If the Proposal Is Denied …
No one likes to hear the bad news, but the truth is that hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of applications for funding are denied for every one that is granted. Often the funder will tell you in the declination — and for that matter, the congratulatory — letter how many responses they received to the RFP. You'll see statements such as, “Of 378 applications, we were only able to select the twenty-eight that scored 92 points and above.” That should provide some measure of comfort to you.
It is possible to get rejected several times by different foundations as you search for funding for a particular program, but don't give up. If you have a good program, you will eventually be able to find the perfect fit between your project and a funder.
The good news is that you can try again — both with another type of proposal and, frequently, by resubmitting the failed proposal when the opportunity presents itself again.
There are several reasons that a proposal can be denied, including the most obvious and usual — that it did not score high enough to be in the top portion of projects submitted. Other reasons are not so obvious. For instance, proposals can be turned down because of any of the following:
The client received a grant recently from the same funder, and the funder wishes to give others a better chance, even though it likes the project you are proposing.
It's not your turn. Some grants, particularly those that are provided annually by states, appear to be distributed based on a rotating system of every three or four years.
The organization did poorly on a past evaluation or failed to comply with the grant agreement on a past grant, even if the grant was from a different funder — don't forget, they often communicate with each other!
The funder has a political agenda. Unfortunately, this often comes into play, particularly in state grants where one geographic area of the state is continuously favored over another. It may be only because that area has stronger representation or lobbyists.
The project did not fit the guidelines closely enough.
Your community does not have the highest incidence of need, compared to most others.
The funder's priorities shifted or the program emphases changed between the time you submitted the proposal and the time it made grants.
A similar project was just funded in your specific geographic area. It's unlikely a national funder will invest in two projects to serve the same general population.
You failed to follow the directions. In this case, of course, you won't be able to help but blame yourself. But you will learn from it, and be more careful next time.
Local foundations often will tell you what went wrong in the decisionmaking process during the trustee meeting. There is little you can do unless foundation staff give you some tips about reframing your proposal and invite you to resubmit the proposal.
In the case of state and federal grants especially, the first thing to do about a failed grant is to request reviewer comments if they were not shipped with the declination letter. Send a letter to the granting agency on your organization's letterhead. Include the number of the program, the date of the proposal deadline, and a polite request for reviewer comments and scoring.
Reviewer comments can range from a sheet of criteria with a square for a score and two lines per criteria for comments, to several full pages of narrative reviewer comments on each section of the proposal.
Reviewer comments are critical to helping you improve your grantwriting skills. Even if the organization isn't interested in reapplying, you'll benefit from reviewing the comments on the proposal. It will give you insight on how to improve your chances with other grant requests in the future.
You'll find that if there were three reviewers, scores and comments will differ, sometimes drastically, between them. Where one reviewer might give you full points for a section and make no suggestions for improvement, another may cut your points by half and find fault with nearly everything you've done. Then they seem to switch views in the next section of the proposal. Your final total proposal scores from each reviewer, however, should fall within a few points of each other.
You may not contest low scores — even in the rare instance that only one of your reviewers has scored the proposal poorly. However, these comments are invaluable as a roadmap for strengthening your next attempt.
Following is a compilation of reviewer comments from one Small Business Innovation and Research (SBIR) grant review. Note how some appear contradictory.
Strengths
Could be a clear advance in prosthetics
If successful, this work would be significant
Weaknesses
Idea is not new
Wide body of literature not addressed
Literature on specific control devices not referenced
Market overestimated
Price seems low
Unrealistic workload
Suggest first demonstrate technical feasibility of concept
You will have several months to absorb reviewer comments and contemplate how you will address their concerns in your next attempt. When you sit down to rewrite the proposal, ignore the strengths, or positive comments and address the weaknesses.
Some very technical grants, like the SBIR, require you, on a second application, to respond directly to reviewer comments and state how you've addressed the concerns they had with the project when it was first presented. However, most of the time, you will use the reviewer comments to improve your proposal in a much-less structured way. In the previous example, a resubmission will require the writer to research further the literature on prosthetics and prosthetic control devices. He or she will have to work closely with a financial expert or business consultant to develop more realistic market estimates and potential pricing. Then, the writer will have to work on the project plan, reducing it to something that can be accomplished in a shorter time. Or, as an alternative, the writer might encourage the inventor to do as much as he or she can prior to resubmitting the grant so the entire experiment is further along and he or she can limit the project plan to a technical feasibility study.
Focus specifically on reviewer comments and address each throughout the revision — even if only one reviewer cited the topic as a weakness and another complimented it. If the evaluation section was weak, take it to the local university and speak with a professional evaluator. If the need section was weak, locate more data to support your case. If the project description requires more detail, work with project staff to strengthen the approach.
As a general rule of thumb, one revision and resubmission is mandatory with the permission of your client or employer. A second, if your revision is denied, is all right. If the second revision is also turned down, however, you may need to look at developing an entirely new project. Clearly, the weaknesses lie with what you are proposing, not how you are proposing it.
