The 2015 Australian Institute of Grants Management's (AIGM) Grants In Australia Survey revealed nearly half (46%) of survey respondents felt that grantmakers do a "bad" job of providing meaningful feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
This finding is not new. In fact, applicants and grantees have been reporting this as a concern since 2006. At the same time, grantmakers have expressed specific concerns about providing feedback to unsuccessful applicants and may be reluctant to open themselves up to complaints.
There are many reasons a grantor may choose not to fund an application. The applicant may not be eligible. The activities may not align with the targeted program outcomes. Or the project may seem too high risk. More often than not however, when an application is declined it's because available funding is limited and other applications scored better.
That being said, a friendly statement like, "We received a high volume of applications and were not able to fund as many projects as we would like," doesn't let the applicant know if they just missed the cut or were way off of the mark.
Providing meaningful feedback to unsuccessful applicants is beneficial to everyone because it:
Use the Numbers…
So if we know that giving meaningful feedback is in our best interest, how should we go about doing it? One of the easiest ways to give feedback is to let declined applicants know how they scored on specific assessment criteria compared to how the applications that got funded scored.
While this does not give the applicant specific feedback, it does let them know which areas they need to work on. If you're using a numeric rating scale, then you can easily use those scores to let failed applicants know what areas they need to work on. You can even extract that information as a report in SmartyGrants and include it in your decline letter.
|Assessment Criteria||Your Score||Average Score of Funded Applications|
|Project aligns with the stated program objectives||4.2||4.6|
|There is a demonstrated need for the project
and anticipated community or industry benefit
|The applicant has the capacity to successfully
carry out the project as described in the application
|Extent to which the budget is comprehensive,
realistic and provides value for money
|Extent to which alternative and complementary,
funding sources have been explored and secured
In the above example, the failed applicant would easily be able to see that they had designed a project that was of interest to the funder, but that they needed to do a better job demonstrating their capacity and planning their budget.
Providing even this level of feedback will steer applicants in the right direction and hopefully result in better applications the next round.
But you will benefit even more if you can direct your applicants towards resources that will help them understand what funders are looking for, how to identify the right grant opportunities for their project and how the different pieces of a grant proposal should fit together.
Keep a list of resources handy for sharing with applicants who are motivated to learn.
... But Don't Hide Behind Them
If you're hesitant to put more specific feedback in writing, then be ready to provide that information by phone if you're contacted by an unsuccessful applicant.
In the example above, the applicant may have put a lot of time into creating their budget and may not understand why it scored so low. Lacking specific feedback, they may repeat the same mistakes in future applications.
However, if a staff member can take time to explain, "In the description of your project you talked about the need for XYZ, but your budget didn't include any funds to pay XYZers," then it's much more likely that the applicant will present a better budget in future grant rounds.
Tips for Giving Feedback to Unsuccessful Applicants
Leading Australian philanthropist Alan Schwartz is tackling one of the hardest challenges the planet faces: to put a true value on the social and natural capital of the world, including health, literacy, trust, clean water and biodiversity.
An abridged version of Gary Banks' address for the Alf Rattigan Lecture for the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) that points the way for what's worked in the past, and what can be done to avoid policy on the run.
Leading social impact thinker Ross Wyatt says many funders and grantseekers are trapped by evaluations aiming to prove what they did was right. Here's how to do better.
Our Community's Chaos Controller and executive director Kathy Richardson examines how we might create a sector where there are incentives for using evidence.