More than 140 organizations applied for the first wave of the Small Grants Competition within The Impulse Project. However, only 16 organizations received grants. In most cases, applications were rejected because of similar shortcomings in project proposals — issues that could have been avoided. If your application was unsuccessful in the first wave, you still have the opportunity to revise it and apply again in the next round.
This article will help you understand the common mistakes that reduce the chances of success and learn how to make your project proposal stronger and more competitive. In the video, Tetiana Kukharenko, Program Manager of the “Democracy and Good Governance” Programme, explains why even strong ideas may remain unfunded because of certain mistakes and how these issues can be corrected. Below, we publish a text version of her explanations.
Mistake 1. Lack of a Clear Connection to the Recovery Theme
The theme of early recovery was central to the competition. However, many applications either did not address it at all or interpreted it too narrowly. Most often, applicants focused on physical reconstruction: repairing facilities, purchasing furniture or equipment, or renovating premises. At the same time, such activities were clearly identified in the competition guidelines as ineligible expenses.
By early recovery, we mean a much broader and deeper process. It is not only about physical infrastructure. It is about creating conditions for long-term change within communities: helping people adapt to the challenges of war, strengthening trust between community members, taking into account the needs of different social groups, engaging local experts, and building a shared vision for the future.
Applicants are expected to clearly explain in their proposals what exactly the community will gain as a result of the project, how these outcomes will affect people’s lives, and how they can be scaled up or sustained in the future.
Mistake 2. Lack of a Systemic Approach
Another common mistake, closely connected to the weak understanding of recovery, is a superficial or overly simplified view of the recovery process itself.
Many applications focused only on isolated activities: a training session, a forum, an information campaign, or the preparation of an analytical paper. However, they failed to explain how these activities were connected, what specific problem they addressed, or how they would contribute to long-term change within the community.
In the weakest applications, the project looked like a one-time event without continuity or a clear vision for future development. What we expect instead is a systemic approach: an understanding of the causes and consequences of the problem, clearly formulated goals and impact, as well as a comprehensive set of tools — from analytical work and communications to community engagement, advocacy, or strengthening institutional capacity.
Without clear logic and consistency, even a potentially strong project appears weak. A coherent approach, on the other hand, increases confidence in both the team and the project idea.
Mistake 3. Lack of Understanding of the Community the Project Targets
In a number of applications, the target community was either not mentioned at all or referred to only formally, without describing its current situation, needs, challenges, or specific characteristics. Some applicants even stated directly that they planned to identify the community only after the project had already started.
For us, however, it is essential that an organization already has connections with local residents, understands the local context, and is familiar with the realities of the specific community. The Impulse Project is specifically aimed at supporting the recovery of communities affected by the war — and only a deep understanding of local realities makes effective decision-making possible.
We expect organizations to have prior experience working with the selected community, established local contacts, and a solid understanding of its needs. Letters of support from local partners confirming this cooperation are considered an additional advantage.
Mistake 4. Illogical and Fragmented Project Design
In many applications, project activities appeared random or artificially combined. For example, one proposal simultaneously included a training session, a forum, an information campaign, and the preparation of an analytical document, yet failed to explain how these components were connected.
In this format, the project looks like a collection of unrelated activities without a shared logic or strategic vision.
We expect all parts of the proposal to be coherent and interconnected: each component should reinforce the others and contribute to achieving a common goal. Projects built on such synergy demonstrate a much stronger potential and show that the team is capable of thinking strategically and comprehensively.
Mistake 5. Lack of Clear Results and Vision for Change
One of the most common mistakes was formulating project goals too broadly, without clear indicators of success or criteria for evaluating results. In such cases, even a potentially strong idea is perceived as a technical, short-term initiative without long-term impact.
Many applications failed to answer basic questions:
- Why is this project being implemented?
- What specific result should be achieved?
- What changes will it trigger within the community?
- What will remain after the grant funding ends?
We expect applications to clearly demonstrate what communities will gain, what concrete results will be achieved, and how these outcomes can be used or continued in the future. Such a vision not only strengthens the proposal but also demonstrates realistic planning and the team’s responsibility for ensuring sustainable impact.
Mistake 6. Lack of Involvement of Local Stakeholders
An important criterion in evaluating applications is the level of involvement of local stakeholders in project implementation. In many cases, applications were submitted by organizations based in large cities, such as Kyiv or regional centers, without demonstrating any meaningful connection to the community where the initiative was planned to be implemented.
Some applications did not explain who exactly would implement the activities on the ground, whether local partners were involved, who would receive the project results, or who would be responsible for continuing the work after the grant period ended. Initiatives designed “from above,” without the participation of the community itself, significantly reduce the effectiveness of the project.
This does not mean that organizations from other regions cannot receive funding. However, the project must be rooted in the community: built on partnerships and cooperation with local activists, experts, authorities, and beneficiaries.
Only this kind of approach can ensure genuine sustainability of results and community trust in the changes initiated by the project.
Mistake 7. Thoughtless Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Applications
A separate group of issues concerned the technical and substantive quality of application texts. We often encountered documents that looked like rough or automatically generated drafts, filled with generic phrases, repetition, template-based wording, and a lack of specificity.
We do not prohibit the use of AI tools such as ChatGPT. However, it is important to understand that artificial intelligence can assist only with wording and structuring ideas. It cannot replace a deep understanding of the local context, the goals, needs, and capacities of your organization.
An application that appears to have been written merely “to check the box,” without careful revision and refinement, raises doubts about the team’s ability to implement complex tasks effectively, cooperate with partners, and communicate results responsibly.
Your application is the first impression of your organization’s work. And it is precisely the quality and substance of that application that determine whether your idea will have a chance to receive support.
Return with a Stronger Application in the Next Waves
The next waves of the competition are an opportunity to apply again — this time with a revised and more substantial project proposal. Applications for the second wave of the Small Grants Competition can be submitted until August 26, 2025.
We carefully analyzed all applications submitted during the first wave. In many cases, rejection decisions were caused by mistakes and shortcomings that could have been avoided. That is exactly why we are sharing these observations: not to criticize, but to provide constructive feedback and help you strengthen your ideas.
We also remind applicants to submit project proposals in advance and not wait until the last moment. All applications submitted after 3:00 PM on the day of the deadline are automatically transferred to the next wave of the competition.
We hope that this video and article will help you formulate a clear, logical, and convincing application and develop an initiative that truly gives communities an impulse for change.
The article was prepared within the framework of the Impulse Project implemented by the International Renaissance Foundation and the East Europe Foundation with funding from Norway (Norad) and Sweden (Sida).
