Quick Takeaway
Candid reports that only 23% of foundations accept unsolicited proposals, but this statistic is based on checkboxes foundations mark on tax forms—often for administrative convenience rather than actual practice. Additionally, when foundations report low acceptance rates (like 10%), that includes the 80-90% of applications that are immediately rejected for being poorly written or misaligned. For well-prepared, mission-aligned nonprofits, your actual odds are much higher than the statistics suggest. Focus on relationships, not percentages.
Imagine This: The Dating Profile Analogy
You're scrolling through dating profiles and see someone who's marked themselves as "single" and "open to meeting people." Does that mean you should show up at their house unannounced with flowers?
Of course not. "Open to meeting people" might mean:
"Message me first so we can chat before meeting" (letter of interest required)
"I only go on dates during summer when work calms down" (specific application windows)
"I prefer meeting through mutual friends" (invitation-only grantmaking)
That's exactly what it's like when Candid reports that only 23% of foundations "accept unsolicited proposals."
What Candid's Data Says—and What It Doesn't
The Statistic: Candid's recent report notes that roughly 23% of foundations accept unsolicited proposals.
What People Think It Means: Only one in four funders are open to new applicants.
What It Actually Means: Only 23% of foundations have documented their detailed grantmaking procedures on a public tax form. The other 77% may still consider applications—they just didn't want to provide all the details on their IRS Form 990-PF.
As Candid itself points out, the data is easily misunderstood. The statistic doesn't mean that 77% of funders are off limits—it means that many prefer a relationship first, invite proposals through specific channels, or simply didn't complete the detailed disclosure section of their tax form.
What "Unsolicited" Actually Means on the IRS Form—and Why the Data May Be Unreliable
Here's where it gets complicated: foundations check a box on their IRS Form 990-PF that asks, "Do you accept unsolicited requests for funds?"
But this is a compliance question on a tax form, and the answer may have more to do with paperwork than actual practice.
The Tax Form Shortcut
The IRS requires Form 990-PF to ensure transparency and accountability of private foundations. This transparency helps donors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders assess how the foundation operates and manages its resources. In Part XV of the form, foundations must disclose their grantmaking procedures to help potential grant applicants understand how to approach them.
Here's the catch: If a foundation checks the box saying they "only make contributions to preselected charitable organizations and do not accept unsolicited requests for funds," they're done. They can skip the rest of the section.
But if they leave that box unchecked, they must provide detailed information:
The name, address, and contact information of the person handling applications
The required form and materials applicants should submit
Submission procedures and deadlines
All restrictions and limitations on awards (geographic areas, funding priorities, organization types, etc.)
Why Foundations Might Check the "No Unsolicited Requests" Box
That's a lot of work on an already lengthy tax form. Foundations might check that box not because they refuse to consider new organizations, but because:
They have informal or evolving processes that are hard to document
They're a small operation without dedicated grant management staff
They change priorities year to year and don't want to commit to specific procedures publicly
They want flexibility to fund opportunistically
It's simply easier than completing several detailed fields
...checking that box and skipping the detailed disclosures is the path of least resistance.
The result? Many foundations may check "no unsolicited requests" not because they refuse to consider new organizations, but because explaining their actual process is more administrative burden than they want to take on. Some might:
Accept applications but only during certain windows (which change)
Prefer a letter of inquiry first (but not always)
Want to maintain flexibility in how they find grantees
Simply not want to commit their informal process to a public IRS document
This means the 23% statistic may be less about actual accessibility and more about which foundations are willing to document detailed procedures on a tax form.
It's like checking "prefer not to say" on a survey—not because you're hiding something, but because explaining is more work than skipping.
Why Award Percentages Are Equally Misleading
Some grant writing experts advise nonprofits to call foundations and ask, "What percentage of applications do you award?" The theory is that you shouldn't apply unless the acceptance rate meets a certain threshold.
This advice sounds logical, but it's fundamentally flawed—and here's why.
Most Applications Are Immediately Rejected for Basic Reasons
The acceptance percentage includes terrible applications. Research on grant proposals reveals a sobering truth: at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 80% of grant applications are immediately rejected because applicants didn't do their homework about the foundation's specific priorities. One foundation manager reported that 90% of the proposals they receive are badly organized and don't communicate well.
Think about what this means. If a foundation reports a 10% acceptance rate, that statistic includes:
Applications that don't match the funder's priorities at all
Proposals with poor writing and mechanical errors
Submissions that don't follow basic guidelines
Requests from organizations that aren't even eligible
Popular foundations get flooded with applications—most of them poor. Well-known foundations like Gates, Ford, or Kellogg receive thousands of applications. A significant portion come from organizations that haven't done basic research, don't fit the funding priorities, or submit substandard proposals. These low-quality applications drag down the overall acceptance rate, making the foundation appear more selective than it actually is for qualified applicants.
The Question You Should Actually Ask
The question you really want answered is different. What you actually need to know is: "What percentage of well-written, mission-aligned applications from strong organizations get funded?" That's a very different number—and one that foundations can't easily provide.
As Candid itself notes in its analysis: "How many grant proposals submitted by well-run, well-governed nonprofits that perform a valuable service with effective programs actually get funded? Our guess: most of them."
Why Relationships Matter More Than Statistics
The overall acceptance rate statistics are misleading because they don't account for relationship quality or application strength. Here's what the numbers actually mean for your organization:
Three Reasons Why Relationships Matter More Than Statistics:
1. Overall statistic: Foundation funds only 5% of all applications Your reality: With an established relationship and board connection, your odds improve to approximately 50%—ten times better than the posted rate.
2. Overall statistic: Foundation reports 25% acceptance rate Your reality: This number includes everyone. Cold applications from unknown organizations have nearly 0% success, while known partners have significantly higher odds.
3. Overall statistic: 80% of applications rejected immediately for poor quality Your reality: Most rejections are for poor quality or misalignment. A well-researched, perfectly aligned proposal from a strong organization competes in an entirely different pool with much better odds.
The acceptance percentage tells you almost nothing about your chances—because your chances depend on the quality of your proposal, the strength of your relationship, and the alignment of your mission with their priorities.
Reframing the Statistic
Instead of reading, "Only 23% of foundations accept proposals," interpret it as:
"23% of foundations have publicly documented their detailed grantmaking procedures on a tax form—but that doesn't mean the other 77% won't consider your application."
Many of those 77% might be open to proposals—they just didn't want to spell out all the details on their 990-PF.
The Grant Writer's Secret Advantage: How to Read Between the Lines
Strong grant writers know that numbers don't determine access—relationships do.
6 Strategies That Work Better Than Statistics
1. Look beyond the form. Even if a funder "doesn't accept unsolicited proposals," a thoughtful email, board connection, or participation in their initiatives can open doors.
2. Track actual funder behavior. Use tools like Instrumentl or Foundation Directory Online to see:
Who they've funded in the past 2-3 years
Geographic giving patterns
Average grant sizes
Program areas that receive the most funding
3. Build trust before you ask.
Attend foundation-hosted webinars
Comment thoughtfully on their impact reports
Share success stories that align with their mission
Connect on LinkedIn (appropriately)
4. Time it right.
Respect application deadlines
Lead with letters of inquiry if preferred
Apply during their active funding cycles
5. Do your homework. The vast majority of rejected applications fail not because they're bad programs, but because applicants didn't dig deep enough into the funder's specific priorities and initiatives.
6. Don't be afraid to have a conversation. Sometimes guidelines seem to disqualify you—but a phone call can reveal unexpected opportunities.
Real-World Grant Writing Example: When Guidelines Don't Tell the Whole Story
The Boeing Foundation changed its funding priorities one year, shifting from providing direct grants to early learning nonprofits to funding only early learning coalitions—regional networks of providers working together.
At first glance, this seemed to disqualify my client, a small early learning provider on an island of just 10,000 people. They weren't a coalition, and they certainly weren't a region. By the letter of the guidelines, they appeared ineligible.
But my client had already been collaborating informally with other early learning providers on the island, identifying gaps in services and working to better serve their community. We had the collaborative spirit Boeing was looking for—we just didn't fit the geographic definition of a "region."
Instead of simply not applying based on the guidelines, I picked up the phone and called the program officer. I explained our situation: we were an island with no access to the mainland except by ferry. In essence, we were a region unto ourselves, with our own unique needs and challenges. We were already doing the collaborative work Boeing wanted to support—just on a smaller geographic scale.
The program officer understood. Not only were we invited to apply, but we also received a substantial grant.
The lesson: relevance and relationships outweigh statistics every time.
Frequently Asked Questions About Foundation Grants and Unsolicited Proposals
Should I apply to a foundation that doesn't accept unsolicited proposals?
Not directly—but don't write them off entirely. First, try submitting a brief letter of inquiry asking if you may apply. Request a conversation with a program officer to discuss your project and their current priorities. Seek an introduction through a board member or mutual contact. Attend their public events or webinars to begin building a relationship. Many foundations marked as "invitation only" will invite you to apply after these preliminary steps demonstrate your alignment with their mission.
Should I avoid foundations with low acceptance rates?
No. Low acceptance rates—like 5% or 10%—are misleading because they include the 80-90% of applications that are immediately rejected for poor quality, misalignment, or not following basic guidelines. If your organization is well-run, your proposal is excellent, and your mission aligns perfectly with their priorities, you're not competing against all those applications—you're competing in a much smaller pool of serious contenders. A foundation that funds "only 5% of applications" might actually fund 40-50% of well-prepared, mission-aligned proposals. Focus on fit and quality, not overall statistics.
How do I know if a foundation is really open to new applicants?
Look beyond the checkbox on their 990-PF and examine their actual behavior. Do you see any new organizations in their recent grants list—organizations they've never funded before? Are they funding in your geographic area? Do they fund organizations your size? Does their website information contradict or clarify the 990-PF data? When in doubt, call and ask directly about their openness to new applicants in your program area.
What percentage of grant applications actually get funded?
This varies widely by foundation, but overall statistics are misleading. While many foundations fund only 10-20% of applications, 80-90% of applications are immediately rejected for poor quality, misalignment, or failure to follow guidelines. For well-prepared, mission-aligned organizations, the real success rate is much higher. You're not competing against all applications—you're competing against the small subset that cleared basic quality hurdles.
How can I increase my chances of getting a grant?
Focus on perfect alignment—only apply when your mission clearly matches their priorities. Do deep research beyond the guidelines to understand their recent funding patterns. Build relationships with the foundation before applying. Submit a letter of inquiry first to test the waters. Follow every instruction exactly. Write clearly and compellingly. Demonstrate strong impact with solid outcomes data. These strategies matter far more than acceptance rate statistics.
Can I contact a foundation before submitting an application?
Yes, and in most cases this is encouraged! Appropriate pre-application contact includes calling to verify your eligibility and fit, asking clarifying questions about guidelines, requesting feedback on a preliminary idea, and submitting a letter of inquiry. What to avoid: don't ask them to read your draft proposal, don't be pushy or demanding of their time, and don't ignore stated preferences (if they say "no phone calls," respect that).
How long does it take to build a relationship with a foundation?
Building a meaningful relationship typically takes a minimum of six to twelve months for initial recognition and trust, one to two years for a strong relationship that improves funding odds, and three or more years for deep partnership and multi-year funding. You can accelerate relationship building by attending their events, sharing relevant success stories without asking for anything, demonstrating mission alignment through your work, and making connections through board members or current grantees.
Key Takeaways: What Grant Writers Need to Know
Your Action Plan
✓ Research funders based on their actual giving patterns, not their 990-PF checkboxes
✓ Start with a letter of inquiry or phone call—even to "invitation only" foundations
✓ Build relationships over time through authentic engagement
✓ Only apply where there's strong mission alignment
✓ Make your proposal exceptional—eliminate yourself from the 80% who get immediately rejected
✓ Be patient and strategic, not desperate and scattered
The Bottom Line
Candid's data isn't wrong—but the way it's collected and read often is. The 23% statistic is based on checkboxes on tax forms, where foundations may be choosing the easiest path rather than accurately describing their practices. Numbers can inform your strategy, but they shouldn't define it. Behind every statistic is a story of people, values, and alignment.
The "23% accept unsolicited proposals" figure is like someone checking "single" on a form. It's technically accurate, but it doesn't tell you how to actually connect with them—and it might not even reflect their real openness to meeting new people.
Don't let acceptance percentages scare you away from strong prospects. A 10% overall acceptance rate means very little if your organization is well-run, your proposal is excellent, and your mission aligns perfectly with their priorities. You're not competing against all applicants—you're competing against the small subset of qualified, well-prepared organizations.
And sometimes, you're not competing at all—you're having a conversation that opens a door you didn't even know existed.
Grant writing isn't about chasing odds—it's about building trust, one relationship at a time.
This post responds to insights from Candid's recent analysis: Do foundations accept unsolicited requests for funds from nonprofits?