Grant readiness and grant applications for community organisations — done with you, or done for you.
Community Grant Partners Australia helps community and not-for-profit organisations get clear, compliant, and submission-ready—through a streamlined and structured approach, strong writing, and sensible governance.
Meet our team
Our team is passionate about helping clients to submit compliant, persuasive and defensible grant applications and have the expertise to provide comprehensive solutions.
Bishal Gautam
CPA-Qualified Finance Lead
Carissa Gautam
Lead Writer and Coordinator
What we do
Community Grant Partners Australia offers structured grant support for community and not-for-profit organisations—combining strong writing with disciplined documentation and budget thinking.
Grant Strategy (fit + evidence plan)
Eligibility + grant-fit check (what makes this a “yes” vs a waste of effort)
Win themes and outcomes framing (what you’re asking for and why it matters)
Criteria mapping / response grid (what goes where, and what evidence is needed)
Clarification questions list (to reduce rework and misinterpretation)
Grant Writing (clear, guideline-aligned submissions)
Drafting and/or rewriting to match the funder’s language and scoring criteria
Strong structure: headings, flow, and “assessor-friendly” formatting
Proof + consistency pass (numbers, names, dates, claims, attachments referenced)
Review-round management (one consolidated set of feedback = one clean revision)
Grant Budgets (CPA-led checks and narrative)
Budget build support or review (categories, caps, match funding, in-kind)
Assumptions check (staffing, on-costs, unit rates, quotes, timing)
Budget narrative alignment (make sure the numbers match the story and activities)
Simple risk flags (e.g., under-costing, missing cost lines, non-eligible items)
Service Tiers
Community Grant Partners Australia offers services across a range of fixed scope, intensity-based tiers, ranging from grant guidance through to complex strategic grant coordination.
Tier 1 - DIY Toolkit + Triage (Guided)
$450–$950 (ex GST)
Turnaround: typically 2–5 business days
Best for smaller grants or if you’ll write it internally but want expert direction.
Includes:
Eligibility + grant-fit check
Compliance checklist + response plan
Win themes + outcomes framing
Clarification questions list (for funder)
You draft the application
Tier 2 — Review + Polish (Editor)
$950–$1,900 (ex GST)
Turnaround: typically 3–7 business days
Best for when you have a draft and want it tightened to score better.
Includes:
Review vs guidelines + criteria
Structural edits + targeted rewrites
Proofread + consistency pass
Submission-ready quality assurance checklist
1 review round included
Tier 3 — Co-write (Partnered)
$2,500–$5,500 (ex GST)
Turnaround: typically 1–2 weeks
Best for moderate complexity where outcomes/evidence need strengthening.
Includes:
Strategy + storyboarding
Shared drafting (we write high-impact sections; you supply technical detail)
Budget narrative support + costing check (CPA-led)
Risks + evaluation approach
2 review rounds included
Tier 4 — Done-for-you (End-to-end)
$5,500–$12,500 (ex GST)
Turnaround: typically 2–3 weeks
Best for time-poor teams, higher scrutiny, or complex guidelines.
Includes:
Discovery interview/workshop
Full drafting across all sections
CPA-led budget build support + sustainability narrative
Attachments coordination list + templates
Compliance quality assurance + submission support
3 review rounds included
Tier 5 — Strategic / Complex Grants (Program design + governance)
$12,500–$35,000+ (quoted)
Turnaround: typically 3–6+ weeks
Best for major/strategic bids (e.g., state/federal, multi-partner).
Includes:
Multiple workshops (logic/outcomes/evidence/deliverables)
Logic model + M&E plan (indicators, reporting)
Governance + risk framework (CPA-led as needed)
Partner/consortium coordination pack
Red-team style review + final quality assurance
Add Ons (Apply to any Tier)
Use these to tailor a tier when extra scope is needed.
Triage / bid‑no‑bid (standalone): $650–$1,500 (ex GST)
Budget build / costing workshop (CPA‑led): $950–$3,500 (ex GST)
Logic model + KPI framework: $1,200–$4,500 (ex GST)
Evidence pack development: $1,500–$8,000 (ex GST)
Rush loading: +25% (tight) to +50% (very tight) (subject to capacity)
Important Notes
Rush loading: +25% (tight) to +50% (very tight).
Review rounds are capped per tier (keeps scope predictable).
Timeframes (please read before booking)
Timeframes depend on readiness (how quickly you can supply financials, policies, impact data, etc.).
To keep quality high and avoid deadline blow-outs, we work to a minimum lead time of at least 10 business days before the application due date (although earlier is better). This may increase for projects with increased scope.
If your grant is due in less than 10 business days, we may decline the work or offer it only as rush work (subject to capacity and rush loading).
Our Approach
A simple process that reduces stress
Fit call (15 minutes) — confirm eligibility, timelines, and scope
Intake — you provide documents via a checklist
Response grid + plan — map requirements to evidence
Draft + review — structured drafting, collaborative feedback
Submission-ready handover — final checks + attachments list + next steps
Frequently Asked Questions
Providing answers to frequently asked questions related to grants or our services.
We work best when we can start with clean inputs and a clear decision-maker.
At minimum, we’ll ask for:
A link to the current guidelines (and any templates/attachments)
The closing date/time (and time zone) + submission method/portal link
Basic organisation info: purpose/mission, programs, target group, track record
Evidence you can stand behind: numbers, outcomes, evaluations, testimonials/quotes (with consent)
Budget inputs: quotes/costs, staffing assumptions, co-contributions, and any in-kind details
A nominated approver (one person who can resolve conflicting feedback)
If it’s a Tier 2–4 application job, we’ll also need:
Your existing draft (if you have one)
Any mandatory policies/insurances, governance docs, and prior acquittals (where relevant)
Partner details + letter-of-support contacts (if applicable)
How to keep things on track
Provide inputs in one batch by the agreed cutoff
Consolidate stakeholder feedback into one set of comments per review round
Turnaround depends on the tier, the funder’s requirements, and how quickly we receive your inputs.
Rule of thumb (best fit)
We generally only accept work where the deadline is at least 10 business days away at kickoff, so we can do the job properly.
Typical ranges by tier
Tier 1 (DIY Toolkit + Triage): 2–5 business days (from receiving the guidelines + basic org info)
Tier 2 (Review + Polish): 3–7 business days (from receiving a complete draft)
Tier 3 (Co-write): 7–12 business days (from receiving inputs and confirming scope)
Tier 4 (Done-for-you): 10–20 business days (depends on attachments, stakeholder approvals, and evidence maturity)
Tier 5 (Strategic/Complex): typically 3–8+ weeks (quoted)
What speeds things up
A single decision-maker for approvals
Inputs provided in one batch by the agreed cutoff
Clean versions of guidelines/templates and any mandatory attachments
What slows things down
Missing or late inputs, multiple stakeholders providing piecemeal feedback
Changes to the project after drafting starts
Grant round/guideline changes or new mandatory attachments
We’ll confirm the proposed timeline at the fit call and again after intake, once we can see the actual requirements.
A review round is one complete feedback cycle: we send the client a draft and one consolidated set of feedback is returned. We then apply the changes and return the updated draft.
Consolidated feedback is one email or annotated document that combines all stakeholder feedback, with one client contact or decision maker to resolve conflicting comments.
What is not included in a review round:
Multiple separate stakeholder emails at different times.
Re-scoping the project (new activities, new partners, new attachments)
Ongoing tweaks following final approval.
Why we define this:
It protects deadlines and prevents rework.
Extra cycles beyond included rounds trigger change control top ups or requotes.
If the funder updates the guidelines, templates, portal questions, scoring criteria, or the client decides to apply in a different round after we’ve started, we treat that as a scope change.
What we do immediately
Confirm the new round details (link to updated guidelines + closing date/time).
Identify what has changed (questions, word limits, attachments, budget rules, partner requirements, etc.).
Produce a short change impact note: what can be reused, what must be reworked, and the new risks to timeline.
What can usually be reused
Organisation background and capability statements
Program description (if activities/outcomes haven’t changed)
Evidence and case studies (subject to relevance)
What often needs rework
Criteria mapping / response grid
Project plan framing and “win themes”
Budget structure and narrative (if caps/categories/eligibility change)
Attachments list and templates (letters of support, declarations, quotes)
Cost + timeline
We’ll confirm whether it’s a small adjustment or requires a top‑up / re‑quote.
If the new round creates meaningful rework or compresses timelines, additional fees may apply (including rush loading where relevant).
Your decision point
If the change materially reduces feasibility (timing, eligibility, evidence, partner sign‑off), we’ll recommend a clear go / no‑go so you don’t spend time and money on a low‑probability submission.
We’re focused on grant strategy, writing, and budgets — and we keep scope tight so deadlines don’t blow out.
We don’t
Guarantee funding outcomes (we improve quality and alignment, but funders decide)
Submit false or unverifiable claims, or use testimonials/stories without consent
Create legal advice (e.g., constitution changes, complex contracts) — we can flag issues and suggest you get appropriate advice
Provide full bookkeeping/audit services (we can support budgeting assumptions and financial narratives; accounting remains your responsibility)
Manage ongoing project delivery after funding (unless separately agreed)
Chase multiple stakeholders for approvals or accept piecemeal feedback outside agreed review rounds
Take on last-minute work with unrealistic lead times (unless explicitly agreed as rush work)
If something falls outside scope, we’ll be clear early and either propose an add-on/top-up or recommend the right next step.
To protect your organisation and the integrity of the application, we follow a simple conflict-of-interest approach:
We’ll ask upfront about any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts (e.g., board/staff connections to the funder, partner organisation relationships, supplier ties).
If we identify a conflict, we’ll disclose it early, document it (if needed), and agree a mitigation plan (e.g., independent review, separation of roles, written declarations).
We don’t accept work where we can’t remain independent and ethical—for example, where we’re asked to influence decisions improperly or conceal relevant relationships.
If a conflict emerges mid-project, we may pause delivery until it’s resolved, and in some cases withdraw from the engagement (with any completed work handed over).
Where required, we’ll help you prepare the conflict-of-interest wording for the application, based on the facts you provide.
Get in touch
Please provide your details below along with your message and we'll reply as soon as possible.
Grant Sense
Tips and tricks to find and follow through with the right grant for your organisation.
