7 Grant Writing Mistakes That Kill Your Chances
(And exactly how to fix them)
Reality check: 73% of grant applications get rejected not because the organization isn't worthy, but because of preventable mistakes. Here's what grant reviewers actually see – and how to avoid joining the rejection pile.
I've reviewed over 1,200 grant applications as a program officer, and the patterns are painfully clear. The same mistakes show up again and again, turning potentially fundable projects into automatic rejections.
The good news? These aren't mysterious failures. They're specific, fixable problems. Here are the seven mistakes I see most often – and the exact fixes that turn rejections into awards.
Mistake #1: Writing About What You Want Instead of What They Fund
The Problem:
Your organization desperately needs new computers, so you write about technology needs. But the funder specifically supports youth programming.
The Fix:
Always start with the funder's priorities. If they care about youth outcomes, lead with how your program changes young lives. Mention the computers as tools that enable better programming, not as the main need.
Real Example:
Instead of: 'We need $50,000 for new computers and software.' Try: 'Our after-school coding program will serve 200 at-risk teens, with new technology enabling advanced programming skills that lead to college scholarships.'
Mistake #2: Submitting at the Last Minute
The Problem:
You rush to submit 10 minutes before the deadline. The portal crashes, you realize you forgot a required signature, or you notice a glaring typo after hitting send.
The Fix:
Finish your application 48 hours early. Use this buffer time for a final review, getting signatures, and handling technical issues. Many successful applicants submit days in advance.
Real Example:
The Knight Foundation receives 40% of submissions in the final 4 hours before deadline. These rushed applications have a 12% lower success rate than those submitted earlier.
Mistake #3: Ignoring the Review Criteria
The Problem:
The application clearly states they'll score based on community impact, organizational capacity, and sustainability. You spend 80% of your proposal describing your program activities.
The Fix:
Create a checklist from the review criteria. Allocate your word count proportionally. If 'community impact' is worth 40 points out of 100, dedicate about 40% of your narrative to demonstrating measurable community outcomes.
Real Example:
A recent CDC grant scored applications on: Problem significance (25%), Approach (35%), Organizational capacity (25%), Evaluation plan (15%). Structure your proposal to directly address each weighted section.
Mistake #4: Making Claims Without Evidence
The Problem:
'Our program is highly effective and serves the most vulnerable populations.' Sounds great, but grant reviewers think: 'Prove it.'
The Fix:
Every claim needs backup. 'Highly effective' becomes 'Our program achieves 85% high school graduation rates among participants, compared to 67% district-wide (State Education Data, 2023).'
Real Example:
Weak: 'We serve diverse communities.' Strong: 'Our participants are 45% Latino, 30% African American, 18% White, and 7% other ethnicities, with 78% qualifying for free or reduced lunch.'
Mistake #5: Using Jargon and Acronyms
The Problem:
Your proposal reads like: 'Our EBP intervention utilizes CBT modalities to address ACEs through trauma-informed PBIS frameworks.' The reviewer needs a decoder ring.
The Fix:
Write for an intelligent person outside your field. Define acronyms on first use. Replace jargon with clear language. 'Evidence-based practices' becomes 'proven methods that research shows work.'
Real Example:
Before: 'Our MTSS approach leverages SEL competencies.' After: 'Our multi-tiered support system teaches students emotional regulation and social skills through structured activities.'
Mistake #6: Weak Problem Statements
The Problem:
'Homelessness is a serious problem in our community.' This tells reviewers nothing they don't already know and doesn't justify funding YOU specifically.
The Fix:
Get specific about your community's unique situation and why existing solutions aren't working. Use local data and explain gaps that only your organization can fill.
Real Example:
Strong problem statement: 'Despite three existing shelters, Johnson County has 340 unsheltered individuals, with 60% being families with children. Current shelters prohibit pets, forcing families to choose between housing and beloved animals that provide emotional stability.'
Mistake #7: Unrealistic Timelines and Budgets
The Problem:
You plan to hire and train 5 staff members, launch programming, and serve 500 people in Month 1. Your budget shows $80,000 for 'program coordinator' but minimum wage for 'direct service staff.'
The Fix:
Build realistic timelines with ramp-up periods. Research actual salaries in your area. Show you understand what things really cost and how long they take.
Real Example:
Realistic timeline: Months 1-2: Hire and train staff. Month 3: Launch pilot with 25 participants. Months 4-6: Evaluate and refine. Months 7-12: Scale to full capacity of 200 participants.
The Bottom Line
Grant reviewers aren't trying to find reasons to reject you. They're looking for clear, compelling cases for funding. When you avoid these seven mistakes, you're not just preventing rejection – you're actively making your application more fundable.
The organizations that consistently win grants don't have bigger budgets or better connections. They just avoid these common pitfalls and focus on what reviewers actually care about: clear problems, realistic solutions, and measurable impact.
Want help avoiding these mistakes?
Our AI-powered platform analyzes your application against these common failure points and helps you craft winning proposals that reviewers actually want to fund.
Start Your Grant Application