How Charities Experience the Application Process

Grant applications are the front door to funding, yet for many charities the experience feels more like an obstacle course. Research by IVAR, based on the experiences of 22 UK charities, found that application and assessment processes can bring up feelings of dejection and failure, and that applying for funding often feels one-sided rather than mutually beneficial. For small organisations without dedicated fundraising staff, the process can be particularly daunting — they are competing against larger organisations with professional bid writers, using forms designed without their capacity in mind.

The scale of time invested is striking. A survey by Brevio of 1,002 third sector organisations found that one in eight charities spend three or more working days per week on grant applications, equating to over 20,350 pounds per charity per year in staff time and a collective cost of 442 million pounds annually across the sector (UK Fundraising, 2020). Despite this investment, over half of respondents reported a decrease in their success rate compared with the previous year. Over three quarters of charities surveyed believe the grantmaking system needs to be modernised.

This guide examines the application process from the charity's perspective — what works, what causes unnecessary friction, and what funders can do to make the experience more productive for everyone involved. It draws on published sector research, real funder practice, and practical experience with digital application systems.

What does the application process feel like for charities?

For most charities, grant applications are not a neutral administrative task. They are high-stakes, emotionally charged, and often frustrating. IVAR's research with 22 UK charities found that the process can feel deeply one-sided — charities invest significant time and effort with no guarantee of a response, let alone funding. The power imbalance between funder and applicant shapes the entire experience.

At best, a well-designed application process feels like a genuine conversation. Charities describe positive experiences when funders are transparent about what they are looking for, when forms are proportionate to the size of the grant, and when there is a named person they can speak to with questions. IVAR's Funding Experience Survey of over 1,200 charities found that 75% agreed or strongly agreed that they wish all grantmakers would let them pick up the phone and ask questions before deciding whether to apply.

At worst, the process feels like guesswork. Charities report spending hours interpreting vague criteria, tailoring language to what they think a particular funder wants to hear, and completing lengthy forms only to receive a brief rejection email — or no response at all. The emotional toll is real. Staff in small organisations often carry the weight of repeated rejections personally, especially when a failed application means a programme cannot run or a post cannot be funded.

The distinction between a good and a poor experience often comes down to design decisions that funders can control: clarity of criteria, length of forms, quality of communication, and the availability of feedback.

How much time do charities spend on applications?

The time cost of grant applications is one of the least visible burdens in the sector. Charities rarely track application hours systematically, but the available data paints a clear picture of significant resource investment.

Brevio's 2020 survey of 1,002 third sector organisations found that one in eight charities spend three or more working days per week on grant applications. That equates to over 20,350 pounds per year in staff time per charity, and a collective annual cost of 442 million pounds across the sector. For context, that is staff time not spent on delivering services, supporting beneficiaries, or developing programmes.

The time cost per individual application varies widely depending on the funder. A simple community grant application might take four to six hours. A major trust application with a detailed budget, theory of change, partnership letters, and supporting documents can take 40 hours or more — the equivalent of a full working week. When success rates are factored in, the true cost per successful application rises sharply. With average success rates falling to around 35.6% in late 2024 (Hinchilla, 2025), and some open-access foundations funding as few as 6-7% of applications (ACF Foundations in Focus, 2025), the speculative investment of time is substantial.

For a small charity with two or three staff, even one major application represents a significant proportion of their monthly capacity. When that application is unsuccessful, the lost time directly reduces service delivery.

What are the biggest sources of friction?

Not all application burden is necessary. Some is the unavoidable cost of a competitive process. But charities consistently identify specific design choices that create disproportionate friction — pain points that funders could address without compromising the quality of their assessment.

Repeating information across funders. A charity applying to five funders for the same project may need to describe its work five different ways, using five different formats, word limits, and budget templates. Very few UK funders accept a common application format. Each new form requires the same core information to be rewritten from scratch.

Unclear or hidden eligibility criteria. Charities regularly invest hours in an application only to discover — sometimes after submission — that they were never eligible. When criteria are vague, buried in lengthy guidance documents, or inconsistently applied, the wasted effort is significant. The Foundation Practice Rating, which assesses 100 UK foundations on transparency, found that 21 of the foundations assessed had no website at all, making it impossible for applicants to check basic eligibility information before applying (Foundation Practice Rating, 2024).

Disproportionate requirements for small grants. Application forms designed for six-figure grants are routinely used for grants of a few thousand pounds. Requiring a full theory of change, detailed evaluation framework, and three years of audited accounts for a 5,000-pound grant is not proportionate. IVAR's research on open and trusting grantmaking recommends that funders consider different requirements depending on the size of the grant.

Poor communication and long waits. Charities report that the silence between submission and decision is one of the most stressful aspects of the process. When timelines are unclear, when there is no acknowledgement of receipt, and when decisions are delayed without explanation, applicants are left unable to plan.

No feedback on unsuccessful applications. This is consistently ranked among the most frustrating aspects of the process. Charities invest significant time in applications and receive nothing in return — not even a sentence explaining why they were unsuccessful. ACF's Stronger Foundations framework highlights that for the funder relationship to be more equal, foundations should be more open with the feedback they give.

What does a good application experience look like?

Charities that describe positive application experiences tend to highlight the same set of features. These are not radical innovations — they are straightforward design choices that respect the applicant's time and capacity.

Clear eligibility information upfront. The single most valued feature is knowing, before investing any time, whether an application is likely to be welcome. This means published eligibility criteria that are specific and unambiguous, ideally with an eligibility checker that gives an immediate yes-or-no answer. Some funders now use online eligibility quizzes that screen applicants in two to five minutes, filtering out ineligible organisations before they begin the full form.

Proportionate forms. Charities appreciate forms where the length and complexity match the size of the grant. A 5,000-pound community grant should require a page or two, not ten. The best forms ask only questions whose answers will directly inform the funding decision — and nothing more.

Plain language and worked examples. Jargon-heavy questions and ambiguous prompts waste applicant time and produce worse answers. Charities value clear, specific questions with guidance notes that explain what the funder is looking for. Anonymised example answers are particularly helpful, especially for first-time applicants.

Save-and-return functionality. The ability to save a draft and return to it later is essential for small teams juggling multiple responsibilities. Losing a partially completed application due to a session timeout or browser crash is a common source of frustration.

Named contacts and open communication. The ability to ask a question before or during the application process — ideally by phone — transforms the experience. IVAR's survey found this was one of the most valued practices across all charity respondents.

Timely, transparent decisions. A published timeline, acknowledgement of receipt, and updates on progress give applicants the information they need to plan. Even a brief email confirming that an application is being reviewed makes a meaningful difference.

How does the digital experience affect applicants?

The shift from paper to online applications has brought clear benefits — faster submission, easier distribution, and the possibility of tracking application status. But digital systems also introduce new friction points that disproportionately affect smaller and less digitally mature organisations.

The Charity Digital Skills Report 2024 found that growing staff and volunteer digital skills was cited as a barrier by 47% of charities, and that digital exclusion among the people they serve is a widespread concern across the sector. These concerns extend to their own staff. A charity with one part-time administrator may struggle with a complex online portal that requires account creation, multi-step verification, and specific file formats for document uploads.

Common digital friction points include:

• No save-and-return. Some online forms must be completed in a single session. For a detailed application, this is impractical.
• Poor mobile compatibility. Staff at small charities often work flexibly, including from phones or tablets. Forms that do not render properly on mobile devices exclude these users.
• Rigid file upload requirements. Requiring specific file formats (for example, only accepting .xlsx rather than .csv or .pdf for budgets) creates unnecessary barriers.
• Inaccessible design. Forms that do not work with screen readers, lack sufficient colour contrast, or use small text exclude applicants with visual or cognitive impairments.

The best digital application systems combine the efficiency of online submission with thoughtful design: autosave, progress indicators, clear error messages, mobile-responsive layouts, and accessible interfaces. These are not premium features — they are baseline expectations for any modern form.

How do eligibility checks improve the experience?

Pre-application eligibility checks are one of the most effective ways to improve the applicant experience. They save charities from investing hours in applications they were never going to win, and they save funders from processing applications that do not meet basic criteria.

The simplest version is a published checklist: "You can apply if you are a registered charity based in the UK with an annual income under 500,000 pounds, working in one of the following areas..." This takes a minute to read and immediately filters out organisations that do not qualify.

More sophisticated approaches use online eligibility quizzes. Applicants answer five to ten screening questions — organisation type, location, turnover, area of work — and receive an instant result. If they are eligible, they proceed to the full application. If not, they receive a clear explanation and, ideally, a suggestion of alternative funding sources. This typically takes two to five minutes and prevents hours of wasted effort on both sides.

Some funders use a two-stage process where the first stage is a brief expression of interest. Only organisations invited to the second stage complete a full application. Lloyds Bank Foundation adopted this approach and reported a significant reduction in wasted applicant time — charities that were not a good fit for the programme were identified early, before investing significant effort.

Tools like Plinth support this approach through funding portals with built-in eligibility screening. Funders can configure eligibility rules — based on organisation type, turnover, location, and other criteria — that automatically screen applicants before they begin the full form. Where applicants qualify for multiple funds, an AI assistant can ask follow-up questions and recommend the best match. The result is that applicants only ever complete forms they are genuinely eligible for, and funders receive a higher proportion of relevant applications.

What role does feedback play?

Feedback after an unsuccessful application is one of the most requested and least provided aspects of the grantmaking process. For charities, feedback is not a courtesy — it is practical information that shapes future applications, programme design, and organisational development.

The absence of feedback creates a knowledge gap. A charity that is repeatedly rejected without explanation has no way to know whether the problem is their application quality, their eligibility, the competitiveness of the round, or something else entirely. They may continue investing time in applications to funders who will never fund their type of work. Or they may stop applying altogether, removing themselves from the funding ecosystem.

ACF's Stronger Foundations framework highlights that transparency and open feedback are essential to a more equal funder-applicant relationship. Yet many funders cite the volume of applications as the reason they cannot provide individual feedback. This is understandable for funders receiving thousands of applications, but even generic feedback — explaining the themes that led to success or rejection in a particular round — is valuable.

Practical approaches to feedback include:

• Template feedback. A short paragraph with two or three bullet points explaining the main reasons for rejection. This can be semi-automated and takes minutes per application.
• Round-level feedback. A published summary of the funding round — how many applications were received, what the panel was looking for, common strengths and weaknesses. This helps all applicants, not just unsuccessful ones.
• Office hours or webinars. Some funders hold post-decision sessions where applicants can ask questions about the process and receive general guidance. These are efficient and highly valued.
• Scored feedback. Where applications are scored against published criteria, sharing the scores (even without detailed commentary) helps applicants understand where they fell short.

How can technology improve the applicant experience?

Technology offers practical solutions to many of the friction points charities experience, provided it is designed with applicants in mind rather than solely for funder convenience.

AI-assisted form completion. The most time-consuming part of an application is not the thinking — it is the writing. Charities know what they do and who they serve. They spend hours translating that knowledge into each funder's specific format. AI tools can pre-populate application forms using information from previous applications, impact reports, or organisational documents. The applicant reviews, edits, and submits rather than writing from scratch. Plinth's application tools include an auto-fill feature that analyses uploaded documents and suggests answers to form questions, with the applicant retaining full control to accept, modify, or reject each suggestion.

Smart feedback before submission. AI-powered feedback tools can review draft answers and suggest improvements before the applicant submits — flagging missing information, suggesting where to add specific numbers, or prompting the applicant to expand on how they will measure outcomes. This is particularly valuable for smaller organisations without access to a professional bid writer, helping to level the playing field. On Plinth, this feature uses a Socratic approach, asking guiding questions rather than rewriting the application.

Autosave and save-and-return. Modern application platforms save progress automatically, so applicants never lose work due to a session timeout or browser crash. On Plinth, applicants can save their progress and return to the form at any time, with their dashboard showing any unfinished applications.

Multi-language support. For charities working with communities where English is not the first language, the ability to complete forms in other languages removes a significant barrier.

Mobile-responsive design. Forms that work properly on phones and tablets are essential for staff who work flexibly or do not have regular access to a desktop computer.

These tools do not replace the human elements that charities value most — clear communication, named contacts, and constructive feedback. But they remove mechanical friction, freeing applicants to focus on the substance of their application.

What can funders do differently?

The research and charity testimony point to a consistent set of changes that funders can make to improve the applicant experience. Most do not require new technology or significant investment — they require deliberate design choices and a willingness to look at the process from the applicant's side.

Several UK funders are already making these changes. The National Lottery Community Fund uses a streamlined form for its Awards for All programme (grants under 10,000 pounds) and reports that application quality improved with the shorter format. The Tudor Trust moved to a primarily conversation-based assessment model, collecting written information only after an initial discussion. Comic Relief accepts narrative updates in any format for smaller grants, including short videos and voice notes.

IVAR's Open and Trusting initiative has seen over 140 grantmakers sign up to eight commitments for funding charities in a more open and trusting way. These include lighter-touch application forms, faster turnaround of decisions, and greater transparency about eligibility and decision-making processes.

How does the application experience affect the wider sector?

The quality of the application experience is not just a matter of individual charity satisfaction. It has systemic consequences for the health and diversity of the entire funding ecosystem.

When application processes are disproportionately burdensome, they systematically favour larger, better-resourced organisations. A charity with a dedicated fundraising team can absorb the cost of lengthy applications and low success rates. A community group run by two part-time staff cannot. The result is a funding landscape that directs money towards organisations best at completing forms, not necessarily those best at delivering change.

ACF's Foundations in Focus 2025 report noted that UK charitable foundations increased their grantmaking to a record 8.24 billion pounds in 2023-24, but also reported dramatic increases in application volumes — often 50-60%, with some funders seeing applications double. AI tools have contributed to this surge by lowering barriers to applying, which in turn has pushed success rates down further. The average success rate reported in a late-2024 trust fundraiser survey was around 35.6%, down from 40% in 2020 (Hinchilla, 2025).

This creates a challenging dynamic. More applications, lower success rates, and the same limited capacity within charities to absorb the cost of unsuccessful bids. The charities that can least afford to absorb that cost — small, grassroots, community-led organisations — are the ones most likely to disengage from the funding system altogether.

Improving the applicant experience is therefore not just about being considerate to individual charities. It is about maintaining a diverse, responsive funding ecosystem where the organisations closest to communities can access the resources they need to do their work.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does a typical grant application take to complete?

It varies significantly by funder and grant size. A simple community grant application (under 10,000 pounds) typically takes four to eight hours. A major trust application with detailed budgets, theories of change, and supporting documents can take 30 to 60 hours or more. Brevio's survey found that one in eight UK charities spend three or more working days per week on grant applications across all their funding bids.

Should funders pay charities for the time spent applying?

Some funders are beginning to explore this, particularly for intensive processes such as multi-stage applications or invited tenders. The argument is that requiring significant unpaid work from applicants — especially when success rates are low — places a disproportionate burden on smaller organisations. Stipends for application time are not yet common in the UK, but the principle of compensating applicants for substantial investment is gaining traction in sector discussions.

What is the most common complaint charities have about grant applications?

Lack of feedback on unsuccessful applications is consistently ranked among the top frustrations. Close behind are unclear eligibility criteria, disproportionately long forms for small grants, and long waits without communication. IVAR's research found that charities most value the ability to speak to a named person before and during the application process.

Can funders use AI without disadvantaging some applicants?

Yes, provided AI tools are offered to all applicants equally and are designed to assist rather than replace human input. Tools that help applicants auto-fill forms from existing documents or receive feedback on draft answers before submission can level the playing field — giving smaller organisations without professional bid writers access to support that was previously only available to well-resourced charities.

How can funders support applicants with access needs?

Offer application forms in multiple formats (online, downloadable, paper on request), ensure digital forms meet accessibility standards (screen reader compatibility, sufficient colour contrast, keyboard navigation), provide plain-language guidance, and offer assisted submission routes — such as accepting applications by phone or video call. Publishing your accessibility policy demonstrates commitment.

Should funders share example applications?

Yes. Anonymised examples of successful applications are one of the most helpful resources for applicants, particularly first-time applicants and smaller organisations. They demystify the process, clarify expectations, and reduce the guesswork that wastes applicant time. Several UK funders now publish example applications or excerpts on their websites.

How do expressions of interest reduce burden?

A two-stage process with an initial expression of interest (typically one to two pages) allows funders to filter applications before requiring a full submission. Charities that are clearly not a good fit are identified early, saving them the 20-40 hours they would have spent on a full application. Funders benefit too — they assess fewer full applications, allowing more time for each.

What is the Foundation Practice Rating?

The Foundation Practice Rating is an annual assessment of 100 UK foundations on their practices in three areas: diversity, accountability, and transparency. It is based on publicly accessible information from foundation websites and annual reports. The rating helps applicants understand which funders have transparent, accessible processes, and encourages foundations to improve their practice. The 2024 results showed gradual improvement across the sector, though significant gaps remain.

Recommended Next Pages

• Reducing the Burden on Grant Applicants — practical approaches funders can take to streamline applications and reporting
• Give Better Feedback to Applicants — how constructive feedback strengthens the funder-applicant relationship
• Streamline Grant Applications — design and technology choices for more efficient application processes
• Write Clear Grant Criteria — how transparent criteria improve application quality and reduce wasted effort
• What Is AI for Charities? — foundational guide to how AI is being used across the UK charity sector

Last updated: February 2026