A standard single-stage grants process asks all applicants to complete a full application before anyone has assessed their eligibility or basic fit. For a competitive round receiving 200 applications, this means 200 organisations spend significant time on applications that will mostly be declined. For a round where perhaps 20–30 applicants will be shortlisted for serious consideration, the first 170 responses represent a significant waste of applicant effort.
The two-stage process addresses this by separating the filtering question (which applicants are worth a full assessment?) from the assessment question (which of the serious candidates should we fund?).
A two-stage process is worth the additional administrative complexity when:
The application requires significant applicant effort. For grants where the full application involves detailed budgets, letters of support, strategic plans, or extensive evidence submissions, reducing the burden on applicants who will not be shortlisted is a genuine equity consideration.
There are many applicants and a small number of funded positions. A round funding 10 organisations from 200 applicants leaves 190 unsuccessful. If only 30 of those 200 would ever have been competitive, requiring all 200 to complete a 50-page application is poor use of community sector time.
The funder needs to control the volume of detailed assessment work. Assessment panels that must deeply assess 200 full applications are overburdened and produce lower-quality assessments. Limiting the panel to 30–40 shortlisted applications produces better assessments and better funding decisions.
The funder is uncertain about the field. A new programme area, or a first round in a new geography, may attract a range of applicants whose fit the funder cannot predict. An EOI process allows the funder to understand the field before designing the full application process.
A two-stage process is not worth the complexity when the round is small (fewer than 30–40 applicants), when the application is already brief, or when the funder needs to assess all applications against the same comprehensive criteria from the start.
The EOI stage should be short and quick — ideally completable in under two hours by an organisation with relevant work. It is not a mini-application; it is a screening tool.
An effective EOI asks:
- What the applying organisation does and who it serves (two to three sentences)
- What the proposed project or programme is (a brief description)
- Why it is aligned with the programme's objectives (one to two paragraphs)
- Basic eligibility information (registration, geography, any exclusion criteria)
- An indicative budget or grant request
An EOI should not ask for everything the funder might eventually want to know. It should ask only what is needed to determine whether a full application is worth inviting.
The assessment of EOIs should also be quick. Typically two to three staff or assessors applying a simple shortlisting framework. The decision is binary: shortlist or not. There is no complex scoring.
EOI decisions should be communicated promptly. Applicants who are not shortlisted should be told, with a brief explanation if feasible. The rationale for not shortlisting — "your organisation does not work in our geographic focus area" or "your proposed programme is outside our current funding priorities" — is more useful feedback than a generic decline.
Full application invitations should give shortlisted applicants sufficient time to develop a high-quality response. Four to six weeks is typical for most programme types. Shorter windows disadvantage smaller organisations.
The full application can ask for everything the funder needs for a thorough assessment: detailed programme design, budget, evidence base, team information, financial accounts, governance overview, letters of support. The full application for a significant grant can be extensive — the burden is justified because the organisation has been identified as a serious candidate.
The assessment of full applications should use the programme's complete assessment framework. It is appropriate for this stage to involve a multi-person panel, structured scoring, and a deliberative recommendation process.
A grants management system that supports two-stage processes needs to handle:
Separate forms for each stage. The EOI form and the full application form are different instruments with different question sets. The system should be able to run them as distinct but linked forms within the same programme.
Applicant record continuity. When an applicant is shortlisted from the EOI to the full application, their EOI information should be visible alongside their full application. Assessors at the full application stage should not need to re-read the EOI in a separate document.
Status management. Applications exist in multiple states: submitted EOI, shortlisted, not shortlisted, invited to full application, submitted full application, assessed, funded, declined. The system should manage these states and communications automatically.
Invitation workflow. When a shortlist is finalised, the system should be able to send invitations to full application to all shortlisted applicants in a single operation, not one by one.
Separate assessment workflows. EOI assessment and full application assessment may involve different panels, different scoring frameworks, and different documentation requirements. The system should accommodate this.
Running a two-stage process across two separate systems, or with one stage in a system and one in email, creates data management and accountability problems. The continuity of the applicant's record across both stages is a fundamental requirement.
For funders designing two-stage grant processes, the government grants management and community foundations pages cover how Tahua supports multi-stage application workflows. To discuss your process design.
**.