The grant portal — the online system through which applicants submit applications, funders assess them, and grantees report on funded activities — is one of the most consequential pieces of technology in philanthropy. A well-designed portal makes applying accessible, efficient, and clear. A poorly designed one erects barriers, wastes applicant time, and systematically disadvantages smaller and less resourced organisations. Designing better grant portals is a matter of both operational efficiency and equity.
Access determines who applies: If your portal is difficult to use, requires complex navigation, or fails on common devices and browsers, the organisations that can complete applications are a biased subset of eligible organisations. Well-resourced organisations with dedicated grants staff can work through bad systems; small community organisations with volunteer administrators often cannot.
Time is not free: Every hour an applicant spends on your portal is an hour not spent on their programmes. Complex, lengthy application forms impose real costs on community organisations. These costs are regressive — they fall most heavily on smaller organisations with less administrative capacity.
First impressions matter: For many organisations, the portal is their first point of contact with your foundation. A confusing, dated, or frustrating portal signals how the relationship will feel.
Data quality follows form quality: Ambiguous questions produce ambiguous answers. Well-designed questions — clear, specific, and appropriately sequenced — produce higher-quality data for assessment.
Ask only what you need
Every question should have a clear purpose in your assessment. If you can't explain why you need a piece of information and how it will affect your decision, remove the question. Audit your existing forms for questions that are collected but not used.
Match question length to importance
Word limits signal how much weight you place on different questions. If financial sustainability is important in your assessment, don't ask applicants to describe it in 100 words. If mission fit is less critical, don't ask for 1,000 words.
Use conditional logic
Show questions only to the applicants they're relevant to. Questions about GST registration don't need to appear for organisations from jurisdictions where GST doesn't apply. Questions about previous grant outcomes don't need to appear for first-time applicants. Conditional logic reduces form length and applicant confusion.
Test with real applicants
Run user testing with real potential applicants — including smaller, less tech-savvy organisations — before launching. Watch where they get confused, misread questions, or give up. Apply what you learn.
Plain language
Write questions in plain language — avoid jargon, passive voice, and complex sentence structures. "What difference will this project make?" is clearer than "Please describe the anticipated outcomes of the proposed project and the mechanisms through which they will be achieved."
Provide examples
For complex questions — theory of change, logic models, evaluation plans — provide brief examples or guides. Many smaller organisations are unfamiliar with these concepts; examples lower the barrier.
Mobile responsiveness: Many applicants — particularly from smaller community organisations — may complete applications on mobile devices. Forms that work only on desktop exclude these applicants.
Browser compatibility: Test across common browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge). Some older grant portals fail on common browsers.
Screen reader compatibility: Forms should work with screen reader software for applicants with visual impairments. This requires careful HTML structure, appropriate labels, and testing with accessibility tools.
Autosave and save-and-return: Applications should save progress automatically and allow applicants to return to incomplete applications. Forms that lose data when a session times out are a major source of applicant frustration.
Clear error messages: When validation fails, error messages should clearly explain what's wrong and how to fix it — not generic "an error has occurred" messages.
Alternative submission options: For applicants who genuinely cannot use the online portal (accessibility limitations, very poor internet connection), alternative submission methods should be available.
Budget proportionality: Application requirements should be proportionate to grant size. A $2,000 grant does not warrant the same application effort as a $200,000 grant. Two-stage processes — an expression of interest for all, full application only for shortlisted applicants — reduce burden on organisations that will not be funded.
Provide pre-application support: A webinar explaining how to complete the application, telephone helpline during the open period, and published answers to common questions all help smaller organisations navigate the process.
Don't require sector-specific jargon: Some application questions assume familiarity with the grants and social sector lexicon — theories of change, logic models, social return on investment, strategic alignment. Smaller organisations may do excellent work without using this language. Questions should be answerable without specialist vocabulary.
Allow collaborative preparation: Some portals lock applications once started, preventing collaborative preparation (where different staff members work on different sections). Shared access supports how organisations actually work.
Purpose-built grants management platforms
Purpose-built grants management platforms like Tahua, Submittable, Salesforce NPSP, SmartSimple, and Blackbaud offer features designed for the full grantmaking workflow — portal, assessment, decision, agreement, payment, reporting. These offer the best integration between applicant experience and funder workflow.
Form tools (Typeform, Google Forms, JotForm)
Simple form tools work for small-scale programmes with simple processes. They lack integration with grantmaker workflow and reporting needs, but are quick to set up and familiar to applicants.
Custom-built systems
Larger foundations sometimes build custom portals. Custom systems can perfectly match specific workflow needs but are expensive to build and maintain.
Key evaluation criteria:
- Applicant interface quality (mobile, accessibility, save-and-return)
- Assessment workflow support (reviewer assignment, scoring, panel tools)
- Integration with payment and agreement management
- Reporting collection and management
- Data export and analytics
Track these indicators:
- Application completion rate (applications started vs submitted)
- Time-to-complete (how long applicants spend on the portal)
- Support request volume (questions from confused applicants)
- Error/abandonment rates
- Applicant satisfaction surveys (post-submission or post-decision)
High abandonment rates, high support request volume, and low applicant satisfaction all indicate portal problems worth investigating and fixing.
Tahua's grants management platform includes an applicant portal designed for clarity, accessibility, and proportionate burden — with mobile-responsive forms, save-and-return, conditional logic, and automated communication tools that make applying for grants straightforward.