The price of poorly designed grant applications and funder processes is substantial. Such costs can manifest in several ways, including but not limited to the following: 

• Learning Costs: Knowing how to apply for a grant is crucial, but it can require significant resources to learn about opportunities, eligibility requirements, and how to navigate the process. 
• Psychological Costs: The application process can lead to compounded feelings of stress from having to apply and compete for limited resources while dealing with uncertainty and complexity. 
• Compliance Costs: These burdens come into play when grantees have to spend additional time, money, and effort following complex grantmaking rules, regulations, and mandates. (An example of this might be requiring a budget to be submitted in a specified format different from the organization’s current or existing one).

Grantmakers have started to examine their processes to consider what changes could help increase access to funding for communities experiencing the greatest inequities. One example is Peak Grantmaking’s community of practice, an effort involving 8,000 grant professionals that is centered around five equity-centered principles to help grantmakers simplify the administrative burdens associated with seeking grants. These include (but are not limited to) lengthy and complicated paperwork, poorly designed websites, complex and confusing application processes, limited customer service, inflexible in-person appointments, and backlogs with long wait times.¹

Refining the grantmaking process has the power to benefit both grantseekers and grantmakers alike. On one hand, process improvements can increase accessibility, allowing grantseekers from diverse backgrounds to successfully apply and receive funding for sustaining important community-based work. On the other hand, process improvements also help grantmakers by decreasing administrative efforts and streamlining efficiencies. In short, both sides of this relationship can ultimately work together to create more targeted investments that have a greater impact.

In an effort to enhance accessibility and equity, many grantmakers have been trying to determine how best to instill trust in grantees. The use of applied behavioral science and human-centered design has been growing across the public sector. Understanding behavior already helps policymakers create nudges to encourage desired behaviors like paying taxes on time, voting on election day, and putting trash or recycling out when it’s time to be collected. Similarly, these tools can also ensure applications for grant funding are clear, simple, and easy to complete. 

Research from behavioral science demonstrates that seemingly small barriers to engagement—such as pages of unstructured information, burdensome applications, or poorly presented options—can prevent programs from effectively reaching the people they are intended to serve. As philanthropic organizations continue to improve their grantmaking processes, they can intentionally present options to grantees in a way that promotes lasting social change—an approach otherwise known as choice architecture.

Choice architecture refers to the practice of strategically designing the way choices are framed with the goal of encouraging desired behaviors without being coercive. This behavioral science tool can ultimately support people’s individual decisions while also promoting collective social responsibility. This concept first emerged with Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.² In the book, the authorshighlight six “tools” for choice architects that can be applied when refining the grant application process.³

1. Understanding Defaults

Defaults are designed to encourage or “nudge” people toward a specific choice that aligns with their desired goal by pre-selecting certain options, potentially eliminating the need for additional action. For instance, opt-out systems have proven impactful in public health and policy contexts to increase health insurance enrollment, organ donation rates, and emergency alert notification registration. 

In grantmaking, defaults can reduce stress, save time, and lighten the administrative load for grantseekers while applying by reducing effort without restricting choices. Standard defaults at this stage might include pre-populated application fields or an automated eligibility form to filter out potential applicants.

2. Expecting Errors

As human beings, we often assume that we are rational thinkers who only act based on facts. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. All of us are more driven by emotional impulses and impacted by our environment more than we think.

Unfortunately, this means we are bound to make mistakes—such as while completing grant applications. Thus, designing for reality means designing processes with the expectation that people make decisions based on assumptions and judgments, taking shortcuts whenever possible. In terms of grant applications, this can include providing clear instructions at the beginning of each section, allowing applicants to go back and correct mistakes, and including an auto-save function.

3. Providing Feedback

This next tool is closely related to expecting errors. When we receive consistent feedback throughout a process, we can course-correct our mistakes, increase our understanding, and make better decisions. This, in turn, leads to more complete and accurate responses and helps us know if we are on the right track. Examples of designing a grant application form with built-in feedback include highlighting required questions when they are missed, reminders that an application is in progress as a draft, encouraging messages to complete the required steps, and submission confirmations. 

4. Understanding Mappings

In the context of choice architecture, a mapping is the connection between a choice and an outcome. This mapping is often simple (for example, “If I order my favorite dish, I will enjoy this meal the most”), but in more complex processes—say, for example, choosing an insurance plan—these mappings can be unclear. In grantmaking, multi-stage, complicated processes are common: for instance, some grant opportunities include a letter of interest, an application, and a series of approval steps, with each stage involving different requirements, criteria, and decision points. 

Part of designing an effective process is to clarify choices as much as possible and provide a sense of which ones will lead to which outcomes. For instance, if indicating certain options—for instance, proposing a project of a certain size or in a particular geographic area—will lead to eligibility for greater or lesser funding, it is crucial to lay that out as simply and clearly as possible to ensure a smooth and successful process.

5. Structuring Complex Choices 

This fifth tool is an expansion of the “understanding mappings” concept. When choices are complex enough, additional effort is needed to break down the different elements of the choice for someone to accurately understand the tradeoffs. Examples of good choice structures within the context of grantmaking exist at every stage of the process. These include breaking down choices before an applicant starts an application with an FAQ page, categorizing or sorting options in an application form, and breaking the reviewing stage down into multiple, concrete steps to reduce complexity. 

6. Incentivizing

This final tool is pretty straightforward but important: people are more likely to successfully complete a process when they are responding to a concrete incentive. This incentive does not have to be financial; social recognition, convenience, and exclusivity are all powerful motivators as well. The most important element of this tool is clarity—after all, if someone does not fully understand what’s “at stake,” the incentive will not be as effective. Beyond the inherent reward in grantmaking of receiving the funding itself, other examples of incentives include encouraging applicants to apply early in order to get priority review, or providing access to 1:1 coaching for prospective applicants.

Throughout every step of the journey, “good” choice architecture takes into account how our minds work. Human beings are fallible, overtasked, and energy-conserving creatures. We tend to prefer simplicity over complexity, like to avoid big hassles, and we filter out almost everything we don’t need to keep in mind. The six tools above provide a path to help anyone make higher-quality decisions and reduce the burden and stress that administrative processes such as applying for a grant can create.

In the following case study, we’ll take a look at how choice architecture tools were used to help turn around a struggling grantmaking program. 

The Philadelphia Activities Fund, Inc. (PAF) is a non-profit grantmaking organization established by Philadelphia’s Mayor and City Council in 1994. Its mission is to promote education, sportsmanship, the arts, and health opportunities in Philadelphia. PAF supports both established service-based organizations, and small, volunteer-led neighborhood-based groups focusing on lower-income and historically disinvested areas. Grantees use PAF funds for activities such as educational programming for children, neighborhood festivals, tree plantings, and community clean-ups. Each year, PAF awards approximately 1,000 grants per fiscal year, this year totaling $3.6M. 

In 2023, PAF reached a crisis point due to a significant issue: over 50% of grantees were not finishing their applications. Even of the grantees who were compliant with their paperwork, 80% faced significant delays in receiving their funds due to process complexity and significant human error. These delays led to countless issues for grantees, including several instances in which community programming had to be postponed or canceled as a result of funds not being processed on time. 

Our firm, Anavi Strategies, was brought on as the managing partner to address these challenges and strengthen PAF’s grant program policies and procedures to address organizational shifts and process gaps occurring over the past four years. As a consulting firm known for designing programs, delivering implementation support, and providing evaluation services, we undertook a comprehensive assessment to pinpoint areas for improvement and implement streamlined processes to ensure smooth and effective grant cycles.

As choice architects, we knew it was vital to prioritize the grantee experience and deliver high-quality customer service. We wanted to bring purpose, clarity, and ease to the application process. Leveraging our expertise in human behavior, we were able to be intentional in how we designed the application to ensure higher completion rates and increase chances of securing meaningful funding opportunities. In the next section, we’ll share our solutions in hopes of distributing these techniques across the philanthropic industry.

We leveraged choice architecture while designing the PAF application process to increase the chances that a prospective applicant would make it through every step and successfully apply. Using the strategies listed below, we achieved our goal of improving the PAF grantee experience in the following ways:

• Streamlining and Simplifying: When we were brought on to the PAF project, one of our first steps was to simplify the application language and structure significantly. We focused on removing unneeded application questions, added new templated forms and default reminders, and made sure the application was clear and easy to understand for applicants of all backgrounds. This improved accessibility and encouraged more submissions. 
• Highlighting Key Information: In addition to simplifying, we made additional design choices such as putting important language related to the next steps in bolded font, guaranteeing that applicants know exactly what is required at each stage. 
• Providing Instant Feedback: In partnership with the Submittable platform (which hosts PAF’s operations), we integrated automatic confirmations at every stage of the process to reassure applicants and guide them smoothly to completion, confirming when the application was on the right track.
• Accessible Support: We also provided a helpful links page including a summary of “Frequently Asked Questions” for reference, offered an application auto-save feature to prevent loss of progress, integrated DocuSign contract software to simplify document submission, and continuously monitored the phone line and inbox to provide real-time support. 

Through these approaches, we made it easier for organizations to apply for grants, regardless of their size or capacity, ultimately fostering greater participation and impact across Philadelphia’s communities. After implementing these changes, all administrative delays and errors were eliminated, and The Philadelphia Activities Fund distributed all of the funds, with the majority of grants ($2.8M) being allocated within a six-week period, the fastest payment period in the organization’s history. We received positive feedback from grantees, who voiced appreciation for the increased clarity of the process and the quality of our customer service support.

To learn more about our work with PAF, read our project case study.

Given the wide range of different grantees that the philanthropic industry seeks to fund, it is important to approach choice architecture using a core set of values: 

Diversify the Applicant Pool By Designing More Accessible Opportunities

Not every grantseeker has the experience or resources to identify and compete for grants. Simplified processes ensure all applicants—regardless of their existing knowledge—can access funding opportunities. Improving the design of a process is one way to address systemic barriers that disproportionately impact organizations that are smaller in size, have greater financial needs, or are serving marginalized communities. 

Meet Grantees Where They Are

Given the broad consequences of administrative burdens, recognizing grantees’ existing knowledge about grantmaking, their resources, and organizational capacity reflects an important value of putting the grantee first. In doing so, choice architects can create an empowering context by making it easier to navigate the grantmaking process and successfully complete each step. Ensuring that people have the necessary tools to manage complex, bureaucratic processes allows them to focus on their mission. Grantmakers increase the chances of further collaboration with their grantees and realizing more effective outcomes with their investments.

Build Trust and Transparency

Trust between grantmakers and grantees is paramount—especially given the inherent power differentials that can exist between philanthropic leaders and organizations seeking resources. Choice architects can create structured processes that allow for philanthropic investments to be informed by communities’ lived experiences, and eliminate instances where funds are driven by external expectations, assumptions, or preconceived notions about what problems need to be solved, and what approaches could be the most effective. Choice architects can also increase the transparency of inherently complex grantmaking processes by implementing consistent feedback loops, including automatic confirmations, reminders, and access to live support, ensuring grantees feel supported, informed, and at ease at each stage of the process.

Choice architects within the public and philanthropic sectors have the opportunity to lead a shift in practices towards more effective grantmaking using methods that are evidence-based, human-centered, and increase the chances of lasting social impact.

Incorporating choice architecture into grantmaking efforts gives philanthropic organizations the opportunity to tie grant administration practices to values. How choice architects design the application, process, and rules of a grantmaking effort can help narrow the inherent power gap between grantmakers and grantseekers. This approach promotes equity in philanthropy, enforcing this goal with new strategies. We encourage any philanthropy to incorporate this approach. The application of choice architecture within specific foundations, organizations, or grantmaking opportunities can contribute to building sector-wide knowledge, further advancing change and impact.

Anavi Strategies guides mission-driven organizations such as government agencies, nonprofits, and philanthropies towards thoughtful strategic planning, designing transformative initiatives, and making greater social impact through data-driven and empathetic practices. Beginning September 2023, Anavi Strategies has served as the Project Manager for the Philadelphia Activities Fund to design and implement the grant program and address the program’s customer service needs.