7 Red Flags for Funders in Your Grant Proposal
From Candid
Here’s the list:
1. Not reading the directions
2. The numbers don’t add up
3. Outcomes are not clear—or are confused with activities or outputs
4. Proposal is not personalized to the funder
5. Not being clear about who is going to do the work
6. Your proposal is unrealistic
7. Not checking spelling, grammar, and formatting
Here's something we learned from years on the other side of the table: most proposals aren't rejected because the organization isn't worthy. They're rejected because something in the proposal gave the funder a reason to stop reading. A reviewer has a stack of applications and limited time, and small missteps become easy reasons to move on.
The good news is that most of these are avoidable. Here are the things that quietly cost organizations funding, and how to keep your proposal in the "yes" pile.
You didn't follow the instructions.
This is the most common and most preventable mistake there is. Funders write their guidelines for a reason, and ignoring them, whether it's a page limit, a required section, or a formatting rule, signals that you either didn't read carefully or didn't respect the process. Before you write a word, read the guidelines. Before you submit, read them again and check your proposal against every requirement.
Your numbers don't line up.
Funders notice when the math is off, and it plants doubt about everything else in the proposal. Make sure your budget totals are correct, and just as important, make sure every line item connects to something in your narrative. If you're describing an event, the budget should account for the space, the staff, the materials, and the promotion. When the story and the numbers tell the same tale, funders trust both.
You've confused activities with outcomes.
This is the one we see most often, and it's worth getting right. Funders don't just want to know what you'll do. They want to know what will change because you did it. An activity is what you plan to do. An output is how much of it you did or how many people it reached. An outcome is the actual difference it made. Running six workshops for 300 students is an output. Those students being measurably better off afterward is the outcome. Funders fund outcomes. Lead with the change.
It reads like it was written for anyone.
We understand the temptation to reuse language across proposals. Everyone does it, and there's nothing wrong with a strong template. But a proposal that clearly wasn't written for this specific funder reads as generic, and generic is forgettable. Take the time to speak to this funder's priorities in their language. It's the difference between being one of many and being the one that feels like a fit.
It's not clear who does the work.
Good ideas don't execute themselves. When a proposal describes ambitious plans but never names who will carry them out, funders worry the organization hasn't thought it through. Every major activity should have a person or role attached, staff, volunteer, consultant, or partner. It shows the funder your plan is real, not just aspirational.
It's not believable.
Ambition is good. Overpromising is not. If your proposal claims outsized results in an impossibly short window, a funder's instinct is doubt, not excitement. Set goals you can realistically hit with the funding you're requesting. If you are taking a genuine swing at something big, back it with evidence so the funder sees a calculated risk rather than wishful thinking.
The small stuff is sloppy.
Typos, inconsistent fonts, misaligned tables. None of these are fatal on their own, but together they suggest carelessness, and a funder wonders whether that carelessness extends to your programs. After you've stared at the document for hours, you'll stop seeing the errors. Run a spell check, then hand it to someone who hasn't read it. Fresh eyes catch what tired ones miss.
The thread running through all of these
Notice what these have in common. None of them are about whether your work matters. They're about whether your proposal makes it easy for a busy funder to say yes. That's the shift we help organizations make, seeing the proposal the way the person on the other side of the table sees it. When you write with the reviewer's experience in mind, you stop giving them reasons to stop reading.
This post was inspired by a helpful piece from Candid on the red flags funders watch for. You can read their original here.
If you want a second set of eyes on your next proposal, or help building a grants program that consistently gets funded, we'd love to talk. Access Philanthropy advisors offer free 30-minute conversations, no forms and no pressure. Reach out at hello@accessphilanthropy.com.