10 Grant Writing Mistakes That Get Applications Rejected

Grant reviewers see the same mistakes over and over. Avoid these common pitfalls and dramatically improve your chances of success.

Mistake #1: Not Following Instructions

The problem: Ignoring page limits, font requirements, or submission formats.

Why it matters: Many funders automatically disqualify non-compliant applications. Reviewers see it as a sign you won't follow grant requirements either.

The fix:

• Create a checklist from the RFP
• Check every requirement before submitting
• Have someone else verify compliance

Mistake #2: Weak Need Statement

The problem: Describing needs vaguely or focusing on your organization's needs instead of the community's.

Bad example:

"Our organization needs funding to continue our important work."

Good example:

"In our service area, 2,400 seniors lack access to nutritious meals. 67% report skipping meals due to cost, leading to increased hospitalizations and healthcare costs of $3.2M annually."

The fix:

• Use specific, local data
• Cite credible sources
• Connect the need to the funder's priorities
• Focus on beneficiaries, not your organization

Mistake #3: Vague Goals and Objectives

The problem: Goals that can't be measured or verified.

Bad example:

"We will improve youth outcomes in our community."

Good example:

"By December 2026, 80% of 150 participating youth will demonstrate improved reading levels, measured by standardized assessments at program entry and exit."

The fix:

• Use SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound)
• Include numbers and percentages
• Specify how you'll measure success

Mistake #4: Budget/Narrative Mismatch

The problem: Your budget doesn't match what you describe in the narrative.

Examples:

• Narrative mentions 3 staff; budget shows 2
• Project requires travel; no travel in budget
• Budget includes items never mentioned in narrative

The fix:

• Write narrative first, then build budget to match
• Review both together before submitting
• Have someone else cross-check

Mistake #5: Ignoring the Evaluation Plan

The problem: Weak or missing explanation of how you'll measure success.

What reviewers want:

• What data you'll collect
• How you'll collect it
• Who will analyze it
• How you'll use findings

The fix:

• Include specific metrics
• Describe data collection methods
• Explain analysis approach
• Show how evaluation informs improvement

Mistake #6: Organizational Arrogance

The problem: Assuming reviewers know and trust your organization.

Bad example:

"As the leading organization in this field, we are uniquely qualified..."

Good example:

"Our organization has served 5,000 clients annually for 15 years, with a 92% satisfaction rate. Our staff includes 3 licensed professionals with a combined 45 years of experience in this field."

The fix:

• Prove capacity with specifics
• Include relevant credentials
• Show past performance data
• Don't assume name recognition

Mistake #7: No Clear Sustainability Plan

The problem: No explanation of what happens when grant funding ends.

What funders want to know:

• How will the project continue?
• What other funding will you pursue?
• Will it become self-sustaining?
• What's the long-term plan?

The fix:

• Describe specific sustainability strategies
• Identify potential future funders
• Explain how impact will be maintained
• Show commitment beyond the grant period

Mistake #8: Generic Applications

The problem: Using the same application for every funder without customization.

Signs of a generic application:

• Doesn't mention funder by name
• Doesn't connect to funder's specific priorities
• Uses different terminology than the RFP
• Could apply to any funder

The fix:

• Research each funder thoroughly
• Mirror their language and priorities
• Address their specific requirements
• Show you understand their mission

Mistake #9: Submitting at the Last Minute

The problem: Waiting until the deadline, leaving no time for errors or technical issues.

What can go wrong:

• System crashes
• File upload fails
• Missing attachments discovered
• Technical requirements unclear

The fix:

• Aim to submit 48-72 hours early
• Test the submission system beforehand
• Have backup plans for technical issues
• Build buffer time into your timeline

Mistake #10: Poor Writing Quality

The problem: Typos, grammar errors, unclear writing, or jargon-heavy text.

Impact:

• Suggests lack of attention to detail
• Makes reviewers work harder
• Reduces credibility
• Can obscure your actual qualifications

The fix:

• Have multiple people proofread
• Read aloud to catch awkward phrasing
• Use plain language (avoid jargon)
• Run spell-check (but don't rely on it alone)

Quick Self-Check Before Submitting

• Followed ALL formatting requirements?
• Need statement uses specific data?
• Goals are SMART and measurable?
• Budget matches narrative exactly?
• Evaluation plan is detailed?
• Organizational capacity is proven?
• Sustainability plan included?
• Customized for this funder?
• Submitting with time to spare?
• Proofread by multiple people?

---

Ready to apply? Search grants or check your eligibility.