Seeking Shared Understanding: What We Learned from the Second Annual “Reviewers United”
On March 7, 2026, Spur Local and Unfunded List convened the second annual Reviewers United event, providing collaborative training for nearly 60 volunteer nonprofit proposal reviewers. Many in the room were also funders, grantseekers, board members, or members of giving circles. Across a lively half-day, we engaged in deep discussion about how proposal authors and reviewers can use the medium of a nonprofit grant application to develop shared understanding and advance social impact together. Here are four key takeaways from the event.
1. It’s important to acknowledge the effects of current uncertainty on the well-being of nonprofit leaders and the impact of their organizations.
Nationally, the number of individual donors giving to nonprofits has been decreasing since at least 2022, and overall since 2000. Today, about half of households make charitable contributions. As giving continues to be concentrated among wealthier donors, philanthropic and corporate giving remain flat, and government funding becomes increasingly uncertain, nonprofits in the Greater Washington region are particularly vulnerable to these sector-wide ripple effects.
Burnout among local nonprofit Executive Directors is still a concerning trend, with staff reporting they are “sprinting a marathon” and the urgency of their work creating unsustainable conditions.
As proposal reviewers and funders, it is critical to approach statements of impact with this context in mind. Many nonprofits are scenario planning, increasing their advocacy and partnership- and coalition-building, scaling back or maintaining their programming, and trying new programs or revenue streams as both costs and demand rise. Supporting nonprofits in this time must involve understanding their organizational realities, being flexible with our support, and trusting their expertise on the resources they need.
2. The rising use of AI also means this is an emerging bias for you to pause and consider when reviewing.
AI may be especially useful for nonprofits with small teams to reduce the burden of grantwriting and increase their capacity for submitting proposals. At the same time, depending on reviewers’ own experiences with AI, we see many either adopting a negative bias toward its use or penalizing proposals that they think were written without the help of AI.
As you review, some key things to consider include:
- Are you reviewing with higher expectations of a proposal’s writing quality? Because some grantseekers use AI to improve their grammar, spelling, and writing, while others do not, are you subconsciously focusing on the inadequacies of an application, such as typos, that do not relate to the organization’s impact?
- Are you guessing if a proposal was written with AI based on its writing style and scoring it more negatively as a result?
- Are you using AI to do research on the organization instead of basing your decisions and feedback on the proposal itself, and how the organization has used the proposal to share more about their work?
Ultimately, as proposal reviewers, we recognize that AI is a tool that can flatten the quality and variability of grantseekers’ writing across the board. But, as with other biases, we must pause and clarify that we are assessing the organization on the merit of its work, and not the strength of its writing.
3. Budget explanations are a great way to understand the fuller picture of an organization’s reality, including how it delivers its programs and services.
Ultimately, a budget is an organization’s statement of priorities and financial expression of its strategy. While certain funders may ask for a specific program budget instead of, or in addition to, an overall organizational budget, budget numbers and explanations provide a more holistic view of the who, how, and why behind an organization’s work. For example, though the federal indirect cost rate for nonprofits is 15%, a study from the MacArthur Foundation found that the minimum indirect cost rate for financially healthy organizations is 29%. Indirect costs include things like paying for office space and utilities, covering salaries for administrative and fundraising staff, and more — the “unsexy” needs that keep a nonprofit operating.
If you’re a proposal author, find ways to include this information in your program narratives, even (or especially) when you are not asked for a budget. Acknowledge the full costs of delivering your programs and services, and use the explanation to help proposal reviewers better understand how you need to resource your people and build your capacity to drive the impact. Some ways to do this include:
- Providing the per participant costs of the program for which you’re requesting funding
- Listing the types of expenses that would be covered by the funding
- Explaining how the funding will support the long-term goals of the program
4. The way you decline or provide feedback on a proposal matters. Rejection can be a resource.
If you are a funder or proposal reviewer, the way you approach declining an application or providing feedback is consequential to the relationship you build with the grantseeker.
One of the fundamental challenges with philanthropy, particularly grantmaking, is that for any given funding opportunity, there will be too many requests. In 1906, Margaret Olivia Slocum Sage inherited her husband’s fortune and, in her first foray into philanthropy, published letters in local newspapers, including her home address and requesting grantseekers to contact her. Over the course of a few months, she received tens of thousands of letters, far too many to read. The following year, she established the Russell Sage Foundation, which is still operating today. Organized philanthropists spent the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century trying to deal with this fundamental challenge. Over the past hundred years, we have seen the rise of the grant proposal, the program officer, the Request for Proposals (RFP), the Letter of Interest (LOI), and invitation-only approaches as methods to address this issue. None of them are perfect.
A few key things to consider when rejecting grant proposals and funding requests:
- Put yourself in the applicant’s shoes by volunteering to review different proposals
- Communicate in a timely way if you are declining a proposal, so the grantseeker isn’t waiting in silence
- Be transparent about your perspective and experiences to contextualize the feedback you share
- Give specific feedback. For example, instead of saying “your organization doesn’t seem like the right fit,” provide either a clear reason, like “your organization does not meet the geographic eligibility criteria,” or ask a clarifying question, like “why is your program cost per participant so high?” (for which the applicant might have a great reason!)
Spur Local is building the CASE for community — creating connections, advancing advocacy, strengthening capacity, and elevating awareness to support the DMV. As the region’s only locally-focused guide to giving, it believes in the power of small nonprofits to spark big change together. Since 2003, Spur Local has raised more than $65 million from thousands of supporters for its network of over 500 critical local nonprofits. And as the largest nonprofit capacity builder in the region, Spur Local has trained 30,000+ nonprofit professionals, strengthening their skills as individuals and their relationships as organizations. Every year, 150+ residents who live or work in the Greater Washington region volunteer as part of the nonprofit review process, choosing nonprofits that are critical to our communities here, where we live.
Unfunded List, founded in 2015, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of grant proposals and supporting social impact initiatives. Through its expert evaluation committee, Unfunded List provides candid and actionable feedback to nonprofits and social entrepreneurs worldwide, empowering them to refine their proposals and increase their chances of securing funding. Twice annually, the organization reviews hundreds of proposals, offering insights on everything from narrative clarity to budget alignment. By fostering collaboration and promoting the best proposals to its network of evaluators and proposal reviewers, Unfunded List has become an invaluable resource for organizations seeking to amplify their impact.






