30 Phrases That Strengthen UK Grant Applications (and 15 to Delete)

30 Phrases That Strengthen UK Grant Applications

A working dictionary for UK charity fundraisers — 30 phrases that make grant applications credible, 15 that make them weak.

Last reviewed: 03/06/2026 · By Ivan Siyanko, CEO, CharityIQ.

TL;DR. Grant applications fail more often on weak phrasing than weak projects. Strongest phrases are specific, measurable, attributable, humble. Weakest are vague, abstract, self-praising. 30 to use, 15 to delete, plus verbs that work.

Why phrasing matters

Funders read hundreds of applications. “We are passionate about” almost always precedes generic content. “78% of participants reported… (n=64)” almost always precedes credible outcomes. We covered the structural side in How to Write a Winning UK Grant Application. This post is the editing dictionary.

30 phrases that strengthen applications

Need section

1. “[Specific source, year]” — every claim cited. 2. “Within [area], rate is X — vs Y nationally” — local context. 3. “We’ve supported [N] [type] in last 12 months” — track record. 4. “[Number] are on our waiting list” — unmet need. 5. “[Partner] referrals grew from X to Y” — third-party evidence. 6. “[Beneficiary quote, with consent]” — lived experience. 7. “[Council/NHS/academic] data confirms [trend]” — triangulation.

Activities section

8. “Twice-weekly, 35 weeks per year” — specific frequency. 9. “[Specific staff] will deliver, supported by [X] trained volunteers” — capacity. 10. “Cohorts of [N] across [M] sessions” — sizing. 11. “Funder-eligible costs [list]; co-funded items [list]” — precise grant scope. 12. “Builds on [previous programme] which served [N] with [outcome]” — continuity.

Outcomes section

13. “[N]% of [participants] will report [change], measured by [validated tool]” — measurable + tool-named. 14. “Baseline at intake; follow-up at 6 months” — pre/post design. 15. “Validated [Rosenberg / UCLA / WEMWBS / Outcomes Star] scale” — rigour signalled. 16. “Conservative target: [N]%, based on [previous cohort]” — realistic. 17. “n = [X] respondents” — sample size disclosed. 18. “[Beneficiary] reported [change]; we’ll evidence with [method]”.

Budget section

19. “Coordinator role: 0.6 FTE @ £[salary] + 22.6% on-costs” — exact calculation. 20. “Material costs based on [supplier] quote — £[X] per session” — sourced unit costs. 21. “Indirect cost recovery: 10% of direct costs” — named methodology. 22. “Match funding committed: £[X] from [source]” — co-funding evidenced. 23. “Evaluation: external review at £[X]” — itemised.

Monitoring & Evaluation

24. “Quarterly review against targets; learning shared at funder check-in” — regular cycle. 25. “External evaluator [name] will validate findings” — third-party credibility. 26. “Findings published in [annual report / sector publication]” — public learning. 27. “Where targets are missed, we’ll review and report honestly” — acknowledging risk.

Sustainability

28. “Year 2 funding pipeline: [committed sources, in negotiation]” — specific. 29. “Volunteer model keeps marginal costs low” — sustainable. 30. “If funding not secured, programme would scale down to [N]” — honest fallback.

15 phrases to delete on sight

1. “We are passionate about…” 2. “Innovative, transformative, groundbreaking” 3. “Robust monitoring framework” 4. “Holistic approach” 5. “We will leverage…” 6. “Going forward” 7. “Strategic partnerships” (without naming them) 8. “Empower [beneficiary group]” 9. “Our community” (without defining) 10. “We are uniquely positioned to…” 11. “Our innovative approach…” 12. “Industry-leading” 13. “We hope to…” 14. “Up to N participants” 15. “We will seek further funding” (everyone says this).

Verbs that work, and verbs that don’t

Work: Deliver, recruit, train, match, support, evaluate, report, publish, partner, refer, signpost, document, measure, present, replicate, scale, transition — describe specific, observable actions.

Don’t work: Empower, leverage, transform, harness, drive, unlock, enhance, optimise, unleash, journey, engage (when used vaguely) — abstract intentions, corporate jargon.

Substitution rule: when you write “leverage”, try replacing with “use”. If “use” works, your sentence got clearer. If “use” doesn’t work, the sentence wasn’t really saying anything.

From CharityIQ. Our drafts flag weak phrases and suggest stronger alternatives — based on the funder’s published priorities and your charity’s data. Every replacement grounded, not guessed. Try grounded grant writing →

Worked before/after example

Before: “Our charity is passionate about empowering young people in our community. Through our innovative, holistic approach, we will leverage strategic partnerships to deliver transformative outcomes. We hope to engage up to 50 young people, going forward.”

After: “Sample Town Council Youth Service has confirmed that referrals to mentoring services have grown by 60% since 2024. We will recruit, DBS-check, and train 14 additional adult mentors across four cohorts in 2026. By month 12, we will have at least 28 mentor-mentee pairs active (baseline: 22). 75% of young people in 6+ month relationships will report increased confidence on the validated Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (baseline at intake; follow-up at month 6).”

Same project. The first paragraph could be from any charity, anywhere. The second commits to specific, measurable, time-bound work.

When to break these rules

Letter of introduction, major donor proposals, sector-specific conventions, crisis appeals — tone shifts, but underlying principles hold: be specific, be honest, be measurable.

FAQ

Q: Should AI write our grant applications? AI is good at first drafts. Raw ChatGPT defaults to weak phrases. Sector-specific grounded AI produces better drafts.

Q: How long should an application be? As long as the funder asks for, no longer.

Q: Most important section? Outcomes. Strong phrases here matter most.

What to do next

1. Take your most recent draft and run a phrase audit. Strike through every “delete on sight” phrase. Replace with closest “phrases that work” equivalent. 2. Save this list as a personal reference. Habit forms within 3-4 applications.

Stronger drafts in 12 minutes. Start a free 14-day CharityIQ trial. Join Waitlist →

Written by Ivan Siyanko, founder of CharityIQ.

Related: How to Write a Winning UK Grant Application · Theory of Change Template · Grants for Small UK Charities