How to Interpret Grantmaker Feedback: Grow and Improve.

The grant world, it often feels like a secret club, doesn’t it? We pour our hearts and souls into proposals, hit that submit button, and then… we wait. Sometimes, that wait ends with a celebration, an award! More often though, it’s a polite “no, thank you.” But here’s the thing: tucked inside those declines, if we’re fortunate, is a golden opportunity: grantmaker feedback. This isn’t just some consolation prize; I see it as a carefully crafted roadmap to success down the line. And yet, I’ve noticed so many of us struggle to truly understand what it means, taking it personally instead of seeing it as a way to grow professionally. So, I want to break down that perception for us, offering a clear, actionable way to interpret grantmaker feedback, turning those rejections into a powerful launchpad for improvement.

Thinking Beyond the “No”: Embracing a Growth Mindset

Before we even dive into the feedback itself, there’s something absolutely essential we need to get straight: having a growth mindset. If we approach feedback defensively, convinced our proposal was perfect as-is, we’re going to completely miss the incredibly valuable lessons hidden within. Grantmakers aren’t trying to punish anyone; they’re genuinely trying to fund the projects that will have the biggest impact and are presented most clearly. So, their feedback? It’s really a collaboration, a way to help us refine our vision and how we present it.

Here’s a tip: Before you even open that feedback email or letter, take a deep breath. It’s okay to feel that initial sting of rejection. Then, consciously shift your internal monologue from “They didn’t get it” to “What can I learn from this?” Set aside a dedicated block of time where you won’t be rushed or distracted. This is important work.

Understanding the Lingo: Breaking Down Common Feedback Themes

Grantmakers use specific terms that, on the surface, seem straightforward, but they can carry a lot of hidden meaning. Learning what these common themes really imply is the first step to getting truly useful insights.

1. “Lack of Alignment with Our Priorities/Mission”

This one comes up a lot, and can feel pretty frustrating because it seems so fundamental. But most of the time, this isn’t about your project being inherently bad. It’s more about a mismatch with what that funder is specifically looking to support at that exact moment.

• What you might think: “Our project isn’t what they fund.”
• What it often really means: This can point to several things:
  • You misunderstood the rules: You genuinely misread or missed a key priority in their Request for Proposals (RFP) or on their website. It happens!
  • Too general, not specific enough: Your project might be too broad, and the funder is searching for something very niche. For example, your proposal on general “youth literacy” might not align with a funder whose focus is “early childhood literacy in rural areas.”
  • Priorities changed: The funder’s focus might have shifted since you last checked, or they’ve already allocated this funding cycle’s money to different types of projects.
  • Your framing was off: Your project does align, but you just didn’t clearly connect it to their priorities in your narrative.
  • Tough competition: Many proposals aligned, but others just did a better job of showing that alignment, or had a stronger, more unique angle that really resonated with what the funder was focusing on right now.
• So, what to do about it?
  1. Go back to the source: Re-read the RFP, their website, and their annual reports very carefully. Do a painstaking line-by-line comparison between your project’s main goals and their stated priorities. Highlight every mention of their mission, values, and the areas where they want to see impact.
  2. Look at who they do fund: If the funder lists past grantees, study those projects. Are they all very local? National? Focused on a specific group, approach, or scale? This gives you incredible insight into what they actually prioritize.
  3. Refine your opening: If your project truly aligns but the feedback says otherwise, the issue is probably in your summary, problem statement, or needs assessment. Did you clearly and immediately explain how your project solves a problem they care about? For future proposals, you need to echo their language and priorities right from the beginning.
  4. Target better next time: If it truly was a fundamental mismatch, this isn’t a problem with your project, but with who you’re pitching it to. Re-evaluate your funder research for future applications.

Let me give you an example: I once saw a writer’s proposal for “community arts education” get feedback saying: “While meritorious, it didn’t align with our focus on arts as economic development.” The writer realized their proposal had really emphasized the social benefits of arts education but barely touched on the job creation or tourism potential – which were crucial for this particular funder. For their next application to that exact funder, they’d re-frame the project to explicitly highlight the economic parts, maybe even bringing in local business partnerships. For other funders, they might stick with focusing on the social benefits.

2. “Lack of Specificity/Detail” or “Vague Project Description”

This feedback is a very direct message about clarity and how thorough you were. Grantmakers need to be able to clearly picture your project; vagueness just creates doubt.

• What you might think: “I didn’t explain it well enough.”
• What it often really means:
  • You assumed too much: You probably thought the reviewer already knew things you didn’t explicitly state.
  • Missing the “how”: You described what you’ll do, but not how you’ll do it, or who will do it, or when.
  • No clear results: You didn’t quantify what you expect to achieve or provide enough measurable ways to track progress.
  • Weak plan: Your proposed activities lacked a clear, well-reasoned plan.
  • Budget wasn’t clear: The budget details didn’t seem to match or support the vague narrative you provided.
• So, what to do about it?
  1. The “Walk-Through” Exercise: Imagine a reviewer knows absolutely nothing about your field. Can they understand your project from start to finish based only on your proposal? Ask a colleague or a friend who isn’t in your field to read it and point out anything confusing.
  2. Drill down on the “how”: For every activity you describe, ask yourself: “How exactly will this happen? Who will do it? What resources are needed? What are the steps?” For instance, instead of “We will conduct workshops,” specify, “We will conduct 8 two-hour interactive workshops for 15 participants each, led by certified trainers John Doe and Jane Smith, using the XYZ curriculum.”
  3. Quantify everything you can: How many people? How often? What percentage increase in knowledge or skill do you expect?
  4. Strengthen your logic model: Make sure there’s a clear, logical flow from the problem to your activities, to your immediate results, to your desired outcomes, and finally to your ultimate impact. Every part needs to connect precisely.
  5. Review the budget narrative: Make sure every single line item in your budget is directly tied to a specific activity and fully explained in your narrative.

Here’s another example: I saw a proposal for “mentoring at-risk youth” get feedback: “The project description lacked specificity regarding the mentoring model and expected participant engagement.” The writer realized they had mentioned “weekly sessions” but didn’t detail: the curriculum used, the qualifications of the mentors, the process for screening mentors and mentees, the topics covered, how long the mentorship would last, or how attendance and engagement would be tracked. For their next version, the writer would create a detailed “Mentoring Program Overview” section, outlining all these operational specifics.

3. “Weak Problem Statement/Needs Assessment” or “Insufficient Justification”

This feedback is a sign that you haven’t convinced the funder there’s a significant, solvable problem that your project is uniquely capable of addressing.

• What you might think: “They don’t think my problem is important.”
• What it often really means:
  • No data: You made general claims without providing specific, verifiable data (local, state, national statistics, research studies, community surveys, etc.).
  • Problem not urgent/severe: You described a problem, but not how urgent or severe it is in the community you serve.
  • The “So what?” factor: You stated a problem but didn’t connect it to bigger societal issues or the funder’s overall goals.
  • Solution looking for a problem: You started with your idea and then tried to find a problem it could solve, instead of identifying a deep need first.
  • Generic language: Using phrases like “many people suffer” instead of quantifying the specific population affected.
• So, what to do about it?
  1. Data, data, data: Gather the most recent, relevant, and credible statistics. Use multiple sources (government agencies, universities, reputable research groups, local surveys). Cite everything.
  2. Make it local: Explain how the general problem appears specifically in your target community or for your specific population. Use compelling stories (with permission and anonymity) if appropriate, but always back them up with data.
  3. Clearly show the “gap”: What existing solutions are failing, or what crucial gap does your project fill that no one else is adequately addressing? Don’t just say there’s a problem; explain why current efforts aren’t solving it.
  4. Connect to bigger issues: Show how your local problem points to a larger systemic issue that aligns with the funder’s interests.
  5. Check your logic: Is there a clear, undeniable flow from the evidence of the problem to your proposed solution? Does your solution directly address the problem you’ve outlined?

One time, I saw this: A proposal for providing access to healthy food in an underserved neighborhood got feedback: “The needs assessment cited general health statistics but didn’t sufficiently demonstrate the specific food access challenges in the target neighborhood.” The writer realized they had quoted national obesity rates but hadn’t researched the number of grocery stores per person in the neighborhood, average income levels, transportation barriers, or the capacity of existing food pantries. For their next draft, the writer would include local health department data, maps showing food desert classifications, and even testimonials from community members about how hard it was to get fresh produce.

4. “Unclear or Unrealistic Outcomes/Evaluation Plan”

This points to a significant weakness in your ability to measure success and actually prove your impact. Funders want to know their investment will lead to clear, demonstrable results.

• What you might think: “I didn’t say what I’d achieve or how I’d measure it well enough.”
• What it often really means:
  • Activities, not changes: You listed what you’ll do (outputs) but not the changes you expect to see (outcomes). “We will conduct 10 workshops” (output) is not the same as “Participants will increase financial literacy by 25%” (outcome).
  • Not SMART: Your outcomes weren’t Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
  • No way to measure: You stated outcomes but didn’t specify how you would collect the data to prove you achieved them.
  • Plan, no method: You said you’d evaluate, but not the specific tools, how often, or who would do the evaluation.
  • Too ambitious: Your proposed outcomes were too big for the grant period or the money you asked for.
  • No sharing plan: You haven’t explained how you’ll share your results.
• So, what to do about it?
  1. Make outcomes SMARTer: For every project goal, define 2-3 SMART outcomes. Ask yourself: “What change do I want to see? For whom? By when? How will I know it happened?”
  2. Identify clear indicators: For each outcome, brainstorm 2-3 measurable indicators. These are the specific pieces of data you’ll collect. (For example, if your Outcome = “Participants increase financial literacy,” your Indicators could be: “Pre/post test scores,” “Completion of a savings plan,” “Reduction in credit card debt.”)
  3. Develop a strong data collection plan: Detail the who, what, when, where, and how of data collection. What surveys? Focus groups? Pre/post tests? Observation? When will data be collected? Who is responsible for it?
  4. Outline your evaluation methodology: Will you use quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, or both? What software or tools? Who will conduct the evaluation (internal staff, an external evaluator)?
  5. Address long-term impact: Even after the grant ends, how will the positive changes continue?

Let me give you a concrete example: A proposal for a career readiness program for high school students received feedback: “The proposed outcomes were too general, and the evaluation plan lacked specific measurement tools.” The writer’s original outcome was “Students will be better prepared for careers.” The revised version, after taking the feedback into account, might include:
* Outcome 1: “By the end of the 12-week program, 80% of participating students will demonstrate a 20% increase in career readiness knowledge as measured by pre/post program assessments.” Indicator: Scores on a standardized career readiness assessment.
* Outcome 2: “Within 3 months of program completion, 60% of participating students will have identified a post-secondary education or career path.” Indicator: Post-program survey responses and follow-up interviews.
* Evaluation Plan: Detail the specific assessment tool (e.g., “Career Trait Inventory”), the survey questions, the interview protocol, the timeline for data collection, and the external evaluator contracted for analysis.

5. “Budget Issues: Unjustified, Unrealistic, or Not Tied to Activities”

The budget is so much more than just numbers; it’s a financial story that needs to perfectly support your programmatic story. Problems here always raise a red flag about financial responsibility.

• What you might think: “My numbers are off.”
• What it often really means:
  • No detailed explanation: You listed an item (e.g., “Equipment: $5,000”) but didn’t explain what equipment, why it’s needed, or how you came up with that cost.
  • Mismatch with what you said you’d do: An activity described in your narrative isn’t budgeted for, or a budget item isn’t mentioned in your narrative.
  • Unrealistic costs: Your costs are either too high or too low compared to real-world prices or industry standards. Funders often have a good sense of fair costs.
  • Indirect/Admin costs too high: The funder might have limits or preferences for these.
  • Not enough detail on staff: Salaries listed without specific roles, how much time they’ll spend on the project, or hourly rates.
  • Not cost-effective: Your proposed methods are too expensive when a more efficient solution exists.
• So, what to do about it?
  1. Justify every single line item: For every single line item, write a short, clear explanation. Why is it needed? How was the cost calculated? Link it directly to a specific project activity.
  2. Connect budget to narrative: Create a table where each budget line item is clearly linked to the project activity it supports. And make sure every programmatic element has a corresponding budget line.
  3. Research costs: Get quotes for equipment, consultant fees, venue rentals, etc. Use current, verifiable data to justify your costs.
  4. Check funder’s specific budget rules: Many funders have very clear rules on indirect costs, administrative fees, travel, food, or salary caps. Stick strictly to these.
  5. Staff detail: For salaries, list the position, the percentage of time dedicated to the project, the hourly/monthly/annual rate, and the total cost. Include fringe benefits.
  6. “Show your work”: Don’t just list a number. Show the calculation (e.g., “Transportation: 10 trips x 20 miles round trip x $0.65/mile = $130.00”).

Here’s a concrete example: A proposal for a digital literacy program had feedback: “The budget contained generic line items for ‘Technology’ and ‘Staffing’ without sufficient detail.” The writer’s original budget simply listed: “Technology: $10,000,” “Staffing: $25,000.” The improved budget would detail:
* Technology: “15 refurbished laptops for student use ($500/laptop x 15 = $7,500), 1-year subscription to educational software X ($1,500), projector ($1,000) – all essential for hands-on learning activities outlined in Section 3.2.”
* Staffing: “Program Coordinator (0.5 FTE for 6 months @ $35/hour = $18,200) – responsible for curriculum delivery and student support. Administrative Assistant (0.2 FTE for 6 months @ $20/hour = $2,600) – supports scheduling and material preparation. Both positions directly contribute to activity 3.1, ‘Interactive Digital Skills Workshops.'”

6. “Weak Management/Organizational Capacity” or “Insufficient Team Experience”

This feedback really questions your ability, or your team’s ability, to successfully carry out the proposed project. Funders invest in people as much as they do in ideas.

• What you might think: “They don’t think we’re capable.”
• What it often really means:
  • Missing key people: Your proposed team doesn’t have all the necessary skills or roles for the project.
  • Resumes not strong enough: Individual resumes didn’t sufficiently highlight experience relevant to this specific project.
  • No plan for the future/sustainability: The project seems to depend entirely on one person, with no plan for what happens if they leave.
  • No strong track record: Your organization couldn’t show past success with similar projects or effective financial management.
  • Vague management plan: You didn’t explain how the team would work together, track progress, or deal with challenges.
• So, what to do about it?
  1. Tailor resumes/bios: For each team member, rewrite their bio or resume specifically for the grant. Highlight the experience and qualifications most relevant to the proposed project activities.
  2. Proactively address gaps: If there’s a skill gap on your core team, explain how you’ll fill it (e.g., by hiring a consultant, subcontractor, or bringing on a new staff member).
  3. Show organizational capacity: Briefly describe your organization’s mission, history, any past relevant projects, and key achievements (especially those with measurable impact). Give concrete examples of how you’ve managed projects successfully.
  4. Clear management plan: Describe your reporting structure, how often the team will communicate, how decisions will be made, your risk management strategies, and how progress will be monitored against project timelines and deliverables.
  5. Letters of support/partnerships: Include letters from key partners or advisors who show external support and expertise.

Here’s a specific example: A proposal for a community health initiative received feedback: “While the project was compelling, the team’s collective experience in public health program evaluation was not clearly demonstrated.” The writer had focused on their team’s clinical expertise but overlooked showcasing their experience in program design, implementation, and most critically, evaluation. For the next application, the writer would:
* Revise the bios of the team lead and key staff to explicitly highlight past evaluation roles, training, and successes.
* Mention an existing partnership with a local university’s public health department that could provide evaluation support.
* Potentially add an “Evaluation Consultant” line item to the budget and outline their specific role and qualifications in the narrative.

7. “Lack of Innovation/Duplication of Services” or “Not a Right Fit for Innovation Fund”

This feedback suggests your project isn’t unique enough, or it doesn’t align with a funder who is specifically looking for novel approaches.

• What you might think: “My idea isn’t new.”
• What it often really means:
  • You didn’t explain your uniqueness: Your project is innovative, but you just didn’t clearly explain how it’s different from existing solutions or what unique value it brings.
  • Similar solutions exist: You truly are proposing something that’s already widely available, and the funder is looking to pilot new models or scale truly novel ones.
  • Not a “replicable” model: If funders are looking for solutions that can be easily copied elsewhere, your project might be too niche or rely on specific, unique circumstances.
  • Different ideas of “innovation”: Your definition of “innovation” might not match the funder’s. They might be thinking about technological advancements, while you’re thinking about a new way to deliver services.
• So, what to do about it?
  1. Do a “competitive analysis”: Research what other organizations are doing in your field and community. Really think about your own approach. What makes yours different?
  2. Clearly define “innovation”: If your project is innovative, explicitly state how and why. Is it a new model? A new way to use an old model? Reaching a new group of people? A unique collaboration?
  3. Address duplication head-on: If similar services exist, explain why yours is needed. Is it filling a gap in a certain area? Serving an underserved population? Offering a better method? Providing a complementary service?
  4. Emphasize learning and sharing: For innovative projects, funders want to know you’ll document what you learn and share it, so others can benefit and copy the successful parts.

A concrete example I saw: A proposal for a coding bootcamp for underserved youth received feedback: “While important, the approach was not sufficiently distinct from existing coding initiatives funded elsewhere.” The writer realized they hadn’t highlighted their unique combination of soft skills coaching and industry mentorship, which truly set their program apart from purely technical bootcamps. For the next proposal, the writer would:
* Add a section titled “Our Differentiating Approach,” directly comparing their model to others and emphasizing the unique combination of technical instruction plus personalized career counseling and direct industry connections.
* Gather testimonials from past participants who specifically benefited from the unique mentorship aspect.

The Missing Feedback: What Its Absence Tells You

Sometimes, the most significant feedback is actually the lack of it. If a funder simply sends a generic rejection, it still tells you something important.

• What it generally means:
  • Overwhelmed funder: They received too many proposals to give individualized feedback. This often means you were simply out-competed, not necessarily that your proposal was fundamentally flawed.
  • A basic mistake: Your proposal might have failed an initial screening – meaning it didn’t meet a basic eligibility requirement, or key sections were missing.
  • Not a top contender: Your proposal wasn’t among the top ones, so detailed feedback wasn’t considered necessary.
• So, what to do about it?
  1. Self-review against the rules: Go back to the RFP and meticulously check every single eligibility criterion. Did you miss anything at all?
  2. Internal peer review: Have someone within your organization who didn’t work on the proposal review it with fresh eyes, looking for obvious flaws, missing sections, or anything unclear.
  3. The “cold read”: Print out your proposal and read it as if you know nothing about your organization. Does it make sense? Is it compelling?
  4. Don’t overthink it: If you’ve consistently put out quality work, a generic rejection sometimes just means it wasn’t your turn or the competition was exceptionally strong. Don’t let it shake your confidence.

Turning Feedback into Action: The Continuous Improvement Cycle

Understanding feedback is only half the battle. The real value comes from how you use it. This isn’t about throwing out your entire project; it’s about making it better.

1. Keep a Detailed Log

Create a feedback log for every grant application you submit. For each piece of feedback, record:
* The Funder’s Name
* The Grant Program/RFP
* The Date you received the feedback
* The Specific Feedback Point (quote it directly!)
* Your Interpretation (What do you think it really means?)
* Actionable Steps (What concrete changes will you make?)
* Applicability (Is this feedback specific to this funder, or is it a broader lesson?)
* The Date you Implemented these changes or your Next Steps

Here’s an example of what that log entry might look like:

Funder	RFP Name	Date Feedback Rec’d	Specific Feedback	Interpretation	Actionable Steps	Applicability	Date Implemented
TechForward	Digital Equity Program	2023-11-15	“Project description lacked specificity on curriculum.”	Didn’t detail how coding would be taught.	1. Develop 1-page curriculum outline. 2. Integrate curriculum details into Project Activities section. 3. Explicitly name coding languages/software.	Broad (for all ed. proposals)	2023-11-20
GreenFuture	Urban Greening Fund	2023-12-01	“Insufficient data on local heat island effect.”	I used state data, not localized.	1. Research local climate data from city planning/university. 2. Include specific heat island metrics for target neighborhoods. 3. Add source citations.	Specific (urban greening)	2023-12-05

2. Prioritize and Categorize

Not all feedback is equally important.
* High Priority: This is feedback that points to a fundamental misalignment, a critical missing piece (like an evaluation plan), or a major clarity issue. These are often deal-breakers.
* Medium Priority: These are suggestions for improvement, areas where you could add more detail, or minor budget adjustments.
* Low Priority: These are very small edits or stylistic preferences.

Also, categorize feedback by its nature:
* Funder-Specific: This feedback directly relates to this funder’s unique requirements or preferences. You might not apply it to other proposals.
* Example: “Our fund is specifically for projects in rural counties.” (If your project is urban-focused, you’ll either move on from this funder or find a rural project to propose to them.)
* Universal: This feedback points to a general weakness in your grant writing that applies to almost any application. These are incredibly valuable!
* Example: “Outcomes were not measurable.” (This is a fundamental flaw that needs to be addressed in all future proposals.)

3. Make Systemic Changes

Don’t just fix one proposal for resubmission. Use the feedback to improve your template, your research process, and your internal review systems.

• Refine Your Master Template: If your past outcomes were vague, update your generic “Outcomes” section in your template to include prompts for SMART goals and specific indicators.
• Improve Your Funder Research Protocol: If you missed alignment, enhance your process for analyzing RFPs and funder websites before you even start writing. Add steps to research past funded projects and annual reports.
• Strengthen Your Internal Review: Put a rigorous internal review process in place where colleagues critically assess proposals against those common feedback themes before submission. Use a checklist based on where you typically receive feedback.
• Build an Evidence Bank: If “lack of data” is a recurring issue, proactively collect and organize data relevant to your common project types (local demographics, statistics, research findings). This will save you so much time!

4. Talk to Them (When it makes sense)

In some rare cases, talking directly with the grantmaker can be helpful. But you have to approach this with extreme professionalism and respect for their time.

• When to reach out:
  • You got feedback that is genuinely unclear and you need clarification to improve a future proposal.
  • The feedback seems contradictory or fundamentally misunderstands a key part of your proposal.
  • The funder explicitly invited questions or follow-up.
• When not to reach out:
  • To argue, plead, or challenge their decision. Just don’t.
  • If the feedback is clear, even if it’s hard to hear.
  • If you’re just looking for “extra tips” without a specific point of confusion.
• How to do it:
  1. Be Prepared: Go through the feedback thoroughly, write down specific questions, and have your proposal right in front of you.
  2. Be Gracious: Always start by thanking them for the opportunity and the valuable feedback. Maintain a tone of sincere learning.
  3. Be Concise: Formulate clear, well-structured questions. Respect their limited time.
  4. Focus on future improvement: Frame your questions around how to improve future submissions rather than dwelling on the past rejection. For example: “To ensure stronger alignment in future proposals, could you elaborate on what specific aspects of ‘arts as economic development’ you prioritize?”

A concrete example of how to talk to them politely: “Dear [Grantmaker Name], thank you for providing feedback on our recent proposal. We truly appreciate your time and insights. We are committed to continuous improvement, and your comment regarding ‘unclear target population definition’ resonated. To ensure we refine our approach for future applications, could you possibly clarify if this concerned the demographic data, geographic scope, or the specific criteria for program eligibility? Understanding this nuance would greatly assist us in strengthening our next submission. Thank you again.”

The Long Game: Building a Reputation for Being Responsive

Here’s the hidden benefit: consistently applying feedback doesn’t just make individual proposals better; it builds your organization’s reputation. Grantmakers notice when you listen and learn. A funder who gave you feedback on a previous rejection might be more inclined to give a future proposal a second, closer look if they see tangible evidence that you actually addressed their concerns. This isn’t about being a chameleon, changing what you do to fit every funder. It’s about explaining what you do effectively, clearly, and compellingly to the funders whose priorities genuinely align with yours.

Ultimately, grantmaker feedback truly is a gift. It’s an inner view into the minds of the decision-makers. Embrace it, pick it apart, learn from it, and most importantly, act on it. This systematic approach transforms rejection into the most powerful form of professional development, setting you up for incredible future funding success.