What to Do When You’re Told “You’re Not a Fit”
How to Reframe Rejection and Stay Rooted in Your Mission
If you are in federal grants long enough, you will hear it: “You’re not a fit.” Sometimes it arrives as a polite decline from a program officer and sometimes as a form letter. Even when we know, intellectually, how competitive federal funding is, the words still sting. You rallied partners. You wrangled budgets. You translated complex evidence into plain English. And now…no funding.
This piece is for the grant professional who wants to move through that moment with steadiness and skill. We’re going to name what “no” really means (and doesn’t), unpack a practical debrief process you can use immediately, and build a resilient posture for the long game of federal funding. Most importantly, I’ll invite you to share your story, because our field is stronger when we compare notes.
First, let’s decode that “no”
“No” is shorthand. It rarely means you truly weren’t a fit or your work lacks value; it usually means there’s a mismatch in one of five places:
Program priorities. Your intervention is strong, but the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) was prioritizing a different angle, say, workforce reentry vs. workforce upskilling, prevention vs. treatment, rural vs. urban. So even if you were eligible, the program you proposed didn’t fall into the highest priority category.
Readiness. Your organization or partners didn’t appear to be able to credibly deliver at the scale or speed the agency needs or you proposed. I see this often in proposals that were declined. You just proposed to do too much too fast.
Evidence alignment. Your citations, logic model, or evaluation plan didn’t map tightly enough to the agency’s preferred frameworks or tiers of evidence. Even if you project overall is a good fit, the logic between sections is often an area I see lacking in declined proposals.
Competitive density. You were one of many qualified applicants in a crowded pool. Minute scoring differences and tie-breakers decide outcomes. You might have even been up against some competition in your geographic area. Often two high scoring proposals in the same city will result in a high scoring application being declined so there is geographic diversity among funded proposals.
Execution gaps. The idea was good, but the narrative, budget, or attachments left points on the table: missing letters of support, vague outcomes, unclear roles, or inconsistencies across forms. This often happens in a mad rush at the end. You are just out of time to do the final sweep you had planned.
Notice what’s not on this list: “Your mission is unworthy.” “You’re a bad grant writer.” “You failed.” Federal review is competitive, but it is not a referendum on your value as a writer, the value of the organizations work, or the impact the organization has on its community.
The 5-minute triage for the day you hear “no”
Before you do anything else:
Acknowledge the work. Send a quick message to your internal team and partners: “I feel so disappointed. Thank you for the heavy lift. Regardless of outcome, the proposal sharpened our program design and surfaced valuable data for future rounds.”
Capture the facts. Log the opportunity name, agency, CFDA/Assistance Listing number, submission date, and outcome in your tracker.
Protect morale. If you lead a team, set the tone: “This is a data point, not an identity.” People mirror your posture.
Then walk away from it for the rest of the day. Rejections land harder when we push immediately into analysis. Give yourself enough distance to respond, not react. Nothing else has to happen immediately
The Debrief (a repeatable, right-sized process)
Here’s a simple debrief you can run within a week.
1) Reach out to the funder, if you haven’t automatically been provided reviewer notes.
If the funder provides a process for receiving feedback, engage in it.
If the funder does not provide a process for receiving feedback, ask to receive the reviewer scores and feedback.
2) Review your proposal preparation process
Think back through the push to write the federal grant.
How many weeks did you have to work on it?
What went well?
What went poorly?
What took too much time?
What did you do that you’d like to replicate next time?
Which gaps are fixable with process (e.g., earlier partner coordination)?
We recommend meeting with your team and collaborators to debrief with them as well, using the same questions. This conversations isn’t about solutions, it’s just about identifying what worked well and what didn’t. Save solution ideation for another time. This also isn’t about pointing fingers. That won’t serve anyone.
3) Decide your posture for next time
Choose one of three paths:
Resubmit with upgrades. Same agency, next cycle. Fix execution, deepen evidence, secure stronger partners. Use any provided reviewer feedback to improve your proposal package.
Retool for other funders. Same program design, different agency or a foundation. Federal grants often require more detail than foundation grants, so now you have a lot to work from.
Walk away. Archive, capture the learning that you can, and intentionally stick this in a metaphorical drawer. Your organization may be moving in a new direction. You probably submitted the grant 9 months ago. Things change. Sometimes we have to walk away.
When you receive reviewer comments: a surgical read
When scores and comments arrive, resist the urge to argue about it. Instead:
Quantify the difference. Where did you underperform relative to maximum points?
Pattern-spot. Do multiple reviewers flag the same gap? That’s a clear signal.
Reviewers can be wrong. You might disagree with a reviewer, and you might be right.
Translate learnings into tasks. Convert each substantive comment into a fix a future proposal could execute: “Clarify partner roles” becomes “Create a one-page partner role matrix and obtain MOUs 30 days pre-deadline.”
Communicating with funders without burning bridges
Yes, you can ask for feedback. Try this email template:
Subject: Feedback request on [Program Name] application from [Your Organization]
Dear [Program Officer Name],
Thank you for the opportunity to apply to [Program Name]. We remain committed to advancing [your concise mission statement aligned to the program]. If you’re able to share any broad feedback or point us to areas of emphasis for the next cycle, it would help us sharpen our approach.
We value the agency’s priorities and hope to align effectively where appropriate in future rounds.
With appreciation,
[Name, Title, Contact]
Keep it courteous, specific, and short. Do not argue your case in email; don’t reference specific feedback you don’t agree with. If the door opens to a brief call, have two or three precise questions ready, focused on fit rather than litigating scores. You aren’t going to get the money because you successfully show a program officer why a reviewer took points off in a way that you don’t agree with.
Staying rooted in your mission under pressure
Rejection tempts us to chase money. Here’s how to guard against mission drift:
Keep a Mission-to-Mechanism Map. For each goal in your strategic plan, list federal mechanisms that naturally fund it. If an opportunity sits far from the map, pause.
Define a Red-Line List. Three to five things you will not compromise (population, practice integrity, community voice, fiscal guardrails).
Use a Fit Matrix. Score each opportunity on alignment, evidence readiness, partner strength, equity impact, and administrative feasibility. Set a minimum threshold to proceed.
Building a resilient pipeline (so one “no” doesn’t wreck your quarter)
The strongest federal teams treat submissions like a portfolio. Consider these moves:
Staggered pipeline. Maintain a rolling 6–12 month view of NOFOs and forecasted opportunities (subscribe to agency listservs, track past NOFO release patterns).
Reusable cores. Develop modular building blocks (organizational capacity write-ups, logic models, evaluation menus, bios, program budgets, budget justifications) so you can assemble quickly without reinventing the wheel.
Pre-commit partners. For recurring priority areas, establish standing MOUs and data-sharing agreements.
Evidence development. Invest between cycles in pilot evaluation, data cleaning, and storytelling with numbers so you move up the evidence “ladder” over time.
Scenario budgets. Keep ready-to-tweak budget templates for different award sizes and match requirements.
After-action library. Archive winning and losing proposals with a one-page post-mortem (your answers to what went well, what didn’t). Tag them by domain and agency for fast reference.
Care for your team (and yourself)
Losses accumulate. Prevent cynicism and burnout with explicit practices:
Normalize the base rate. Even excellent federal teams face denials. Note how many applications are submitted and how many are funded. Normalize that math when setting expectations with leadership.
Debrief, then celebrate effort. Mark the end of a major submission cycle with gratitude: coffee, lunch, a simple shout-out ritual.
Rotate the hard lifts. If you have a grant writing team, don’t keep assigning the same people the same intense roles, deadline after deadline.
Create a “recovery calendar.” Block a day after big deadlines for clean-up tasks, inbox zero, and rest.
Invest in coaching and community. Staying current on shifting priorities and techniques is easier when you aren’t doing it alone.
And don’t forget to celebrate when you do win a big grant. So often, the panic of oh-my-gosh-we-got-it-there’s-so-much-work-to-do kicks in and we forget to have a little office happy hour, ice cream social, donut party, or other celebration that feels good for your team.
An invitation: share your “not a fit” moment
I would love to hear your story.
What did you learn from a tough decline?
What practice did you build because of it?
What would you tell a new grant professional about staying the course?
If you’re willing, share a brief story and the single most helpful change you made afterward.
Your experience could be the nudge someone else needs to keep going.