Defined grant support

Nonprofit grant proposal review and editing

When the words already exist, a focused review can show where the draft answers the funder, where facts or attachments are missing, and where the narrative and budget need to agree.

Available remotely to nonprofits throughout the United States. One existing foundation grant narrative, one review, and no recurring commitment.

$295 · paid upfront after scope agreement

Discuss an application review

What this scope covers

This is a review of one existing narrative, up to 2,000 words, against one controlling funder rubric or instruction set. The review follows the funder's questions and checks the internal story: population, activities, timing, outcomes, measures, request amount, and budget consistency.

You receive tracked edits in the draft and a missing-items checklist that separates facts to confirm, attachments to locate, and approvals still needed. The work identifies gaps and proposes clear edits; it does not turn an assumption into an organizational fact.

What a grant narrative review looks like

This excerpt uses the fictional Northside Arts Workshop demonstration. The organization, numbers, and proposed activities are invented; this is not client work or an awarded grant.

Before: a claim without a measure

“We expect the program to be successful and will evaluate it through attendance and feedback.”

After: a specific planning target

“The planning target is for at least 18 of 24 enrolled students to attend five of six sessions.”

The revision names the target, denominator, and attendance threshold. A real review needs your approved targets; an editor cannot invent them.

The accompanying checklist would flag the attendance-record owner, missing follow-up, and approval of the target. See the full annotated review and hypothetical budget.

Send only public fit information first

For the initial inquiry, send the funder and program name, public instructions or URL, stated deadline and time zone, current draft length, and a short description of the approved program and budget. Include the name of the person who approves organizational facts.

Do not put confidential client information, passwords, protected records, or sensitive attachments in the first inquiry. Once scope and access are agreed, we can arrange a separate secure handoff for the draft and approved materials.

A practical review process

  1. Confirm the opportunity, rubric, scope, and secure materials handoff.
  2. Review the complete draft and approved source materials against the controlling instructions.
  3. Return tracked edits and the missing-items checklist within the stated timing after complete inputs and access.

The client reviews the edits, confirms every fact, approves the final version, and submits it. Late or incomplete inputs move the working deadline.

Fit and boundaries

This scope fits an identified opportunity with a draft in hand. It includes one review; additional review rounds require a separate agreement. New program design, federal applications, complex budget creation, additional funders, portal administration, and submission are outside the package. The funder makes the award decision; Wellridge does not guarantee funding.

Do you need editing or writing from scratch?

Choose this review when a complete narrative already exists and needs clearer answers, an instruction check, and identified gaps. If you have approved source materials but no draft, the one-time foundation application writing service covers a different task. This package is nonprofit narrative support; it does not include scientific peer review or federal application review.

See the fictional grant review example for a demonstration of the format. Compare this scope with letter-of-inquiry writing, all grant-writing services, payment and scope answers, or the grant buyer guide.