Grant application processes are often experienced by community organisations as stressful, time-consuming, and demoralising. Staff and volunteers who could be serving community members spend hours on complex applications with uncertain outcomes. Organisations receive perfunctory declinations after weeks of work. Reporting requirements consume resources that could go to programme delivery. And through all of this, the power imbalance is stark: the funder holds all the cards; the grantee must comply with whatever is asked.
This is not inevitable. Some funders have redesigned their processes to be genuinely applicant-friendly — reducing burden, improving communication, being honest about what they're looking for — without compromising accountability. This guide explains the principles and practices of grantmaking that takes applicant wellbeing seriously.
Most funders have never applied for a grant from themselves. They don't directly experience the friction they create: the ambiguous guidelines, the lengthy forms, the systems that don't work on mobile devices, the weeks of uncertainty between submission and decision.
Research on grantee experience consistently finds:
- The average grant application takes 20-40 hours to prepare
- Much of this time is spent on information funders don't actually use in decision-making
- Application processes are frequently inaccessible to smaller organisations
- Communication from funders is often slow, impersonal, and unhelpful
- The emotional toll of rejection after significant investment is underestimated
In aggregate, the grant application system is enormously wasteful: hundreds of thousands of hours of community capacity spent on applications that will be declined, on information that won't be read, on processes that add no assessment value.
Proportionality: The application burden should be proportionate to the grant size and the risk involved. A $5,000 grant should require a 2-page application; a $500,000 grant might justify more. Many funders require similar complexity for both.
Clarity: Guidelines that are clear, specific, and written in plain English reduce the interpretation burden on applicants. Funders who are explicit about what they fund, who they fund, and what they're looking for in applications eliminate wasted effort from applicants who can self-select out.
Relevant questions only: Every question on an application form should serve a specific purpose in assessment. Questions that don't inform assessment decisions should be removed.
Accessible formats: Online application systems should be accessible on mobile devices, screen reader compatible, and not require specialist software. Alternative formats for applicants with accessibility needs should be explicitly offered.
Appropriate timelines: Deadlines should allow adequate time for thoughtful applications. Round-closing applications within one or two weeks of announcement are not appropriate except in specific rapid-response contexts.
Human communication: Applicants should know who to contact with questions and should receive genuine responses — not automated replies or triage that prevents human contact.
Pre-application conversations: Offering to have a conversation with potential applicants before they apply reduces wasted effort. If an organisation is clearly ineligible, a 15-minute call saves them 20 hours of application work. If they're likely to be competitive, the conversation improves their application.
Plain language guidelines: Investment in clear, well-written guidelines — tested with real applicants before publication — dramatically reduces the number of applications that misinterpret what's being asked.
Application portals that work: Testing online application systems from an applicant's perspective — on different devices, different browsers, with different assistive technologies — identifies and removes technical barriers that organizations encounter.
Shorter forms: Ruthless editing of application forms to remove questions that don't serve assessment. This requires genuine discipline: every question that gets asked is something staff wanted to know, but not everything staff want to know is relevant to the funding decision.
Streamlined multi-grant applications: For established grantees applying for renewal, streamlined processes — a brief update rather than a full re-application — respect the history of the relationship and reduce duplicated effort.
Fast declinations for ineligible applications: Informing applicants quickly that they don't meet eligibility criteria — rather than making them wait through a full assessment cycle — reduces the time wasted on doomed applications.
Timely communication: Telling applicants the outcome of their application promptly — when the decision is made, not weeks after — respects their planning needs.
Personal communication for significant grants: Significant declined applications deserve a phone call or personalised letter, not a form email.
Useful feedback: Feedback that helps organisations improve — rather than vague encouragement — is worth giving. If an application failed on specific grounds, say so.
Proactive status updates: If assessment is taking longer than expected, letting applicants know rather than leaving them in uncertainty.
Honest communication about odds: If 80% of applications will be declined, saying so in the guidelines helps organisations make informed decisions about whether to apply.
Fundamental to grantmaking is a power imbalance: the funder has money that the grantee needs. This power imbalance shapes the entire relationship and creates dynamics that are difficult to address but worth acknowledging.
Grantees:
- Are reluctant to challenge unfair processes for fear of retaliation
- May shape their applications to what they think funders want rather than what they genuinely do
- May give deferential responses in monitoring conversations rather than honest accounts of challenges
- Feel unable to push back on unreasonable conditions or reporting requirements
Funders who acknowledge this imbalance — and actively work to reduce it — create more honest, productive relationships:
- Actively inviting critical feedback on the application process
- Creating safe channels for grantees to raise concerns
- Being open about the funder's own limitations and failures
- Sharing power in assessment and strategy through grantee participation
You can't improve what you don't measure. Regular, anonymous applicant experience surveys — asking both successful and unsuccessful applicants about their experience — provide the feedback needed to improve processes. Key questions:
- Was the application process clear and navigable?
- Was the process burden proportionate to the grant?
- Was communication timely and useful?
- Did you feel respected throughout the process?
- What was the hardest part of the application process?
Acting visibly on this feedback — "Last year applicants told us X; we've changed Y as a result" — demonstrates that surveys are genuine rather than performative.
Tahua's grants management platform is designed with applicant experience as a core design principle — with mobile-accessible applications, clear progress indicators, automated status communication, and the streamlined renewal processes that reduce burden on established grantees while maintaining appropriate accountability for new relationships.