Unsolicited Proposals: What Foundation Grant Statistics Really Mean
Every few months, another article warns grant writers that foundations have slammed their doors shut. As a reviewer, I read those numbers differently, because I know what most of them are actually measuring: a checkbox on a tax form. The gap between what a foundation checks on its IRS return and how it actually behaves is where a lot of good opportunities hide.
Quick Takeaway
Candid reports that 71% of private foundations check a box on their tax form saying they don't accept unsolicited requests for funds. But that figure comes from a checkbox foundations mark on IRS forms, often for administrative convenience rather than actual practice. When Candid asked foundations directly, 55% said they would accept unsolicited proposals, close to the reverse of what the checkbox suggests. And when a foundation reports a low award rate, that number includes the large share of applications that were poorly matched or ignored the guidelines. For well-prepared, mission-aligned organizations, your real odds are much better than the statistics imply. Focus on relationships, not percentages.
Table of Contents
Imagine this: the dating profile analogy
You're scrolling through dating profiles and see someone who has 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 inquiry 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 71% of foundations check the box saying they "do not accept unsolicited requests for funds." The label tells you something, but not nearly as much as people assume.
What Candid's data says, and what it doesn't
The statistic: Candid reports that 71% of private foundations check the box saying they don't accept unsolicited requests for funds.
What people think it means: the door is closed at nearly three out of four foundations.
What it actually means: 71% checked a box on a tax form. When Candid surveyed foundations directly, 55% said they would actually accept unsolicited proposals. The checkbox reflects what foundations chose to document, not necessarily how they behave.
As Candid itself points out, the data is easily misunderstood. Checking the box doesn't mean a funder is truly off limits. Many prefer a relationship first, invite proposals through specific channels, accept letters of inquiry, or simply checked the box rather than complete the detailed disclosure section of their tax form.
What "unsolicited" actually means on the IRS form
Here is where it gets interesting, and it's the part I want you to understand better than almost anyone else in this field does. Foundations check a box on their IRS Form 990-PF that essentially asks whether they 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. In Part XV of the form, foundations disclose their grantmaking procedures to help potential applicants understand how to approach them.
Here is the catch. If a foundation checks the box saying it "only makes contributions to preselected charitable organizations and does not accept unsolicited requests for funds," they are done. They can skip the rest of the section.
But if they leave that box unchecked, they have to provide detailed information:
The name, address, and contact information of the person handling applications
The form and materials applicants should submit
Submission procedures and deadlines
All restrictions and limitations on awards, including geographic areas, funding priorities, and organization types
Why a foundation might check the box
That is a lot of work on an already lengthy tax form. A foundation might check that box not because it refuses to consider new organizations, but because:
It has informal or evolving processes that are hard to document
It is a small operation without dedicated grant management staff
It changes priorities year to year and doesn't want to commit to specific procedures publicly
It wants flexibility to fund opportunistically
It is simply easier than completing several detailed fields
Checking that box and skipping the detailed disclosures is the path of least resistance. Candid confirms the point directly: checking the box on Form 990-PF doesn't necessarily reflect a firmly fixed policy, and foundation staff may still consider unsolicited requests.
This means the checkbox may be less about actual accessibility and more about which foundations were willing to document detailed procedures on a tax form. It is like checking "prefer not to say" on a survey, not because you are hiding something, but because explaining is more work than skipping.
Why award percentages are equally misleading
Some grant writing experts advise organizations to call foundations and ask, "What percentage of applications do you award?" The theory is that you shouldn't apply unless the award rate clears a certain threshold.
This sounds logical, but it is flawed, and here is why.
Most rejected applications fail for fixable reasons
The award percentage includes weak applications. According to Candid, the most frequent reasons foundations reject proposals are that they don't have enough funds to accept every request, the request falls outside the funder's giving interests, and the applicant didn't follow the guidelines. In other words, most rejections are about money, fit, and instructions, not the quality of the underlying program.
Think about what that means. If a foundation reports a 10% award rate, that number includes applications that don't match the funder's priorities at all, proposals with poor writing, submissions that ignore basic guidelines, and requests from organizations that aren't even eligible. Well-known foundations receive thousands of applications, and a large share come from organizations that never did the basic research. Those applications drag down the overall rate, making the foundation look more selective than it actually is for qualified applicants.
The question you should actually ask
What you really want to know is different: what percentage of well-written, mission-aligned applications from strong organizations get funded? That is a very different number, and one that foundations can't easily provide. As Candid puts it, when you ask how many proposals from well-run organizations with effective programs actually get funded, their answer is "most of them." In fact, one Foundation Center survey of 878 grantmakers found that 35% of foundations funded half or more of the requests they received.
Why relationships matter more than statistics
Overall award rates are misleading because they don't account for relationship quality or application strength. The numbers below are illustrative, but they show the pattern:
A foundation funds only 5% of all applications. With an established relationship and a board connection, a strong applicant's odds can be many times better than the posted rate.
A foundation reports a 25% award rate. That number includes everyone. Cold applications from unknown organizations succeed rarely, while known partners fare far better.
Most rejected applications are turned away for poor fit or for ignoring guidelines. A well-researched, perfectly aligned proposal from a strong organization competes in an entirely different pool.
The award 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 the funder's priorities.
Reframing the statistic
Instead of reading, "71% of foundations don't accept unsolicited requests," interpret it as:
"71% checked a box on a tax form, but when asked directly, 55% said they would accept unsolicited proposals."
Many foundations that checked the box might still consider your application. They may prefer a letter of inquiry first, open a window at certain times, or simply have chosen the checkbox over the paperwork.
The grant writer's secret advantage: how to read between the lines
The Grant Writer's Secret Advantage: How to Read Between the Lines
Strong grant writers know that numbers don't determine access—relationships do.
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.
Track actual funder behavior. Use tools like Instrumentl (affiliate link) or Foundation Directory Online to see who they have funded in the past two to three years, their geographic giving patterns, their average grant sizes, and the program areas that receive the most funding.
Build trust before you ask. Attend their webinars, engage thoughtfully with their impact reports, share success stories that align with their mission, and connect on LinkedIn appropriately.
Time it right. Respect deadlines, lead with a letter of inquiry if preferred, and apply during active funding cycles.
Do your homework. Most rejected applications fail not because the program is bad, but because the applicant didn't dig deep enough into the funder's specific priorities.
Don't be afraid to have a conversation. Sometimes the guidelines seem to disqualify you, but a phone call reveals an opportunity you would have missed.
Real-world grant writing example: when guidelines don't tell the whole story
The Boeing Foundation changed its funding priorities one year, shifting from direct grants to early learning organizations 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 not applying, I picked up the phone and called the program officer. I explained our situation: an island with no access to the mainland except by ferry. In essence, we were a region unto ourselves, with our own needs and challenges, 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, we received a substantial grant. The lesson: relevance and relationships outweigh statistics every time.
Frequently asked questions
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 is collected and read often is. The 71% figure is based on a checkbox 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 "71% don't accept unsolicited requests" figure is like someone checking "it's complicated" on a form. It is 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 someone new.
Don't let award percentages scare you away from strong prospects. A 10% overall rate means very little if your organization is well-run, your proposal is excellent, and your mission aligns with their priorities. You aren't competing against all applicants. You are competing against the small subset of qualified, well-prepared organizations. And sometimes you aren't competing at all. You are having a conversation that opens a door you didn't even know existed. This is also part of the broader shift toward invitation-only funding I wrote about here.
Grant writing isn't about chasing odds. It is 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?
References
Sato, G. (2025, October 1). How often do foundations accept unsolicited requests for funds? Candid. https://candid.org/blogs/do-foundations-accept-unsolicited-requests-for-funds-from-nonprofits/
Candid Learning. (n.d.). What is the percentage of grant proposals that foundations actually fund? https://learning.candid.org/grant-statistics-funded-proposals-percentage/278283
