Can charities use AI to write grant applications?
Last checked 25 September 2026
Yes. We read what 15 UK funders publish on this, and not one forbids a charity from using AI to prepare an application; eight say in writing that you may (each funder's own page, read 25 September 2026).
The conditions, in short
The conditions are few and they are clear. Two research funders bar an application, or parts of one, produced by AI with no person involved. One grant-maker asks you to name the tools. Four have published nothing. Each one is below, with its own words and where to read them.
Can we use it?
Yes, at every funder that has said anything at all (the 11 of 15 that publish a view, 25 September 2026).
Their words differ, their position does not. The National Lottery Community Fund: "You can use AI tools to help write your funding application." Esmée Fairbairn Foundation calls it "a decision for individual organisations to take". Across a wider set of funders, IVAR found that "almost all funders accept (or do not penalise) the use of AI" (IVAR, Trust and AI, June 2026).
In return, most ask that the application stays true and sounds like you (their pages, in the rows below).
Four public funders that say yes
Both National Lottery funds, Arts Council England and Sport England say you may use AI (their pages, read 25 September 2026).
| Says | Tell them | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The National Lottery Community FundPermits it | "You can use AI tools to help write your funding application." | Not required. | tnlcommunityfund.org.uk, "Using artificial intelligence tools in funding applications". |
| The National Lottery Heritage FundPermits it | "AI can support you to develop funding applications". | Not required. | heritagefund.org.uk/funding/using-ai, as also reported by the Museums Association, June 2025. |
| Arts Council EnglandPermits it | applicants "may choose to use generative AI to support the drafting of an application". | Not required, as reported. | its AI position statement, June 2025, as quoted by the Museums Association. |
| Sport EnglandPermits it | it "will accept applications" where "you have used AI technologies". | Not required. | sportengland.org/ai-position-statement, updated May 2026. |
Four foundations that say yes
Esmée Fairbairn, Paul Hamlyn, Lloyds Bank Foundation and Henry Smith all say you may use AI too (their own pages, read 25 September 2026).
| Says | Tell them | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Esmée Fairbairn FoundationPermits it | "we have no preference." | Not required. | esmeefairbairn.org.uk, "How we're using AI tools". |
| Paul Hamlyn FoundationPermits it | using AI does not count against you; you stay "responsible for the accuracy and honesty" of what you send. | Not at application. Grant holders acknowledge AI output in their reporting. | phf.org.uk/using-ai-in-your-work-with-us. |
| Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and WalesPermits it | it understands if you use AI "in writing your funding or job application". | Not required. | lloydsbankfoundation.org.uk/about-us/ai-position-statement, updated November 2024. |
| The Henry Smith CharityPermits it | "We welcome the thoughtful use of AI in applications". | Not required. | henrysmith.foundation, Together We Begin FAQ. |
The three that set a condition
Three of the 15 allow AI with a condition attached: name it, or keep a person in the writing (their own pages, read 25 September 2026).
| Says | Tell them | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| City Bridge FoundationAsks you to declare it | "Be transparent" about the tools you used, and why. | Yes. | citybridgefoundation.org.uk/funding/how-to-apply. |
| UK Research and InnovationLimits how far it can go | applicants must not generate an application, or "sections of an application, without human involvement". | Expected for real use; not for spelling, translation or layout. | ukri.org, generative AI in application preparation and assessment policy. |
| The Wellcome TrustLimits how far it can go | "outputs from generative AI tools in funding applications should be acknowledged". | Yes, as good practice. | wellcome.org, joint statement on generative AI, revised June 2026. |
The four that say nothing
Four of the 15 publish nothing about AI in applications, on any page we could read (25 September 2026).
| Says | Tell them | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comic ReliefPublishes nothing either way | Nothing on its funding pages. | No rule published. | comicrelief.com/funding/funding-opportunities. |
| Garfield Weston FoundationPublishes nothing either way | Nothing in its application questions and answers. | No rule published. | garfieldweston.org, application FAQs. |
| Joseph Rowntree FoundationPublishes nothing either way | Nothing; "Most of our funding is by invitation". | No rule published. | jrf.org.uk/funding. |
| Trust for LondonPublishes nothing either way | Nothing in its funding questions and answers. | No rule published. | trustforlondon.org.uk, funding FAQs. |
Do we have to tell them?
Only where the funder asks: of these 15, one grant-maker requires it and two research funders expect it (City Bridge, UKRI and Wellcome, above).
The other eight that permit AI do not ask you to say so (their own pages, read 25 September 2026). Paul Hamlyn Foundation asks for it later, from grant holders, in their reports (phf.org.uk).
Rules move. Sport England's statement was updated in May 2026 and Wellcome's in June 2026 (their own pages). Read the funder's current guidance on the day you apply, not the day you started drafting.
What "declare" means in practice
It means one or two plain sentences saying which tools you used and for what (City Bridge asks for "what tools you used and why"; a UK Space Agency scheme asks "which tool was used and in what capacity", gov.uk, September 2026).
A useful declaration names the tool, the job it did, and who checked the result. For example: "We used an AI tool to summarise our evaluation data and tidy the wording. Every figure and every sentence was checked by our director."
UKRI draws the line on scale: help with spelling, translation or layout needs no declaration; help with ideas, analysis or drafting does (ukri.org).
What is risky?
Four risks, and each one is named by a funder on its own page (read 25 September 2026).
"AI can sometimes generate incorrect or misleading information" (National Lottery Community Fund). Henry Smith says AI-written applications "can include incorrect facts".
"It is often noticeable when AI has been over-relied on" (Lloyds Bank Foundation).
Free tools "may store data you input" (National Lottery Community Fund). City Bridge: "Protect privacy".
Where a funder asks, undeclared use can cost the grant: one UK Space Agency scheme lists "withholding funds, grant suspension or termination" (gov.uk).
What should our policy be?
A short one, agreed by your trustees, built from what funders already ask (City Bridge's seven expectations and the policies above).
- Name the tools your team may use.
- Keep personal data about beneficiaries, donors and staff out of free AI tools (National Lottery Community Fund; City Bridge).
- A named person checks every fact and every figure before anything is sent (City Bridge: "you're accountable for the content, accuracy and originality").
- Declare whenever a funder asks, and keep a note of what each tool did so you can.
- Read each funder's guidance again before each application.
What if the funder says nothing?
Silence is not a ban, and it does not take away your duty: the application must still be accurate and your own, which is what the funders that have spoken ask (their pages, read 25 September 2026).
So treat a silent funder like the careful ones. Check every fact, keep your own voice, and keep a note of which tools you used. If you are unsure, ask the funder before you apply. Arts Council England put the principle plainly: applicants "are accountable for what they submit" (as quoted by the Museums Association, June 2025).
Where we fit
With your charity still decides, approves and sends every application in its own name; we prepare it (our AI standard).
We never write to a funder (our AI standard). Each draft carries the source of every claim in it (our AI standard), so when a funder asks what AI did, your answer can be exact. The companies whose tools touch your work are named on our sub-processor list.
How we read the funders
The 15 are the funders on our home page, each read at its own published page on 25 September 2026 (the evidence is kept with the date and the link for every row).
Our wider list had 20 names. Five are left out here: four make no grants of their own (The Big Give, the Association of Charitable Foundations, 360Giving, and a name that turned out not to exist), and one is a UK Space Agency research scheme, not a charity funder (gov.uk). Its rule, to declare the tools, is quoted above.
Where a funder's page would not open for us, the quote comes from a named report of that page, and the row says so.
Want an application prepared this way for your charity? Book a call.