Application Processes – Full Report

The application process constitutes a pivotal stage in the grant making cycle, linking institutional intent with funded outcomes. However, research suggests that many application systems impose significant burdens on applicants particularly smaller, grassroots, or under resourced organisations. Traditional models emphasise long forms, complex eligibility criteria, and rigid deadlines, often privileging those with greater capacity (Giving Evidence, 2021; Eakin, 2004). To counter this, funders in the UK and internationally are rethinking their application processes to improve accessibility, equity and efficiency. This review examines how these reforms are taking shape, the theoretical underpinnings of change, and remaining challenges. 

The “application process” refers to the series of steps by which a funder invites, collects, evaluates and selects funding proposals from applicants. It typically includes eligibility screening, submission of proposals, assessment, decision-making and communication of outcomes (ACF, 2020). Literature shows this process can become a barrier when misaligned with the capacities of small or community based organisations (Giving Evidence, 2021; Eakin, 2004). A growing body of work situates the design of the application process as a key mechanism in promoting equitable funder–grantee relationships. 

A significant theme in the literature is administrative burden. Eakin’s seminal study on Canadian nonprofits found that compliance and application demands consumed substantive portions of organisational time and resources. Similarly, the “contest model” in research funding highlights how the cost of preparing proposals can rival the value of funding awarded (Gross & Bergstrom, 2018). From a philanthropic practice perspective, trust-based philanthropy emphasises reducing burdens and sharing power, by taking more responsibility for due diligence away from applicants. These insights frame the application process not merely as paperwork, but as a site of power, transaction cost and equity. 

Proportionality and Simplification

Research from the UK shows smaller charities spend a substantial portion of their grant income on application costs for some, over a third. This has led to calls for proportional application formats, where smaller grants entail simpler submissions and shorter timelines (IVAR, 2022). Reforms include short ‘expression of interest’ stages, simplified forms, or removal of heavy documentation.

Inclusive Application Design

Inclusive application processes involve codesign or feedback mechanisms that shape how applications are framed and delivered. For example, Camden Giving’s digital participatory tool allows applicants to submit videos and use accessible formats, redesigning the application stage to suit diverse participants (Camden Giving, 2023). 

Streamlined Review and Trust Based Models

Some funders adopt trust-based approaches, shifting the burden of verification back to the funder, utilising external data or reducing mandatory evidence submission (NonProfit Pro, 2024). The entity of “doing the homework” on behalf of applicants is emerging as a design principle in reducing applicant burden. 

Despite best intentions, the literature highlights persistent structural challenges: 

• Risk aversion and due diligence constraints – Funders often feel obliged to retain high levels of documentation to satisfy audit or regulatory requirements, limiting flexibility (ACF, 2020). 

• Tokenistic participation – Without clearly defined roles and power, participatory processes may become symbolic rather than transformative (TSIP, 2023). 

• Capacity deficits and digital exclusion – Simplified applications may help, but inadequate support for applicants without digital or administrative capacity remains a barrier (Giving Evidence, 2021). 

• Evaluation gaps – Few funders measure the cost of application processes or track whether reforms reduce burden or improve access (Giving Evidence, 2021). 

 

Reformed application processes have been shown to yield benefits: 

• Increased diversity of applicants – Simplified formats and inclusive outreach correlate with higher participation from smaller or grassroots groups. 

• Reduced wasted effort – Two‐stage systems (EOI followed by full application) and reduced form length have been linked to lower staff time spent on non-successful applications. 

• Improved funder–grantee relationships – More collaborative application design fosters trust, better alignment and longer-term partnerships. 

The application process in grant making is increasingly recognised as more than administrative task. It is a strategic lever for equity, efficiency and relationship building. While promising practice is emerging in the UK and internationally, full realisation requires funders to commit to proportionality, inclusive design, burden reduction and transparent evaluation. The next wave of research should focus on longitudinal outcomes of application process reforms, metrics of burden reduction and the interplay of application design with decision-making and post award management.