-income, food-insecure populations.

The program targets adult patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity who also screen positive for food insecurity. Baseline food-insecurity prevalence in our panel is [add baseline]. Within the first year, we will increase food-security screening rates from the current level to [add target %] by integrating the [add the source of this figure] Food Security Module into every primary-care visit. Concurrently, we will distribute produce vouchers worth up to $[add voucher amount] per patient per month, a level consistent with HRSA guidance that prohibits cash equivalents and gift cards. By the end of the project period ([add project period]), we anticipate that at least [add %] of enrolled patients will report a measurable increase in fruit and vegetable intake, and that average hemoglobin A1c among diabetic participants will improve by [add %] points.

All costs are structured to satisfy HRSA cost-rule requirements: salaries for the dietitians are capped well below the $228,000 salary limit; vouchers are accounted as allowable program expenses; and no funds will be used for EHR upgrades, profit generation, or activities unrelated to the ENS purpose. The request of $[add amount requested] reflects only reasonable, necessary, and allocable expenses, and there is no cost-sharing requirement for this award.

By embedding nutrition expertise directly into primary care, the Riverbend Nutrition Access Program will close a documented gap in the service area's chronic-disease management. The anticipated outcomes — higher screening rates, greater produce consumption, and better glycemic control — are measurable, directly tied to HRSA's performance metrics for the Expanding Nutrition Services program, and will be documented through a mixed-methods evaluation plan approved by HRSA. This impact aligns with the agency's statutory mandate under [add figure] U.S.C. § [add figure] to improve health outcomes for underserved populations.

Reviewer Compliance Check

> About this table in the sample: you are seeing two of the eight sections, so rows for the sections not included here correctly read section not present. In a real order every section is written and every row is filled in. The funder details, the review criteria and the point weights below were all pulled verbatim from the real notice.

This table is built mechanically from https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/249a24a4-0bde-436f-bda0-f0bda09f21d0/attachments/64238655-07b1-457b-b5c5-7701c4a65e6f/FOA_Content_HRSA-27-099_Final_v2.pdf and from the draft above — no part of it is written by the language model that drafted the narrative. Every criterion and point value below was found verbatim in your solicitation; anything that could not be found verbatim was discarded rather than guessed, and what was discarded is listed at the end.

Funder: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) Health Center Program

Opportunity: Increase access to nutrition services at HRSA-funded health centers.

Number: HRSA-27-099

Stated deadline: 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 09/09/2026

Cost share / match: This program has no cost-sharing requirement.

Where each review criterion is addressed

Review criterion	Points	Addressed in	Evidence check
Need	20 / 100	Need	section not present — WRITE THIS
Response	20 / 100	Response	1 of 1 — weak test: the solicitation gave us little wording for this criterion, so read it yourself
Collaboration	15 / 100	Collaboration	section not present — WRITE THIS
Impact	20 / 100	Impact	1 of 1 — weak test: the solicitation gave us little wording for this criterion, so read it yourself
Capacity	20 / 100	Capacity	section not present — WRITE THIS
Support Requested	5 / 100	Response	1 of 2 — weak test: the solicitation gave us little wording for this criterion, so read it yourself

"Evidence check" counts how many of the words the solicitation itself uses when describing that criterion actually appear in the section assigned to it. It is a presence test, not a judgement of quality: a full count does not mean the argument is strong, and a low count does not always mean it is missing. It tells you where to look. Read every flagged row against the criterion as the solicitation words it.

Length against the limits the solicitation states

Section	Funder's stated limit	Measured	Verdict
Need	—	0 words / 0 characters	no limit stated in the solicitation
Response	—	395 words / 2723 characters	no limit stated in the solicitation
Collaboration	—	0 words / 0 characters	no limit stated in the solicitation
Impact	—	386 words / 2677 characters	no limit stated in the solicitation
Capacity	—	0 words / 0 characters	no limit stated in the solicitation

Before you submit

Fill in every bracket. This draft contains 9 distinct placeholders where a fact is yours to supply. A placeholder left in a submitted application is an administrative rejection that never reaches a reviewer, and the applicant carries it.

Each row below is one blank, what belongs in it, and why a reviewer needs it. The last column shows the SHAPE of a strong answer. It is an illustration of form only: it is not a suggestion about your organisation and it is not a figure we hold about you. Replace every one with your own.

The blank	What to put in it	Why the reviewer needs it	Shape of a strong answer
`[add project period]`	The actual dates or duration, in the form the solicitation asks for.	The period of performance drives the budget years and the reporting schedule, and reviewers check the narrative against the forms.	1 October 2026 to 30 September 2028 (24 months)
`[add amount requested]`	The total amount you are requesting from this funder.	It must match your SF-424 and your budget total exactly; a mismatch between narrative and forms is an administrative rejection.	$1,150,000
`[add baseline]`	Your current measured value for this, before the project starts, and where it came from.	Every target is scored against its baseline. A target with no baseline cannot be evaluated and usually loses the points outright.	62%, from our FY2025 programme records
`[add current patient panel]`	The count from your own records, and the period it covers.	Capacity and reach are scored on real counts; a count with no period attached is not usable evidence.	240 young people in FY2025
`[add target %]`	The value you are committing to reach, and the date by which you will reach it.	This is what you will be held to in reporting, so it has to be a number you are willing to be measured on.	75% by the end of year two
`[add the source of this figure]`	The name of the agency, department or body being referred to.	Reviewers check that cited bodies are real and correctly named; a wrong or missing agency name reads as carelessness.	the state Department of Health
`[add voucher amount]`	The dollar figure for this budget line, and what it buys.	The budget narrative is scored on whether each line is necessary and reasonable for the work described.	$18,400 for 200 vouchers at $92 each
`[add %]`	The percentage, and what it is a percentage OF.	A bare percentage with no denominator cannot be verified, and reviewers discount it.	32% of enrolled participants
`[add figure]`	A figure or name from your own records. The sentence it sits in says which one.	This is a fact only you hold, so it was left empty rather than filled with something plausible that you would be the one to carry.	your own figure, stated with the period it covers

Some of these are public record and faster to look up than to dig out. Your EIN, legal name, registered address, IRS ruling year and most recent total revenue and assets are all on your own IRS Form 990, free to read on the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search or ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Your UEI and registration status are in SAM.gov. We deliberately do not fill these in for you: matching your organisation to a public record by name and then writing that record into an application you sign is a risk you would carry, not us.

Open the solicitation and check this draft against it yourself. This check was assembled from an automated read of the document; it is a starting point for your own compliance review, not a substitute for it.
Confirm the page counts in your own template. Word counts above are measured; page counts depend on your font, margins and spacing.
Confirm you meet the eligibility the solicitation states: Individuals are not eligible applicants under this NOFO..

Also in the full grant proposal

Project abstract summary
Need
Collaboration
Capacity
Support Requested

Write mine — $399 →

Written section by section, usually a few minutes · editable Word file, PDF or plain text · 14-day fix-or-refund

Not ready to spend anything? Run the free check on your own solicitation — the same parser that built the table above, on your notice instead of ours. It gives you the sections it requires, the limits it sets and the criteria it scores against. No signup, no card, about a minute.

Or let it come to you — get new grants matching your mission emailed weekly, free →