How to send better grant rejections
We regretfully write to inform you that until there is more money in the world than there are grantseekers seeking it, your job as a grantmaker is going to involve a certain amount of saying ‘no’. And by 'a certain amount' we mean 'a depressingly huge amount'.
Last year we wrote a newsletter that was about the importance of giving feedback when you reject a grant application. We even made the case that it may be worth fractionally reducing the total number of grants your organisation makes, if that’s what it takes to give hundreds or even thousands of unsuccessful applicants a year some amount of meaningful information that they can use to plan their next steps.
Today we thought we’d supply some more rapid fire DO's and DON'Ts on the writing of rejections: the least favourite part of every grantmakers life.
DO say ‘no’ quickly. Every day or week you make an applicant wait for your message is a day or week that their life or their organisational plans might be on pause. Furthermore, the simple stress of waiting for important news definitely takes a toll on people: do you remember waiting for your exam results? Once you know that the verdict is a ‘no’, pass that information on as quickly as you can manage.
DON'T give any impression that the matter is still open, through careless or vague wording. Make sure the applicant knows that the decision is final, for this round. If necessary hand your draft to someone else and ask them "If you really squinted at this, could you read it as a 'maybe'?"
DO make it clear whether the unsuccessful application was rejected because it didn't pass a critical criteria, quality or eligibility threshold, OR whether it was good enough but there just wasn't enough money to award all 'good enough' candidates. If an applicant didn't meet a specific criteria, tell them which and why.
DON’T casually say things about the future like "Better luck next time", because these can set accidental expectations in the minds of the applicant (i.e "There will be a next time"). You should be as clear as you can about whether or not the applicant is welcome to apply again in the near future or not. If the application was rejected on quality or eligibility grounds you should explain that they are likely to be unsuccessful again if they put in the same proposal again.
DO consider implementing two stage application processes, if you don't currently. This means you can get faster rejections to applicants who never really had a chance, and it means the applicants can do less up-front work.
DON’T use your rejection as a way of revealing that there were hidden selection criteria the applicants were not told about when they applied. We have in the very recent past seen rejections that declared “You didn’t meet criteria X” when Criteria X had never previously been shared with the applicant. This makes your organisation look callous and incompetent in equal measure, and is definitely the sort of thing that will lead to funding applicants actively telling other people in their sector not to approach you.
DO share the names of other funders they might consider trying. This is especially important if you know of the existence of relevant funders that they simply might never have heard of. But don't give them the name of a funder you’re pretty sure won’t be interested: each name you provide might well consume large amounts of time as the grantseeker pursues that option.
DON’T decide that you just won’t bother to contact the failed applicant at all, blanking them for good, on the grounds that "they're not getting any money anyway". This is the height of cruelty because you might turn them into the grantseeking equivalent of the soldier who never hears the war is over.
DO put in place ‘self-service’ eligibility checkers on your website or your funding application form so that applicants can discover that they will not be eligible before they’ve taken the time to write an application for you. These kind of checkers have been shown to reduce the number of ineligible applications funders receive, and so they will reduce the number of rejection emails you have to send.
And finally DON’T tell the grantseeker that you don’t have any time to give them any feedback or information about why they weren’t successful. If your boss/trustees insists that your organisation doesn’t have time, show them this. We think this is a rare hill worth dying on.
There's at least one foundation that puts a call-booking link into every rejection letter so you can arrange to speak directly to a grantmaker about the rejection. You might well be thinking "blimey, that would create a lot of work". And you're right, it would. But as funders we create a lot of work for other people simply by existing, by giving off the radiant glow of potential money. Sometimes valuing service as grantmakers just means accepting that funding institutions need to do more work in service of others than the minimum they can get away with. It's a tough argument - spending more time and more money on unsuccessful grantees - but if you ever want to take it up with your trustees, just get in touch.
Got any favourite DOs and DON'Ts on rejection writing you'd like to share with other grantmakers? Drop us a line.
Latest Reading, Watching & Listening - Modern Grantmaking recommends
In this episode of the European Dialogue podcast, Sevda Kilicalp and Nils Luyten from PHILEA – the Philanthropy Europe Association - discuss how democracy in Europe is changing, and what role funders can play in defending and developing it, covering topics such as, how democratic backsliding often takes legal and incremental forms, not always dramatic ones and why philanthropy is essential to democratic resilience and independent civic space. Michael Kavate has written a new article ($) via Inside Philanthropy on ‘Seven climate giving themes six months into Trump’ Said themes include ‘legacy funders with lots of money are the most fearful’ and ‘for billionaires, climate justice is yesterday’s buffet caviar’.
How about a new job or trustee role in grantmaking?
Philea (EU) is hiring for a PEX Coordinator (consultant). Flexible, remote work of approximately 9 workdays or 72 hours per month. Remuneration of a total of 2,000 € per month (incl. taxes). Deadline is 13 August 2025. Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts (UK) is hiring for a Director of Finance. Salary is £113,385. Deadline is 9am, 8 September 2025. Friends Provident Foundation (UK) is hiring for trustees. Voluntary roles. Deadline is 29 September 2025.
Want to see your job ad in next month’s newsletter? Ping us, it’s free! Just… #ShowTheSalary
Grantmaking ‘joke’ of the month
What do you call a funder who likes fish and chips?
A plaice-based donor.
Got any terrible or actually funny grantmaking jokes to share?......tell us.
Have you been forwarded this newsletter? Want to subscribe?
Who are we?
Gemma Bull and Tom Steinberg run Modern Grantmaking, and write this newsletter. We do consulting and training specifically for funders, and wrote a book on how to be a modern grantmaker, too.
