In Defense of ‘No Unsolicited Applications’
In fundraising circles, there’s one phrase that tends to spark instant frustration: 'We don’t accept unsolicited applications.'
For fundraisers, it can feel like the door is closed before you’ve even had the chance to knock. It reinforces a sense of powerlessness - the feeling that you can’t even try unless you’ve already been picked. That there’s no proactive way to get picked, and the perception that the loudest, most well-connected, and usually largest organisations have an advantage.
Don’t hate me. But, in my opinion, the main alternative (open application rounds) often isn’t much better. In fact, some of the most wasteful, opaque, and disempowering processes in philanthropy happen within open calls.
Fundraisers pour time, energy, and emotional labour into proposals that may never be fully read, let alone funded. Most applications are declined without feedback, and many funders don’t have the capacity to review them thoroughly, let alone strategically.
The role of a programme officer has been reduced to managing processes (becoming a cog in an administrative machine) instead of acting as someone with deep expertise and trusted relationships in a programmatic area.
Some funders even resorted to randomised selection (rolling the dice!) because it feels like the fairest option left when the volume of applications makes meaningful decision-making near impossible. And while that might be fairer than opaque gatekeeping, it’s hardly strategic.
And underneath it all, there’s an even deeper issue: the culture of competition we’ve normalised in philanthropy. When funding is scarce and application processes are opaque, nonprofit organisations are forced to compete - not just for resources, but for attention, legitimacy, and survival.
This can destroy collaboration, limit collective impact, and create barriers to partnership - especially between grassroots and larger organisations. It mimics the worst parts of commercial logic: a market mentality that pits good work against good work, as if impact were a zero-sum game.
In reality, the most urgent social challenges demand coordination, not isolation. But our funding systems too often make collaboration feel risky, or even impossible.
So if both ends of the spectrum have serious flaws, what’s the real issue?
Shared Mission, Different Power
As we talk about on our #FixTheFlow Fellowship all the time, at the heart of it, funders and fundraisers actually have the same job: To get money from where it is, to where it’s most needed - and where it will have the greatest impact.
But we hold different information. And different types of power.
Fundraisers are close to the work. They see the problems and solutions up close, and have expertise on their organisation, their locale, and their field.
Funders are close to the resources. They shape priorities, portfolios, and strategies, and theoretically have a birdseye perspective on a programmatic area, learning and impact.
The breakdown comes when we treat our shared mission as a one-sided pitch. A transaction. A cold outreach.
When organisations have to compete against each other behind closed doors, in processes that reward capacity and polish over purpose and potential, by design. Is a competitive, public, cold application process a tool anyone really feels they could use to accurately assess how to allocate a pot of funding towards impact?
Unsolicited Applications vs. Unsolicited Connections
One major misconception is equating 'no unsolicited applications' with 'we don’t want to hear from you' or ‘we already know everything we need to know’.
These aren’t the same thing.
An unsolicited application is an official request for funding, usually written in the funder’s format, submitted for formal assessment - usually within rigid governance structures or decision making processes.
An unsolicited connection is something else entirely: a relationship, a conversation, an introduction, a chance to learn about (and from) each other.
Foundations can - and should - remain open to connections, even if they don’t accept cold proposals. Curiosity and relationship-building are a key part of how Foundation staff go about building their knowledge, networks, strategies and funding approaches.
A Spectrum of Shared Responsibility
What I believe we need is a more collaborative approach to discovering and deciding who gets funded. I see this as a spectrum of shared responsibility:
Awareness – Funders need to be actively discovering and tracking who’s doing great work, especially those outside their immediate networks, and providing easy ways for nonprofit leaders and fundraisers to get in touch, highlight that they exist, and start an initial relationship.
Understanding – Funders should be doing the work of researching and listening, using publicly available information, thought leadership, and informal conversations to deepen their knowledge of prospective grantees. Managing the power dynamics of these engagements so they centre understanding of a programmatic area, geography, and field (rather than frantic rushing to pitch and present the most polished view) is essential.
Strategy – Funders should make funding decisions based on alignment, values, and impact, in the context of a Theory of Change that is grounded in what they understand about the field (e.g. Who else is funding this? What is most underfunded? What offers the best and most sustainable route to change? What does the ecosystem need to thrive?) - not just who can navigate a complex application process best.
The role of fundraisers in this dynamic is simpler, but deeper:
Making the work of an organisation visible and understandable, not through scatter-gun cold applications, but through a rich articulation of the needs and strategies that are unique to your work, translated through regular public communications.
Demonstrating and sharing expertise and insights about a field - not just an organisation - making sure to understand others working in your space, how you might collaborate, how you differ, and what a funder might need to understand in order to navigate the landscape to fund in the most impactful way. Become an advisor, not a sales person.
Focussing on building authentic relationships, not just transactional pipelines. This sounds resource intensive, but the cost-benefit analysis of what can come from having contact, rapport and connection with other professionals across your field is huge in comparison to the wasted time of cold applications.
And, if you know you’re automatically excluded due to funders’ criteria (e.g. size of income), either not wasting your time in engaging at all, connecting in order to have influence (perhaps you have insight that the average size of income for this programme area is outside of their criteria?), or even going ‘upstream’ (in partnership with your peers!) to raise awareness of the lack of funding programmes that align with the size or needs of your field.
Who’s Doing It Differently?
There are some great examples of funders who could easily be lumped into the ‘no unsolicited proposals’ bucket, but are in fact moving more money, arguably more equitably, in a way that increases the ‘ROI’ of grantee’s time and involvement in the process:
Mackenzie Scott’s team conducts private research to find and vet potential grantees and provides large, unrestricted gifts - without applications. They trust the organisations they support, and they do the legwork themselves before getting in touch. (Listen to our podcast with some Scott grantees to hear what the experience was like)
JustFund is a 'two sided marketplace' for justice-focussed organisations. It allows grantseekers to submit one application in a standard format which then reaches 170+ funders simultaneously. Communities previously locked out of traditional funding streams gain direct access to a cohort of relevant funders, saving hours on repetitive applications. And, Funders find qualified applicants they might have missed, and review them all in a standardised format, wasting less (up to 60% per grant) grantee time.
Friends Provident Foundation recently overhauled their application process to reduce the burden on applicants. They now invite organisations to introduce themselves via a simple “Say Hello” function (written note, video, or voice message). If there’s potential alignment, the Foundation’s team initiates a conversation and collaborates with the prospective grantee to co-create an application, with staff taking on the responsibility of writing it up.
Beyond the Hunger Games
Fundraising shouldn’t be like The Hunger Games. And philanthropic strategy shouldn’t be randomised, or guesswork.
We need systems that actually reward strategy, change, and impact - not just stamina and polish. That means challenging not just how proposals are received, but how relationships are built in the first place.
So, fundraisers, the next time you see 'no unsolicited applications’, I would suggest not viewing it as a closed door, or a rejection. Ask:
Is the funder making themselves accessible? What ways could you connect with them?
Are they investing in understanding the ecosystem? How can you help with that?
Are they doing their share of the work? How can you lean on them?
Do they understand the needs, restrictions, and challenges of your field? How can you educate them?
And if you’re a funder: It’s not about being open to everything. It’s about being open to enough - to listen, to learn, to build partnerships, and fund with a strategy that centres impact.
Fundamentally, we just need to get money from where it is to where it needs to be. What would our sector look like if relationships came before applications, and strategy came before admin?
Enjoy exploring topics like this? Want to be a part of inventing new solutions to the challenges of our funding system? Or simply want to build your skills as a fundraiser or funder in this weird and wonderful world we work in? Check out our #FixTheFlow Fellowship here.