Accessibility in grant programmes is about more than legal compliance. It's about whether the organisations and communities a funder wants to support can actually access the funding. Inaccessible grant processes systematically exclude the applicants who may be most in need and, in some cases, most effective — but who lack the administrative capacity, English fluency, digital literacy, or time to navigate complex processes.
This guide covers the dimensions of grant accessibility and practical steps funders can take to design more inclusive processes.
The organisations that struggle most with complex grant application processes are often:
These are frequently the organisations doing the most innovative, community-led work — and the ones who most need the funding. If the only organisations that can navigate complex grant processes are well-resourced professional charities with dedicated fundraising staff, the diversity and reach of grantmaking is significantly constrained.
Device accessibility. Can the application form be completed on a mobile phone? Many community organisations and individuals access the internet primarily through smartphones. Application forms that only work on desktop computers with specific browsers exclude a significant portion of potential applicants.
Connectivity requirements. In rural and remote areas, internet connectivity may be slow and unreliable. Application processes that require large file uploads, continuous video, or sustained stable connections create barriers for organisations in low-connectivity areas.
Disability access. Application forms should meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards — navigable by screen readers, usable with keyboard-only navigation, appropriate colour contrast, and not dependent on time-limited interactions. This is both a usability and a legal obligation in many jurisdictions.
Paper and phone options. For applicants who cannot or prefer not to use online systems, providing a paper form option or a phone-assisted application process maintains access without requiring technology capability.
English language requirement. Many funders implicitly or explicitly require applications in English. This excludes communities — recent migrants, Pacific Island communities, indigenous communities — for whom English is not the primary language. Accepting applications in te reo Māori, te reo o le Pasifika, or other community languages is a genuine access commitment.
Plain language. Even for English-speaking applicants, forms written in complex bureaucratic language create barriers. Plain language — short sentences, active voice, concrete terms — is more accessible than academic or regulatory language. Plain English guidelines are readily available and should be applied to all applicant-facing materials.
Plain language guidelines. What you mean vs what you write can be very different. "Describe the intended outcomes of the proposed project in relation to the identified need" is much harder to answer than "What problem does this project solve, and how many people will it help?"
Timeline. Application deadlines that give inadequate notice — especially for community organisations that make decisions through committee or board processes — systematically exclude those with governance structures that require more lead time.
Word limits. Very restrictive word limits can be exclusionary for applicants who write differently — those with different educational backgrounds, different cultural communication styles, or who need more words to convey complex relationships and context. Consider whether word limits are genuinely necessary or are just administrative convenience.
Required documents. Requirements for specific corporate documents — audited accounts, formal constitutions, charity registration — exclude informal groups and recently established organisations. Consider what the document requirement is actually testing (financial management capability, governance structure) and whether there are alternative ways to demonstrate the same thing.
Budget requirements. Detailed budget spreadsheets in specific formats are challenging for organisations without professional financial management. Simple budget templates with clear instructions are more accessible than complex financial models.
Reference requirements. Requiring letters of support from specific types of referees (another charity, a government agency, a professional body) can exclude organisations that don't have those relationships yet.
Clear guidelines. Eligibility criteria, assessment criteria, and process information should be clear enough that an applicant can understand without needing to contact the funder. Ambiguous guidelines generate unnecessary questions and advantage applicants with existing funder relationships.
Pre-application contact. Making it easy for potential applicants to check eligibility before submitting a full application saves everyone time — and is particularly important for applicants who are uncertain whether they qualify.
Feedback on declined applications. Applicants who receive no feedback on why they were unsuccessful can't improve future applications. Even brief, honest feedback is more respectful and more useful than form letters.
Accessibility is one component of equitable grantmaking. Truly equitable processes also consider:
Who is disadvantaged by the process design? Before finalising process design, ask which communities and organisation types are likely to find the process difficult, and why. If the answer includes communities the programme is explicitly trying to serve, the process design needs to change.
Active outreach vs passive response. Open, competitive processes with equal access in theory often have very unequal access in practice — organisations without existing funder relationships, without professional grant writers, or without networks that share funding opportunities are systematically less likely to apply. Active outreach to underserved communities and organisations can partially offset this.
Application support. Some funders offer application support — workshops, one-on-one guidance, draft review — for applicants who need it. This levels the playing field somewhat and improves application quality from organisations without professional grant-writing capacity.
Reducing self-reporting burdens. Requiring applicants to document their own need, poverty, marginalisation, or disadvantage — in Western academic frameworks — can be culturally inappropriate and practically burdensome. Consider whether funder staff or community partners can assist with needs documentation.
A practical accessibility audit of your current process:
Tahua's grantee portal is designed for genuine accessibility — mobile-friendly, WCAG-compliant, and configurable to reduce unnecessary complexity in application processes.