Turning down grant applications is one of the most common activities in grantmaking — most grant programmes fund a minority of applications received. How funders handle declinations matters enormously: for the relationships they maintain with the sector, for the trust they build with applicants, and for the signal they send about how they value the communities they serve.
A thoughtful declination process treats unsuccessful applicants with respect, provides useful information, and leaves the relationship intact for future engagement. A careless process damages relationships and reputation — and in a small sector, that damage is lasting.
Most applicants won't receive a grant: In competitive grant rounds, typical success rates range from 20-50%. That means for every grant made, at least one — often two or three — organisations are declined. The experience of the declined majority is important.
Applicants invest significantly in applications: A grant application may represent many hours of staff or volunteer time. An applicant who has invested substantially in an application deserves a response that acknowledges that investment.
Declined applicants are still part of your community: The organisation you declined today may be the strongest applicant in three years. The community members they serve are still part of the community your foundation exists to benefit. The relationship should survive the declination.
Feedback improves the sector: Thoughtful feedback helps organisations improve their work, refine their approaches, and become stronger applicants — for your programme and others.
How you decline affects your reputation: In the community foundation and philanthropy sector, word travels. Funders who decline respectfully and helpfully are trusted; funders who send brief, form rejection letters are criticised.
Promptly after assessment: Applicants should be notified of outcomes promptly after the funding decision is made. Keeping applicants in uncertainty while the funder deliberates over timing is not respectful of their planning needs.
Before publicly announcing successful grants: Nothing is more damaging to a funder's relationships than an applicant learning they were unsuccessful through a press release or social media post before receiving direct communication.
With sufficient notice for planning: If an organisation has been declined funding they were counting on, they need to know soon enough to adjust their plans — find alternative funding, scale back activities, or make staffing decisions. Three months' notice is often minimum for significant declined grants.
Direct acknowledgment of the decision: Don't bury the lead. The communication should clearly state, early on, that the application was not successful in this round.
Genuine appreciation for the application: If the application was strong — and many declined applications are good — say so. "Your application was strong but we received more fundable applications than we had resources for" is more honest and respectful than a form letter.
The reason for declination: At a minimum, applicants deserve to know the category of reason — ineligible, outside current priorities, strong competition, concerns about the application. Ideally, more specific feedback.
Whether reapplication is possible: Can the applicant apply in the next round? Under what conditions? Are there changes that would make a future application stronger?
Contact for questions: A named contact who can discuss the decision if the applicant has questions.
Ineligible applications: Applications that don't meet eligibility criteria should be declined early in the process, before significant assessment time is invested, with a clear explanation of which criteria weren't met. Early declination of ineligible applications respects both the applicant's time and the funder's resources.
Outside current priorities: Applications from legitimate organisations for legitimate activities that simply don't fit the current programme focus need honest explanation — "we're not currently funding X" rather than vague statements about competition.
Strong applications in competitive rounds: Applications that were assessed well but didn't make the cut due to competition deserve explicit acknowledgment that they were competitive. "Your application scored highly but we received more fundable applications than we had funds for" is genuinely useful information.
Applications with significant concerns: Where the application raised concerns about organisational capacity, financial position, governance, or programme design, feedback on those concerns is more valuable than vague rejection. "We had concerns about X — here's what would need to be different for a future application to be fundable" is a genuine service to the organisation.
Repeat unsuccessful applicants: An organisation applying for the fourth time with consistently unsuccessful results needs honest feedback about whether the programme is ever likely to fund them — rather than continuing to invest in applications that will fail.
Offer feedback, don't require it to be requested: Making applicants ask for feedback creates a barrier. Proactively offering feedback — "we're happy to discuss this further if useful; please contact X" — signals openness without overwhelming the programme with feedback conversations.
Tailor feedback to the application: Generic feedback ("we received many strong applications") is less useful than specific feedback ("your outcomes framework could be strengthened by identifying leading indicators alongside lagging ones"). Specific feedback is harder to write but more valuable.
Be honest but constructive: Honest feedback about weaknesses in an application is more useful than diplomatic vagueness. "Your budget seemed high relative to the programme you described" is more actionable than "we had questions about your budget."
Don't raise criteria that weren't decisive: If an application was declined primarily because of strong competition, don't construct post-hoc quality concerns to justify the decision. Applicants will see through this and trust will be damaged.
Some applicants will want to appeal a declination. An appeals process provides legitimate recourse for applicants who believe the process was flawed — while protecting the integrity of the assessment process from attempts to relitigate legitimate decisions.
What makes an appeal valid: A valid appeal is about process — the applicant was not treated consistently with the guidelines, relevant information was not considered, there was a conflict of interest that wasn't declared. A valid appeal is NOT simply disagreement with the assessment outcome.
What makes an appeal invalid: An applicant who believes their application deserved a higher score, or that the assessors didn't understand their work, or that other funded applications were weaker — these are not grounds for appeal.
An appeal policy: Publish a clear appeals policy that specifies who can appeal, on what grounds, through what process, within what timeframe. Apply the policy consistently.
Appeals decisions: Have appeal decisions made by someone who wasn't involved in the original assessment. Document the appeal and the decision. Communicate the outcome promptly.
A good declination doesn't end the relationship:
Tahua's grants management platform supports professional declination communication with configurable templates, personalised feedback workflows, and applicant communication tracking that ensures every applicant receives a timely, appropriate response to their application.