Grant application rejected? Why funders say no, and what to do next
5 well-known UK foundations publish their success rates. In their latest figures, between 5 and 28 in every 100 bids they counted won a grant, and at 3 of the 5, fewer than 1 in 10 did.
At these funders, a refusal is the most common answer; in our view, on its own it says little about the quality of the work. This guide answers what a chief executive asks after a no: how normal it is, why funders refuse, whether they explain, whether you can appeal or reapply, and what to tell your board.
Each success rate below is the funder's own; setting the 5 side by side is our work. Some of these rates count every bid and some only the bids that met the funder's rules; a rate that counts every bid would be lower still. We last checked every page quoted here in September 2026.
Most applications are refused, even by funders that want to give
The funders' own figures. Esmée Fairbairn and Clothworkers count eligible applications only; John Ellerman gives no base for its latest rate, and its earlier rates counted eligible applications; Paul Hamlyn's Arts Fund rate is per organisation that applied; its Ideas and Pioneers Fund and the A B Charitable Trust rates are on every application.
The latest figures each funder publishes:
- Esmée Fairbairn Foundation asks first for an expression of interest: a short first form, read before any full bid is invited. In 2025, "11% of eligible expressions of interest were progressed to an assessment call" (a conversation with its staff about the work), 52% of those were invited to write a full proposal, and 91% of proposals were funded (these rates leave out follow-on grants and bids Esmée invited itself) (Esmée Fairbairn). By our arithmetic, of every 100 eligible first forms, 11 reached a call, about 6 were asked for a full proposal and about 5 were funded.
- John Ellerman Foundation, in the year to 31 March 2025: "On our Main Grants programme, we had an overall success rate of 8%" (John Ellerman Foundation); the page does not give the base, but its earlier years' rates were counted on applications that met its rules.
- Paul Hamlyn Foundation received 816 applications to its Arts Fund over 2 rounds, asking for £166 million in total, against a yearly budget of £6.5 million, so "only 7% of organisations were successful" (Museums Association, 14 October 2025, quoting the foundation). In the first round after it reopened, its Ideas and Pioneers Fund received 319 applications and made 30 grants (Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 6 November 2025): about 9 in 100.
- The A B Charitable Trust received 448 applications to its Open Programme, the grants any eligible charity may apply for, in 2024/25, found 327 eligible and made 75 grants (A B Charitable Trust): about 17 in 100.
- The Clothworkers' Foundation funded 28% of the eligible applications to its Open Grants Programme in 2025 (Clothworkers' Foundation).
We know of no single success rate for all UK funders. All 5 are large national foundations. In our view, smaller and local funders publish few rates, and theirs may differ.
At several large funders it has got harder, as applications have grown
John Ellerman Foundation, its annual funding data
UKGrantmaking, the yearly count of UK grants run by 360Giving, found that trusts and foundations gave £8.4 billion in 2024-25. It adds that the 2% rise on the year before "actually represents a slight decline once inflation is taken into account" (UKGrantmaking 2026).
Most of that fall came from the Wellcome Trust, whose own giving dropped; leave it out, and the rise was 5% before inflation. Before inflation, UKGrantmaking puts grantmaking still 14% higher than in 2022-23 including Wellcome, and 13% without it, counting funders with data in both years. Meanwhile, at several large funders, the queues have grown:
- John Ellerman Foundation's overall success rate fell from 28% in 2022/23 to 14% in 2023/24, then to 8% in 2024/25 (its funding data).
- Paul Hamlyn Foundation said the volume of demand meant its Arts Fund's success rate "has more than halved over the past four years", and closed that fund to new applications until April 2027 (Museums Association).
- City Bridge Foundation, which funds work in London, had seen 75 to 90 per cent of grant applications succeed, depending on the programme, while it spent extra money from its reserves. Then it saw "a huge increase in applications" and closed all its reactive grant programmes for 1 year from 8 October 2024 (City Bridge Foundation, 2 October 2024). It took applications again, to a new programme, from 14 November 2025 (City Bridge Foundation, 10 November 2025).
A funder's success rate moves with its budget and its queue, not only its bids.
At 2 funders, most bids stop at the first sift, not at the final panel
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation's published rates: 11%, then 52%, then 91%; the arithmetic is ours
The first sift is the early check on which bids go further:
- At Esmée Fairbairn in 2025, 89 of every 100 eligible first forms went no further; of the proposals it did ask for, 91% were funded.
- At John Ellerman Foundation in 2023/24, of 309 eligible first-stage applications, 45 were presented for decision at a trustee board meeting, and 43 of those were funded.
- At the A B Charitable Trust, 121 of the 448 applications, more than 1 in 4, were not eligible at all.
So at Esmée Fairbairn and John Ellerman, most bids stopped at the first stage, and the bids that reached the final stage almost always won. The A B Charitable Trust does not say at which stage its other refusals fell. In our view, the effort that pays comes before the first form: choosing funders whose own rules you clearly meet. How to check those rules is in our guide to researching a funder before you apply.
We sort funders' own reasons for saying no into 5 groups
1. You were not eligible, or not a close enough fit. The Clothworkers' Foundation lists "There is not a strong enough fit across our Programme Areas." In the first round after Paul Hamlyn Foundation reopened its Ideas and Pioneers Fund, 1 in 10 applications were ineligible, 1 in 5 did not address the root causes of systemic oppression that the fund exists to tackle, and another 1 in 5 were ideas already too developed for a fund that pays for early testing.
Garfield Weston names "applying for work which is being delivered by similar organisations in the same area as you".
2. You asked for something the funder does not pay for. Clothworkers, which funds capital projects (buildings, vehicles, equipment), lists "The request was for a non-capital project" and requests for work already finished. Garfield Weston does not fund "the salaries of specific posts".
3. The money questions were left open. Garfield Weston lists "financial information is missing such as your income plan and/or anticipated income and expenditure", and "large cash reserves or relatively high cost work was not explained". Clothworkers lists financial need not shown, doubts about the charity's finances, a fundraising plan that "does not seem adequate", and projects too large for it "to award a meaningful grant".
4. Something was missing or late. Cambridgeshire Community Foundation says an application missing required documents or answers is treated as incomplete "and we would not progress it any further", and it does not accept late ones. At Suffolk Community Foundation, "Applications without a compliant safeguarding policy will not be assessed" (Suffolk Community Foundation).
5. It was a good bid, and there was not enough money. Cambridgeshire says "even excellent applications are sometimes not awarded funding". Paul Hamlyn's figure of 7% came, in its own words, "despite the quality of many applications".
In our view, groups 1 to 4 are in your hands; group 5 is not, and it is why 1 refusal proves little.
In 2 funders' lists, only 1 of 14 reasons for refusal is plainly about the writing
Garfield Weston and Clothworkers between them list 14 common reasons for refusal. By our reading, only 1 is plainly about how the bid reads: "unclear applications that don't explain what your organisation does, why its work is needed and the difference you are making". The other 13 are about fit, what is asked for, finances, track record and missing information.
In our view, a funder needs plain writing: what you do, why it is needed, what changes, what it costs. Polish cannot rescue a bid to the wrong funder.
Your charity's size can rule you out before anyone reads the bid
Some funders set a size rule, and it works in both directions:
- Too small for some. Esmée Fairbairn is "not considering applications from organisations with an annual turnover of less than £100,000" (Esmée Fairbairn).
- Too large for others. Paul Hamlyn's Ideas and Pioneers Fund funds organisations only "with a turnover of under £150,000" (it also funds individuals and groups) (Paul Hamlyn Foundation).
Across the UK, UKGrantmaking found nearly 22,000 registered charities identified as receiving a grant in 2024-25, most commonly charities with an income between £100,000 and £1 million, and noted that "unfunded organisations are smaller in profile" (UKGrantmaking 2026). In our view, for the smallest charities, local funders such as community foundations are often the better door: most of Suffolk Community Foundation's grants are £2,000 to £5,000. In our view, for larger ones, a funder that puts small charities first will rarely choose you, however good the bid.
What good looks like: where a funder on your list sets a size rule, your latest accounts meet it.
Some funders will not tell you why, and some will talk it through
- No feedback. Garfield Weston says it is "not able to give feedback on individual applications", given the numbers it receives. The Swire Charitable Trust says the small size of its team means it cannot give any to unsuccessful applicants (Swire Charitable Trust).
- Feedback only at a later stage. Esmée Fairbairn gives no detailed feedback on first forms, but does give it to every organisation it has an assessment call with and invites to send a proposal.
- A broad reason and a call. The A B Charitable Trust's refusal letter gives "a broad reason for rejection", and its team will arrange a telephone call if you ask (A B Charitable Trust).
A group of funders has promised more. IVAR, a research charity, runs Open and Trusting: 8 promises about how funders treat charities, 1 of which is to give feedback and publish their success rates and reasons for rejection (IVAR). By March 2025 over 150 funders had signed up, and together they made grants worth over £1 billion in 2023-24 (UKGrantmaking), a small part of all UK grantmaking, which was more than £24 billion the following year (UKGrantmaking 2026).
Where a call is offered, ask 3 questions. Did we meet your rules? How far did our application get? What would you need to see from us next time?
Some funders rule out an appeal, so ask for reasons, not a second look
Some funders publish a rule on appeals, and the 2 below rule out an appeal. The Thomson Charitable Trust puts it bluntly: "No explanation will be given and there is no appeal" (Thomson Charitable Trust). Trust in Children says its trustees' decision "is final with no right of appeal" (Trust in Children).
A funder may choose to look again on its own terms: Paul Hamlyn Foundation will revisit a small number of Arts Fund applications declined in its last 2 rounds (Museums Association). That is the funder's choice, not a right. In our view, write back only if the letter rests on a plain factual mistake, and then say what the mistake is.
You can usually apply again, after a wait and with a new request
| Funder | How long to wait after a refusal | The condition |
|---|---|---|
| Esmée Fairbairn | No wait | Not for "the same work and costs" |
| The Clothworkers' Foundation | 6 months | Never the same project again |
| The A B Charitable Trust | 12 months from the date you applied | A new application |
| Trust for London | 12 months | 1 application per organisation each year |
| The Swire Charitable Trust | 1 year from the date you applied | Applies whether you were funded or not |
Esmée warns that unless a new first form "is very different, it's unlikely to get a different result".
A refusal need not count against you. At John Ellerman Foundation in 2024/25, "27% went to organisations that had previously applied unsuccessfully", and the year before, 31% of its grants did (its funding data).
A pattern of refusals shows where the problem sits
In our view, 1 refusal tells you almost nothing, and a pattern tells you a great deal. In our view, the stage at which bids stop is the clue:
- Refused as not eligible: a checking problem: usually a published rule was missed.
- Refused at the first sift, again and again: a fit problem. The funders on your list are not the right ones, or you are asking them for the wrong thing.
- Refused at the final stage: competition. You were close; keep going, and ask what tipped it.
What to do in the 2 weeks after a refusal
- Record it: the funder, the date, the stage reached, the reason given, and the earliest date you may apply again.
- Ask for feedback where the funder offers it, with the 3 questions above.
- Read the funder's published reasons and rules against the bid you sent: size, area, what it will not pay for, the documents it requires.
- Decide: a different request to the same funder after its waiting period, or a funder that fits better now. Rebuild the bid in the new funder's terms; never forward the old one.
- Tell the board 4 facts: which funder, the stage the bid reached, the reason if given, and what happens next, with dates. Add the funder's published success rate, so the refusal is read against the real odds.
If refusals keep coming and nobody has time to find out why, our guides to the kinds of outside help and what that help costs set out your options.
Our fundraising solutions
Read next
Researching funders10 minute readHow to research a funder before you applyResearch a funder before you apply: only 356 of over 14,000 UK grantmakers publish grants to 360Giving. Where each funder's record sits, what to check.Read the article
Choosing outside help9 minute readBid writer, fundraising consultant or agency: which does your charity need?20 UK fundraising consultancies and bid writers: 14 list bid writing and fundraising strategy. How to choose a bid writer, a consultant or an agency.Read the article