Skip to main content

AI for Grant Auditing & Compliance

Welcome to the AI for Grant Auditing & Compliance playbook! This guide helps you catch gaps, missing information, and compliance issues before you submit your grant proposal.

Overview​

info

Goal: Catch gaps and compliance issues before submission to increase your chances of funding.

  • 💡 Key Insight: AI is sharp at checklist-style reviews but still requires human oversight for nuance and judgment.
  • 📊 Metric to Watch: Number of compliance issues caught pre-submission (target: catch 90%+ of issues).

Why AI for Grant Auditing?​

Even experienced grant writers miss details. Common submission errors include:

  • Missing required attachments (30% of proposals)
  • Unanswered evaluation criteria (25% of proposals)
  • Budget misalignments with narrative (20% of proposals)
  • Formatting violations (15% of proposals)

AI can systematically check every requirement, acting as a tireless quality control partner.

📋 Step 1: Gather Your Materials

Before running an AI audit, collect:

  1. Your Complete Draft Proposal (all narrative sections)
  2. Funder's Scoring Rubric (if available)
  3. RFP Requirements List (eligibility, attachments, formatting)
  4. Budget and Budget Narrative
  5. Required Attachments Checklist

Why This Matters: AI can only check what you give it. Complete materials = complete audit.

🤖 Step 2: Upload Draft + Scoring Rubric
  • 📤 Upload to AI Tool: Use ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini with file upload capability
  • 📋 Include Both Documents: Your draft AND the funder's evaluation criteria
  • 🎯 Be Specific: Tell AI you want a compliance audit, not content feedback
  • 🔄 Pro Tip: Upload the RFP guidelines too for a comprehensive check
🔍 Step 3: Run Systematic Cross-Checks

Ask AI to check for:

Completeness:

  • Are all required questions answered?
  • Are all sections within word/page limits?
  • Are all required attachments mentioned?

Alignment:

  • Does the budget match the narrative?
  • Do outcomes align with funder priorities?
  • Are evaluation methods appropriate for stated goals?

Compliance:

  • Are eligibility requirements met?
  • Are formatting requirements followed?
  • Are any restricted activities mentioned?

Scoring Optimization:

  • Which scoring criteria are strongly addressed?
  • Which criteria are weakly addressed or missing?
  • Where can we add evidence to score higher?
✅ Step 4: Review AI's Audit Notes

AI will generate a checklist of issues. For each item:

  • ✅ Verify the Issue: Is AI correct? (Sometimes it misinterprets)
  • 🔧 Fix Immediately: Address clear gaps and missing information
  • 🤔 Consult Humans: For judgment calls, get a second opinion
  • 📝 Document Decisions: Note why you kept or changed something

Pro Tip: Create a "Pre-Submission Checklist" from AI's findings for future proposals.

👥 Step 5: Human Editor Final Review

AI catches mechanical issues, but humans catch:

  • 🎨 Tone and Voice: Does it sound authentic?
  • 🎯 Strategic Emphasis: Are we highlighting the right things?
  • 💡 Persuasiveness: Is the case compelling?
  • 🔗 Coherence: Does everything flow logically?

Never skip human review—AI is a tool, not a replacement for expertise.

AI Prompts​

tip

Use this comprehensive AI prompt for grant auditing:

Context:
You are helping a nonprofit grant writer perform a final quality control audit on a grant proposal before submission. The goal is to systematically check for completeness, compliance, alignment, and optimization against the funder's requirements and scoring criteria. This is a mechanical review focused on catching gaps, not a content critique.

Role:
You are an experienced grant compliance specialist with 15+ years of experience reviewing proposals for federal, state, and foundation funders. You have a keen eye for detail and know the most common reasons proposals are disqualified or score poorly. You provide clear, actionable checklists.

Action:
Using the materials provided below, perform a comprehensive compliance audit and provide a detailed checklist of issues to address before submission.

Ask the user to provide:

- Complete grant proposal draft: [Upload or paste all narrative sections]
- Funder's RFP or guidelines: [Upload or paste requirements]
- Scoring rubric (if available): [Upload or paste evaluation criteria]
- Budget and budget narrative: [Upload or paste]
- Attachments checklist: [List of required attachments]

Based on this input, provide:

1. **Completeness Check**
   - [ ] All required questions answered?
   - [ ] All sections within word/page limits?
   - [ ] All required attachments mentioned/included?
   - [ ] Contact information and signatures complete?

2. **Eligibility Verification**
   - [ ] Organization meets all eligibility requirements?
   - [ ] Project fits within funder's geographic scope?
   - [ ] Requested amount within allowable range?
   - [ ] No restricted activities mentioned?

3. **Alignment Audit**
   - [ ] Budget matches narrative activities?
   - [ ] Timeline is realistic and matches budget?
   - [ ] Outcomes align with funder priorities?
   - [ ] Evaluation methods match stated outcomes?

4. **Scoring Optimization** (if rubric provided)
   - List each scoring criterion
   - Rate how well addressed: Strong / Adequate / Weak / Missing
   - Suggest specific additions to strengthen weak areas

5. **Formatting Compliance**
   - [ ] Font, margins, spacing meet requirements?
   - [ ] Page numbers included if required?
   - [ ] Headers/footers formatted correctly?
   - [ ] File naming conventions followed?

6. **Red Flags**
   - List any concerning issues that might disqualify the proposal
   - Highlight any contradictions or inconsistencies
   - Note any missing critical information

7. **Priority Fix List**
   - Rank issues by severity: CRITICAL / Important / Minor
   - Provide specific page/section references
   - Suggest exact fixes for each issue

Format your response as a clear, actionable checklist. Be thorough and specific. Reference exact sections and page numbers when possible.

Quick Compliance Check Prompt​

"Compare this grant draft [upload or paste] against the attached scoring rubric [upload or paste]. 

Identify:
1. Unanswered or weakly answered criteria
2. Missing examples or evidence
3. Anything that may count against us in scoring
4. Specific additions that would strengthen our score

Provide a checklist of items to fix with priority levels (Critical/Important/Minor)."

Budget Alignment Prompt​

"Review this grant narrative [paste] and this budget [paste or upload]. 

Check for:
1. Activities mentioned in narrative but not budgeted
2. Budget items not explained in narrative
3. Mismatches in quantities, timelines, or costs
4. Missing budget justifications
5. Math errors or inconsistencies

List all discrepancies with specific line item references."

Eligibility Verification Prompt​

"Review our organization profile [paste mission, geography, budget, etc.] against this RFP's eligibility requirements [paste].

Confirm:
1. We meet all eligibility criteria (YES/NO for each)
2. Any borderline or unclear eligibility issues
3. Documentation needed to prove eligibility
4. Any disqualifying factors present

Be thorough—missing eligibility is the #1 reason for rejection."

Quick Start Checklist​

  • Gather complete proposal draft and all requirements
  • Upload materials to AI tool (ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini)
  • Run comprehensive compliance audit using AI prompt
  • Review and verify each issue AI identifies
  • Fix all CRITICAL issues immediately
  • Address Important issues if time permits
  • Have human editor review for tone and strategy
  • Create reusable pre-submission checklist for future grants

Success Metrics​

Track your AI auditing effectiveness:

  • Issues Caught: Number of compliance problems identified pre-submission (target: 10+ per proposal)
  • Rejection Rate: % of proposals rejected for technical/compliance reasons (target: less than 5%)
  • Scoring Improvement: Average score on funded proposals (track over time)
  • Time Savings: Hours saved on manual review (target: 2-3 hours per proposal)

Common Issues AI Catches​

Most Frequent Compliance Problems:​

  1. Word Count Violations (35% of proposals)

    • Sections exceeding limits
    • Inconsistent counting methods

  2. Unanswered Questions (30% of proposals)

    • Skipped evaluation criteria
    • Incomplete responses

  3. Budget Misalignments (25% of proposals)

    • Activities not budgeted
    • Budget items not explained

  4. Missing Attachments (20% of proposals)

    • Required documents not mentioned
    • Incorrect file formats

  5. Eligibility Gaps (15% of proposals)

    • Geographic restrictions missed
    • Organization type mismatches

AI Limitations to Remember​

AI is excellent at mechanical checks but struggles with:

  • ❌ Nuanced Interpretation: May misread complex requirements
  • ❌ Strategic Judgment: Can't assess persuasiveness or competitiveness
  • ❌ Context Understanding: May miss implied requirements
  • ❌ Funder Relationships: Doesn't know your history with the funder

Always have a human expert review AI's findings before making final changes.

info

Next Steps: After your proposal passes the audit, use the Impact Stories & Reporting playbook to prepare compelling progress reports once you're funded.