While you fund
Stage 4

Application Processes

Application processes do more than distribute funding — they shape who gets access to opportunity. Rethinking the process and systems used for grant applications is an important part of creating a fairer and more accessible funding system.

980x550px_cc_4_application

  • Setting the scene

    Application processes are gatekeepers. They determine not only who eventually receives funding, but also who feels able to apply in the first place. Traditional systems which are generally lengthy, complex, and administratively demanding, tend to favour organisations with dedicated fundraising capacity and penalise smaller, community-led, and grassroots groups for whom the cost of applying can rival the value of the grant itself.

    A more equitable approach treats the application process not just as a filtering mechanism but as an early signal of the kind of funder relationship on offer. Clear guidance, proportionate requirements, and genuine pre-application support all say something about how much a funder trusts the organisations it works with.

  • What the evidence tells us

    Research on equitable application processes draws from trust-based philanthropy, participatory grant making, administrative burden studies, and practitioner-led analysis across foundations and sector infrastructure bodies. Across these sources, application processes are consistently identified as one of the primary sites where inequity in grant making is reproduced, particularly for Black-led, minoritised, and under-resourced organisations.

    The evidence points clearly to a gap between what most application requirements claim to measure and what they actually assess. Excessive documentation and rigid digital systems tend to reflect institutional risk aversion rather than genuine due diligence. The COVID-19 period offered an instructive natural experiment: when funders were forced to simplify and accelerate their processes, many found that quality of decision-making did not suffer as a result.

  • Key issues and challenges

    Administrative burden is the most immediate problem. Lengthy, repetitive applications consume significant time and staff capacity, disproportionately affecting smaller organisations with limited infrastructure. When the effort of applying begins to outweigh the value of the grant, the process has already failed.

    The power imbalance in traditional application processes runs deeper than form design. Applicants are routinely required to demonstrate legitimacy and compliance before any relationship or trust has been established, setting the tone for a dynamic that can persist long after funding is awarded.

    Lack of proportionality compounds this. Small grants often demand the same level of documentation as large ones. Digital-only systems exclude organisations with limited connectivity or those for whom written English is not the most natural mode of expression. And the fragmentation of application requirements across funders means that similar information must be repeatedly reworked in different formats, draining capacity that could be directed toward the actual work.

    Reforming application processes also carries its own risks. Changes that focus only on redesigning forms, without addressing underlying power dynamics, clarity of guidance, or pre-application support, can produce the appearance of accessibility without the substance.

  • Existing approaches

    A growing number of funders are experimenting with more equitable application practice. Proportional and staged processes, short expressions of interest followed by fuller applications, video or verbal submissions, and two-stage models all reduce wasted effort and lower the barrier to entry without sacrificing quality of information.

    Co-designed application forms, developed with communities rather than for them, tend to produce more accessible language and more relevant questions. Pre-application engagement, through open office hours, conversations with grants officers, and language or access support, is increasingly recognised as essential rather than optional.

    Collaboration between funders has also shown real promise. Shared application processes, such as the London Community Response Fund, demonstrate that coordinating across organisations can significantly reduce duplication and burden for applicants. Multiple submission routes, including phone-based or facilitated applications, extend access further still.

  • Benefits and disadvantages

    More equitable application processes increase participation from underrepresented groups, reduce wasted effort on both sides, and improve the match between funding decisions and genuine community need. They also tend to produce stronger funder-grantee relationships, built on clarity and proportionate expectations from the outset.

    The challenges are real. Simplifying application processes often requires funders to confront internal risk frameworks, invest in staff time, and coordinate across teams or with other funders. There is a risk of inconsistency, where flexibility is extended to some applicants but not others. And measuring the impact of process improvements can be difficult when traditional metrics are not designed to capture changes in access, trust, or fairness.

    Technology is increasingly part of the picture too. AI tools are now widely used by organisations to support application drafting, but the evidence is clear that technology alone cannot compensate for inequitable design. A simpler, better-designed process will always do more than a sophisticated tool applied to a broken one.

  • Food for thought

    It is worth asking what your application process signals to the organisations that never complete it. The ones who started and stopped, or looked at the guidance and decided not to try, rarely appear in any data. But they are part of the story of who your funding reaches, and who it doesn’t.

Read our recommendations

  • Match application requirements to the scale of the grant

    Application processes should be proportionate at every stage. Funders should ask only what is genuinely needed to assess fit, need, and proposed approach. Early-stage expressions of interest can be lighter-touch, but should still be supported by clear and robust decision-making if they are being used to filter applications.

  • Use plain English and accessible formats

    Application language should be clear, jargon-free, and available in different formats, including video, voice notes, or easy-read documents. This reduces barriers for applicants with different communication needs and signals that the funder has thought about who they are trying to reach.

  • Let applicants show their work in different ways

    Rather than relying solely on written forms, funders should allow video pitches, audio responses, or visual materials. Where alternative formats are offered, clear guidance on what information is needed helps ensure submissions stay focused and no applicant is disadvantaged by unclear expectations.

  • Avoid asking for too much upfront

    Funders should only request what is genuinely needed at each stage, and allow generous timeframes for providing documents. References, bank details, and formal policies can be collected after funding decisions are made. Short turnaround requests add stress and can undermine trust before a relationship has even begun.

  • Design the process with applicants, not just for them

    People with lived experience of applying for funding should help shape the application system. Funders should test their forms with potential applicants to understand how long the process takes, how clear the questions are, and where friction arises.

  • Offer support during the application stage

    Smaller organisations may need additional help to apply. Funders should provide clear guidance, online or phone support, and one-to-one help where needed, either directly or through trusted infrastructure bodies such as CVS organisations. Where possible, funders should invest in that infrastructure to ensure applicants in different areas are not disadvantaged.

  • Be transparent about decision-making

    Funders should explain clearly how decisions will be made, who is involved, and what criteria are used. This includes being open about how specific information, such as reserves or deficits, may or may not influence decisions. Transparency here supports more honest sharing and builds trust in the process.

  • Reduce digital exclusion

    Not all applicants have easy access to digital tools. Funders should allow paper-based or in-person options where needed and ensure online systems work well on mobile devices.

  • Give feedback to all applicants

    Funders should offer feedback to every applicant, with the level of detail proportionate to the application process. Where appropriate, anonymised themes from applications and decision-making can also be shared to support wider sector learning, while respecting organisational privacy.

  • Review and improve regularly

    Funders should ask applicants how the process felt and make changes based on what they hear, including the option to respond anonymously. This should include reviewing how questions are weighted in decision-making and removing or simplifying those that add little value.

Read the full report on application processes

Access the full report

Case studies

Stages of grant making