What it means
Grant agreements state what costs and outcomes are eligible, when they can be claimed and which records are required. A nonprofit may have delivered useful work but submit the wrong document or include an expense outside the funding period, so review the funder's response against the agreement and the submitted claim version.
First establish the funder's status for each line (pending, queried, corrected, approved or finally denied) and record the notice date and reference number. Separate rejection from a request for more information, because a request for more evidence is not always a final rejection.
If the funder permits correction or resubmission, note the deadline and the exact evidence needed, and do not manufacture retrospective records or relabel costs to fit a category they never belonged to. For genuine eligibility disputes, assemble the original approvals, invoices, milestones and correspondence and use the agreed review route.
Check who can submit a correction or formal challenge under the agreement, since a named signatory or authorised reviewer may be required. Keep the version history so a reviewer can see which facts were available at each submission.
Track root causes across claims, such as unclear grant conditions, weak evidence, late reporting or unsupported scope changes, because a rejection rate is only useful with value and reason and one large denied milestone can matter more than several small corrections. Assess the cash and budget effects.
A claim that will not be paid may leave the organisation needing other unrestricted funding or a project change, and finance should consider the supported receivable and any revenue recognition treatment under its accounting framework. Programme staff should know if future activities depend on that money, and a project team should not treat an expected reimbursement as cash in the bank.
Before changing future spending, review whether a rejected amount can be funded elsewhere without breaching restrictions, and discuss significant gaps with finance and the funder where appropriate. A rejected amount may also affect delivery targets, so review the award conditions before reducing activities or moving restricted funds, and document any approved change so future claims can be matched to the amended scope.
Keep communication with the funder factual and timely, because for owners of grant-funded work the goal is a fair, supported claim and a project that can continue responsibly, not merely an appeal for every rejected line.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A fictional funder denies a line dated before the eligible funding period. The recipient checks the award terms, agrees the date falls outside the period and removes the line from a revised claim.
Example
A fictional milestone claim lacks attendance evidence. The charity provides existing records within an allowed correction window, without recreating sign-in sheets, and notes in its file which records were already held.
Example
A fictional organisation challenges a denied cost using written approval that predates the purchase and the agreement's review route. It submits the approval, the invoice and the correspondence together so the reviewer can follow the sequence of events.
Formula
Calculation
Grant claim rejection rate by value = Value of claim lines finally rejected / Value of claim lines decided x 100
Worked example. A fictional nonprofit submits $100,000 of eligible-looking claim lines. The funder finally approves $92,000 and rejects $8,000.
- Rejection rate by value = $8,000 / $100,000 x 100 = 8%.
- Track any lines still pending separately from final decisions.
If the nonprofit had also submitted a further $20,000 of lines that remain queried, those lines would sit outside the calculation until decided. Including them early would understate or overstate the rate, so the rate is recalculated only on final decisions.
A final rejection is different from a request to supply missing evidence.Case study
Seen in the real world.
This illustrative and entirely fictional example follows Meadow Youth, an invented training charity. A funder rejected part of a claim because several workshop costs lacked the required session IDs. Staff wanted to recreate sign-in sheets from memory, but the director stopped that approach. Meadow used original booking, attendance and supplier records where available, withdrew unsupported costs and asked the funder to review documented lines.
It kept the original claim and decision notice together, with a dated explanation of each correction. It changed future purchasing and programme forms so grant IDs were recorded when work occurred. The charity recovered supported funding without inventing evidence and could see what unrestricted funds were needed for the remaining costs.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Treating a request for information as a final rejection, or the reverse.
- Creating records after the fact as if they were contemporaneous evidence.
- Ignoring the cash and accounting impact of a material rejected amount.
Questions
People also ask.
Can a rejected claim be resubmitted?
Check the funder's rules, reason and deadline; some errors can be corrected and others cannot.
Should every rejection be appealed?
Appeal where the agreement and evidence support it, rather than using appeal to mask an ineligible cost.
What if the project is still ongoing?
Review the funding gap and delivery commitments before spending further.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%