Should funders give feedback to grant applicants who get rejected?
Hi everyone, happy Pride month. Please put on your calendar to attend this webinar on June 18th from 11:30am to 1pm Pacific: “What If our Trans siblings were fully included and protected in all spaces? A guide to substantive allyship for Trans rights and how to do better with Nathan Rodriguez of Trans Equity Coalition.” It’s free. Register here and spread the word.
There are a few things our sector sucks at, and one of those things is feedback. How to give it, how to receive it, and why it’s never a good idea to walk silently to stand behind someone when they’re microwaving their lunch and whisper in their ear, “You did something I didn’t like, Jeremy…”
This week, though, I’m talking specifically about feedback from funders to nonprofit leaders in the grantmaking process. In the usual process, hundreds of organizations apply. A lucky few are awarded the grants; the rest get a generic rejection letter to read in while weeping softly in the supplies closet.
Some funders provide helpful and specific feedback on what applicants could do better next time, such as “your community needs section didn’t include enough data.” The majority do not, leaving most nonprofit leaders bewildered and frustrated.
So, should funders do a better job providing feedback to grantseekers? Please vote by selecting one of the following options:
A. Absolutely! It’ll help nonprofits improve their grantwriting skills
B. No, funders are too busy to give feedback to hundreds of applicants!
C. So? If nonprofits each spend ten or more hours writing grant proposals, the very least funders could do is spend 30 minutes giving some helpful feedback to each applicant!
D. You’re wrong, and your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!
E. Worst. Survey. Ever.
The correct choice is Z: Most grant processes are arbitrary, inequitable, and pointless, so feedback on them is meaningless and distracts us from the real problems.
I'm not a fan of the idea of funders providing feedback, for several reasons:
It reinforces power imbalance. Why is it always nonprofits that must seek to improve and contort themselves to fit within an arbitrary framework created by funders? How often do funders seek feedback from applicants and then actually change their behavior based on it? Seldom, because the reality is that because of the power dynamics, applicants and grantees can’t give honest feedback. Otherwise, they may say something like, “Your entire grant process is ridiculous and you should just accept a proposal we already wrote.”
It may worsen inequity. This default grant process, where contestants must compete with others for funds, explains why only 10% of philanthropic dollars in the US go to organizations focused on serving people of color. Giving them guidance and advice on how to compete better in this system does not help, because organizations led-by-and-and-serving marginalized communities have fewer resources—such as full-time grantwriters, or grantwriting consultants—to take advantage of whatever feedback funders might provide.
It legitimizes crappy processes: A lot of liberal-leaning foundations' processes are crappy. They require special snowflake proposals (it's all the same information that nonprofits provide, but funders want these answers to be in their formats). They take months to yield a decision. Some require budgets in Word formats. Seeking and providing guidance for people to better navigate a crappy, time-wasting process prevents everyone from recognizing it as a crappy and time-wasting process.
Grantmaking is arbitrary and subjective: Having been involved in numerous grantmaking processes, I can say it’s mostly subjective, often based on the whims of whoever is on the review committee what scores they give on the various categories on the rubric. If someone has a bad day, has no equity analysis, is friends with a member of another applicant's board, or whatever other random factor, your score will be affected. The reality is that a lot of grantmaking is just luck and vibes.
The main reason I dislike the idea of funders giving feedback, though, is that it strengthens the learned helplessness our sector has built around the default grant process, and that has eroded our imagination and ability to be effective in addressing inequity and injustice.
A couple of weeks ago I talked about whether invitation-only grants are good or bad, with the conclusion being that it’s tantamount to asking, “Should everyone be allowed to fight to the death in the hunger games that funders created…or should only a select few people be invited to fight to the death in the hunger games that funders created?”
The question of whether funders should give more feedback on grant proposals is the same; we’re focused on the wrong thing. If seeking funding is like competing in the hunger games, then getting feedback is like getting advice on how you survive better in the hunger games:
“Hey listen, you didn’t win this round and didn’t get medicine for your infected wounds, but at least you didn’t die! Here’s some feedback. If you sharpen your spear and rub some poison berries on the tip, you could stab the other contestants more effectively! Also, from what we’ve seen in the past, contestants that find beehives and toss them on their competitors while the latter are sleeping tend to survive better! Good luck; I’m going to sit here watching in my comfortable palace eating caviar; I’ll be rooting for you!”
There should not be a hunger games in the first place. Nonprofits should not be forced to compete with one another for resources, with most applicants spending dozens of hours to receive nothing in return. The more we act as if this is all a perfectly reasonable way to allocate funding—such as by thinking it’s a good thing when funders give feedback on their process—the less we question this whole inane system and the less likely we are to do organize and shift funders away from it.
Funders, if you’ve been figuring out whether you should give feedback or not to grant applicants you reject, you’re focused on the wrong thing. If your process--like most liberal-leaning funders' processes– are based on having applicants compete in a months-long huger games you maintain while you hoard 95% of the assets in your endowment, then your feedback is pointless. Increase the amount of money you’re giving out, and use this Equitable Grantmaking Continuum for your process.
For grant applicants, the next time you receive a rejection for a grant, try to resist the temptation to blame yourself for not measuring up against other applicants. DON’T seek feedback on how you can "improve." Feedback, even if it is helpful, only helps you edge out other organizations who are probably doing work that’s just as vital as what your org is doing. Remember that the whole system as it is set up is wacky, ineffective, and inequitable.
Spend your time instead resting, imagining a better society where advancing justice doesn't rely so much on conforming to the whims and games of a few wealthy families and corporations, and organizing towards that vision.
--
Thank you to monthly Patreon supporters and Ghost subscribers for keeping these posts ad-free and open to everyone.
