A single-stage grant application process is simple to administer, but it puts the full burden of a detailed application on every organisation that wants to apply — including those with no realistic chance of being funded. That's a poor use of applicants' time, and it creates an unnecessarily large volume for assessors to review.
A two-stage process solves this: a short expression of interest (EOI) is used to screen the field, and only shortlisted applicants are invited to submit a full application. The result is less work for everyone — applicants who aren't a good fit find out earlier, and assessors spend their time on applications that are genuinely competitive.
Here's how to design a two-stage process that works.
Two-stage processes add coordination overhead. They're not always worth it.
Good fit for two-stage processes:
- Large grant amounts ($50,000+) where a full application represents significant grantee effort
- High application volumes expected (100+), where reviewing full applications from all comers is impractical
- Programmes with complex eligibility criteria where a light-touch screen can filter out ineligible applicants before they invest in a full application
- Competitive programmes where the field significantly exceeds available funding
Poor fit for two-stage processes:
- Small grants where a full application is already brief
- Low-volume rounds where reviewing all applications at full depth is manageable
- Open grant programmes with rolling applications rather than a defined round
The EOI should be short — no more than two to four pages — and focused on establishing whether the applicant is eligible and likely to be competitive.
What an EOI should cover:
What an EOI should not require:
The EOI is a screening tool, not a mini application. Keep it short enough that completing it doesn't feel like a significant commitment — the risk of a two-stage process is that the EOI becomes almost as burdensome as a full application, which defeats the purpose.
EOI assessment should be faster than full application assessment. A well-designed EOI can be reviewed in 15–20 minutes per application.
Use a simple scoring approach — two or three criteria, a three-point scale — rather than the full scoring rubric you'll use at full application stage. The EOI assessment is not a funding decision; it's a shortlisting decision. The questions to answer are: Is this applicant eligible? Is this proposal within scope? Is there enough here to suggest a competitive full application?
Communicate EOI outcomes promptly — within two to three weeks of the EOI deadline. Applicants who aren't shortlisted should receive a brief explanation. Applicants who are shortlisted should receive clear guidance on what's expected in the full application and by when.
Applicants invited to submit a full application should receive:
The full application stage can ask for more depth: detailed project plans, full budget breakdowns, evidence of need, organisational capability, and outcomes frameworks. At this stage, applicants have already passed an initial screen, so the investment in a detailed application is more justified.
Timeline for Stage 2: Give applicants at least four to six weeks to complete a full application after EOI outcomes are communicated. Less than four weeks disadvantages organisations with limited capacity and tends to produce lower-quality applications.
This is where two-stage processes often stumble. Common problems:
Assessment criteria shift between stages: Applicants respond to the EOI based on the information provided, then discover the full application asks for something different. This is demoralising and produces applications that don't address the right questions. Define your assessment criteria before the EOI opens and communicate them consistently across both stages.
EOI communication is delayed: When EOI outcomes are communicated late, it compresses the time available for full applications. Build in buffer time when designing your programme calendar.
EOI shortlisting is too inclusive: If you shortlist 80% of EOIs, the stage one screen isn't doing meaningful work. Aim to shortlist roughly the number you can fund times two to three — enough for genuine competition at stage two, not so many that stage one is pointless.
Unsuccessful EOI applicants deserve a brief, honest explanation of why they weren't shortlisted. This doesn't need to be detailed — a sentence or two covering the main reason is sufficient.
Common reasons to communicate clearly:
- Not eligible under programme criteria
- Proposal outside programme scope
- Application incomplete or insufficient to assess
- Strong field; proposal competitive but not shortlisted given available funding
What you don't need to provide: full feedback reports, individual phone debriefs (unless your programme has the capacity for this), or detailed scores. The EOI stage is a screen, not a full assessment.
Clear, timely communication at this stage builds trust in your programme and respects the time applicants invested in the EOI.
This article is part of the complete guide: How to Run a Multi-Round Grants Programme Without Losing Track.