Is need for funding usually taken into account for research grants?

[flagler20]

I haven't had much success at all with research funding but because I almost never get feedback I'm left wondering if its the research proposal itself, or some other factor that spoiled my chances.  For my last proposal, which recently got rejected, the funding was up to $10,000 per successful applicant, but it was out of a pot of funding with some fixed amount, meaning theoretically they could fund any number of applicants up until the funding ran out.  When I did up my budget for the application though, I had to report existing funding, which would be about $5,000 of the $5,800 that I needed.  So my question is do selection committees typically favor applicants with greater need even if there isn't a limited number of awards to give out, only a limited amount of funding?  Perhaps considering the "additionality" factor of the award?  I'm just frustrated with the number of times I've had my proposal rejected with ambiguity over the cause for rejection.

[TakeruK]

This depends a lot on each award. In my field, for most research based awards (e.g. fellowships for graduate students to do research), need is not considered as a determination of whether or not you would receive an award. Every award that I apply to always lists its criteria very plainly and clearly and need is never one of them. 

That said, need is often considered in determining how much to award. I often have to submit budgets and outline existing funding. In your case, if I wrote that my budget was $5,800 and that I already had $5,000 in funding, then while the award may be up to $10,000, it would mean that had I been successful, the award amount would just be $800. However, just because I'm only asking for $800 does not mean that my proposal could be less competitive than others. (i.e. I don't encounter award committees that would have lower standards for a small request).

To clarify though, the amount requested could play a factor because committees sometimes do consider things like "output per dollar granted". So, if you are making a request for $10,000, the output would have to be "worth" much more than another request for $2,000. However, if this is a factor, then it's usually spelled out in the award criteria, in my experience. That is, as expected, proposals with bigger budgets must justify the increased cost.

Finally, I am sorry to hear that your proposal was rejected without much feedback or evaluation. Sadly, this is a very common occurrence for both me and all of my friends in all fields. Some grants/awards have better feedback systems than others but many people, even with lots of feedback, get messages that are very cryptic and/or conflicting. I don't have a good long term solution to this. Some short term solutions are to talk to those that did win awards! In almost all cases where I was successful, I had talked to a previous winner and received a copy of their materials. I personally pay it forward by always agreeing to share my own materials with anyone who asks (that I know well enough). My personal policy is that I would do this even if that person is also applying in the same cycle (as long as they also share theirs). Another good short term solution is to commiserate with your colleagues over drinks or other shared hobby!