AI-use policy template for grant proposals
An AI-use policy for grant work says which AI tools staff and faculty may use on proposals, what may never be entered into them, who reviews AI-assisted text and how the institution answers a funder that asks. Keep it to one page. Universities, nonprofits and companies can all adapt the sections below.
Funders have started publishing their own rules. NIH, for example, will not treat applications substantially developed by AI as original work. An institution without a policy leaves each writer to work that out alone. A short policy written once gives every proposal team the same answer.
Free to copy and adapt. Square brackets mark what you replace. Nothing here is tied to a particular funder. Read each funder's guidelines for required headings, page limits and attachments before you paste a finished draft into their application form.
The template
Purpose and scope
Say who the policy covers and which work it applies to.
This policy covers the use of AI tools by [staff, faculty and students] on grant applications, reports and related documents prepared for [institution name].
Approved tools
Name the tools. A short list is easier to protect and easier to explain to a funder.
The following tools are approved for grant work: [tool names]. Other tools may be used only with approval from [role].
What never goes in
Be specific. People follow a list more readily than a principle.
No one may enter the following into any AI tool: personal data about clients, patients, students or donors; confidential partner material; unpublished research data; export-controlled information; reviewer comments received under confidentiality.
Human review
Name a role, not a person, so the policy outlives staff changes.
A named reviewer reads every AI-assisted section before submission. The reviewer checks each figure and citation against its source. The principal investigator or project lead approves the final text.
Funder rules
Each funder's own rules take priority over this policy.
Before drafting, the proposal lead checks the funder's published AI policy. Where a funder restricts or forbids AI use, its rules apply. Questions go to [office or role].
Disclosure
Keep one standard description ready for any funder that asks.
When a funder asks how AI was used, we answer with this statement: [standard description of how the institution uses AI in grant work].
Ownership and review
Give the policy an owner and a date.
Policy owner: [role]
Last reviewed: [date]
Next review: [date, or sooner if a major funder changes its rules]
Skip the blank page
Quillify drafts from your institution's own documents. Those documents stay scoped to your organization. Every final decision stays with a person. Your content is not used to train foundation models. That makes Quillify simple to name as an approved tool for funder research, eligibility checks and first drafts.
Questions people ask
Do we need an AI policy for grant applications?
If anyone on your team uses AI tools on proposals, a written policy protects the institution. It tells writers what is allowed. It also gives you a consistent answer when a funder asks.
Who should own a university's AI policy for proposals?
Usually the research office or sponsored programs, working with IT security and the general counsel. Departments can add stricter rules of their own.
Related guides: How to write your organization's AI policy for grant work. How funders treat AI in grant applications. What to say when a funder asks how you used AI. Can I use AI on an NIH grant application?. All free templates.
Let Quillify write the first draft.
Browsing and keyword search cost nothing. There's no card to enter.