Equity in grantmaking means designing grant programmes that actively work to distribute resources in ways that address — rather than reinforce — existing inequalities. This is distinct from simply being "fair" in a procedural sense (treating all applicants identically) or from having a diversity statement. Equity-centred grantmaking recognises that identical treatment in an unequal world produces unequal outcomes, and that genuinely equitable programmes require deliberate design to counteract systematic disadvantages.
Standard grant processes have built-in advantages for certain types of organisations:
Formal registration requirements favour established organisations over grassroots groups. Many community-based groups — particularly those working with marginalised communities — operate informally. Requiring charitable registration or incorporated society status automatically excludes them.
Written application requirements favour organisations with staff who are fluent in professional English and experienced in grant writing. Grassroots organisations, newer groups, and those where English is not the first language of leaders are systematically disadvantaged.
Financial history requirements favour larger, older organisations. Requirements for audited accounts, multi-year financial statements, or minimum operating budgets exclude small and emerging organisations.
Relationship-based access favours organisations that are already known to funders. If access to funding depends on relationships with programme officers or trustees, organisations outside existing networks are invisible regardless of their effectiveness.
Reporting requirements disproportionately burden smaller organisations. A heavy reporting burden that's manageable for an organisation with a dedicated grants manager is impossible for a two-person community group. This creates a cycle where only well-resourced organisations can comply with requirements, reinforcing concentration of funding.
Outcome measurement frameworks often reflect dominant culture assumptions about what counts as success. Outcomes like cultural connection, community belonging, and spiritual wellbeing may not appear in standard measurement frameworks, making it impossible for cultural programmes to demonstrate their value.
Centre the most marginalised. Ask: who in our community is most disadvantaged, and how would this programme reach them? Design from the perspective of those with the greatest barriers, not from the perspective of the most capable applicants.
Distinguish equity from equality. Identical treatment isn't equitable when starting positions differ. Proportionate requirements — lighter processes for smaller grants, reduced documentation for established trusted organisations — are more equitable than uniform requirements.
Examine the full pathway. Equity analysis should cover the entire pathway from programme awareness through application, assessment, decision, grant management, and evaluation. Bottlenecks at any stage determine who ultimately benefits.
Build accountability for equity into design. Equity intentions without accountability mechanisms don't produce equitable outcomes. Set measurable equity goals (demographic targets, geographic distribution targets), track progress against them, and report publicly.
Involve affected communities in design. Programmes designed without input from the communities they're meant to serve frequently miss what those communities actually need. Co-design — involving community members in developing criteria, reviewing application forms, and shaping reporting — produces better programmes.
Active outreach, not passive publication. Publishing grant information on a website reaches organisations that are already connected to the funder. Reaching marginalised organisations requires active outreach — through trusted community intermediaries, in languages other than English, through channels that community members actually use.
Plain language materials. Application guidelines written in professional English with philanthropic jargon are inaccessible to many communities. Plain language guidelines, multi-language translations for significant community languages, and visual guides to the process reduce barriers.
Information sessions in communities. Running information sessions in the communities you're trying to reach — at times and places that work for community members, in relevant languages — is more effective than expecting communities to come to you.
Trusted intermediaries. Working with organisations that have existing trust relationships with marginalised communities — Māori organisations, Pacific networks, refugee settlement organisations — to identify and support potential applicants.
Minimum eligibility review. Audit every eligibility criterion: what is its purpose, and who does it exclude? Remove requirements that exclude organisations with legitimate purposes but different structures (informal groups, recently established organisations).
Fiscal sponsorship. Allow established organisations to act as fiscal sponsors for informal groups — holding funds, managing financial accountability, allowing the community group to deliver the programme. This removes structural barriers without compromising accountability.
Tiered documentation requirements. Require less documentation for smaller grants and from organisations with established track records. Reserve detailed documentation requirements for large, first-time, or high-risk grants.
Culturally appropriate evidence of need. Community testimony, oral submissions, and endorsements from cultural leaders should count as evidence of need alongside quantitative data. Some communities cannot produce formal needs assessments; this doesn't mean their need is less real.
Multiple application formats. Written applications privilege certain literacy forms. Offering video, audio, or oral application options as alternatives extends access to communities where written English is not the primary mode of communication.
Application support. Providing support for applicants from communities with less grant experience — workshops, one-on-one support, template assistance — levels the playing field rather than rewarding prior experience.
Proportionate form length. Application forms for small community grants should be short. Long, complex forms reward organisations with grants staff and penalise community volunteers who are doing the work in addition to their main jobs.
Culturally appropriate questions. Application questions that assume Western organisational structures, Western concepts of leadership, or Western ways of describing community impact create barriers for Māori, Pacific, and other indigenous applicants. Co-design with communities produces more appropriate questions.
Diverse assessment panels. Assessment panels dominated by people from majority demographics will have blind spots about the value and quality of work in marginalised communities. Deliberately including assessors with relevant cultural knowledge, lived experience, and community connections produces more equitable assessments.
Assessing what matters, not proxies. Organisation size, length of establishment, and financial surplus are proxies for capacity. Directly assessing actual capacity — can this organisation deliver this programme safely and effectively? — is more equitable than using proxies that correlate with privilege.
Monitoring for systematic bias. Do Māori-led organisations consistently receive lower scores on specific criteria? Do small organisations score lower despite good track records? Tracking scores by organisation type allows systematic bias to be identified and addressed.
Blind assessment where appropriate. For some grant types, redacting identifying information from applications before assessment can reduce bias from assessors who have pre-existing views of particular organisations.
Unrestricted or lightly restricted funding. Telling organisations exactly what they must do with funding assumes the funder knows better than the organisation what the community needs. Unrestricted or lightly restricted grants respect grantee expertise and allow adaptive responses to emerging community needs.
Overhead inclusion. Requiring grants to be costed at full cost — including a fair proportion of administration, management, and infrastructure — rather than at marginal cost is an equity issue. Organisations that can only fund project costs from grants are perpetually under-resourced relative to their needs.
Multi-year commitments. Short grant terms require organisations to spend disproportionate time fundraising rather than delivering. Multi-year commitments — particularly for organisations working in marginalised communities — allow the stability needed for genuine programme building.
Accessible payment terms. Reimbursement grants (where grantees spend and then claim) disadvantage cash-poor organisations. Advance payment or milestone-based payment that doesn't require significant upfront expenditure is more equitable.
Equity-centred grantmaking requires measurement:
- What proportion of funded organisations are Māori-led? Pacific-led? Led by people with lived experience of the issue?
- What is the geographic distribution of grants relative to need?
- What is the average grant size for organisations of different sizes and types?
- How does the success rate of applications compare by organisation demographic?
Setting targets, measuring progress, and reporting publicly on equity outcomes creates accountability. Without measurement, equity intentions produce equity theatre.
Tahua's grants management platform includes the demographic tracking, assessment analytics, and portfolio reporting that equity-centred grantmakers need to measure and improve equity outcomes across their grant portfolios.