Should Nonprofits Disclose AI Use in Grant Proposals?

Nonprofits are increasingly using artificial intelligence to research funders, summarize guidelines, organize program information and draft grant proposals.

That raises a difficult question: should applicants tell funders when AI helped create the proposal?

There is no universal rule. Some funders may permit AI-assisted writing, others may restrict it, and many have not established a clear policy.

Disclosure Depends on the Funder’s Rules

Review grant guidelines for language concerning artificial intelligence, automated writing tools, original authorship, confidential information, outside consultants, certification of accuracy, intellectual property and data security.

If a funder requires disclosure, follow the instruction exactly. If it prohibits AI-generated content, using it secretly creates a compliance problem.

Candid surveyed grantmakers about AI-generated applications and found considerable uncertainty. Many funders did not know whether they had received AI-assisted proposals, while only a minority had established a definite position. Read Candid’s findings.

Not Every Use Requires Formal Disclosure

Using AI to correct grammar, improve readability, shorten a paragraph, create an outline, reorganize approved information, check whether every question was answered or summarize public guidelines may be comparable to using editing software.

Formal disclosure may be unnecessary unless the funder requests it.

Disclosure Becomes More Important When AI Shapes the Substance

Disclosure deserves stronger consideration when AI develops program design, generates an evaluation plan, recommends budget assumptions, produces needs-assessment claims, creates descriptions of community conditions, writes substantial sections with minimal revision or analyzes confidential data.

A brief disclosure could state:

“Generative AI was used to assist with outlining and editing. All program details, financial information and claims were reviewed and approved by authorized staff.”

Accuracy Remains the Applicant’s Responsibility

AI may invent statistics, citations, community data, partnerships, program outcomes, regulatory requirements and budget details.

The Grant Professionals Association describes AI as a productivity tool while emphasizing that professional judgment, relationships and ethical responsibility remain human obligations. Review the GPA statement.

Protect Confidential Information

Grant proposals may contain sensitive information involving participants, employees, donors, financial projections, unpublished research, partners, security procedures and proprietary program models.

Staff should not enter this material into an unapproved public AI tool.

Do Not Use AI to Manufacture Credibility

AI should never fabricate community voices, participant quotations, letters of support or partnerships.

Establish an Internal Grant-Writing Policy

Define approved tools, permitted uses, prohibited information, required fact-checking, when disclosure is required, who approves submissions, how AI use is documented and how funder-specific rules are recorded.

Ground Proposals in Approved Knowledge

A secure AI Knowledge Hub such as Maisy helps nonprofits organize approved grant language, program facts, policies and impact statistics within Microsoft 365 and SharePoint.

Maisy does not write or approve grants independently. It provides the trusted organizational knowledge required to keep proposals accurate.

In every case, the organization remains responsible for the truth, ethics and integrity of what it submits.