Declining Requests After Site Visits

After a site visit, particularly a late-in-the-process site visit, applicants have, in Mark Twain's memorable phrase, “the serene confidence which a Christian feels in four aces.” Nothing can disturb this unshakable belief that their request will be funded. Fortunately for all involved, due to the fact that most program officers visit only those projects that the foundation is seriously considering, most usually are funded. However, on those rare occasions when a site visit turns up too many troubling issues to support the request, it becomes necessary to trump those four aces (as it were) with a decline. You should expect anguish and anger whenever you have to make such a call. There are, however, a few things you can do to at least keep the situation from turning into a major incident.

The most important of these has already been discussed: the use of disclaimers in all before-and-after correspondence, as well as in the face-to-face discussions. Although it is probably true that these warnings have more value as documentation than as communications devices (as the innate optimism of grantseekers often causes them to discount such messages), disclaimers are invaluable should it ever become necessary to decline the proposal later.

You should always remember that there is an element of public humiliation in being declined so late in the process. To the applicants, being declined after a site visit is like being left standing at the altar, so they will want an explanation—and a good one—for this decision. Under the circumstances, it is imperative to call with the bad news and, if at all possible, to share a definite reason or reasons for the decision. For example, if the site visit revealed that the “partnership” was not really in place, you should cite this lack as one of the contributing factors to the decision. Above all, it is important to be personal and specific. Being jilted is bad enough, but getting the news from a vague form letter is galling in the extreme.

No matter what precautions you take, however, the applicant will be hurt and disappointed. The public nature of the refusal makes the post-site visit decline the hardest of all to take, and it behooves all grantmakers to be sensitive to this whenever such declines become necessary. The unpleasantness of such rejections makes a strong argument for excellence in proposal review and Q&C letter writing, so as to ensure that as many of the problems as possible are detected before you darken the applicant's doorstep.

If preventive measures do not work and you are faced with an irate “declinee,” it is best to meet the situation head-on. The proper approach to take is that of being kind but firm. Remind the applicant of the disclaimers that were provided both orally and in writing. Express understanding of the applicant's disappointment, but make it clear that the decision was arrived at by a fair and thoughtful process and is final. Finally, you should document all conversations and be sure to alert your superiors in the organization so that they are not caught unawares should the applicant complain to them. You should always remember that the occasional unhappy rejection will occur no matter how carefully or professionally you behave toward applicants.