Designing Grant Programs That Attract Diverse Applicants
Create inclusive grant programs that reach organizations outside traditional networks and build equity into every stage of the funding process.
Create inclusive grant programs that reach organizations outside traditional networks and build equity into every stage of the funding process.
Foundation leaders often discover a troubling pattern: despite genuine commitment to funding diverse organizations, their grant programs attract applicants who look remarkably similar. The issue isn't a shortage of worthy organizations working with underserved communities—it's that traditional grant program design systematically excludes many of them.
Diverse applicants face distinct barriers at every stage of the grant process. Complex applications require resources that well-established organizations already have. Opaque review criteria privilege certain types of evidence. Outreach follows well-worn paths that reach the same networks repeatedly. Unconscious bias shapes funding decisions in subtle ways. And many organizations lack the institutional capacity to navigate grant seeking at all.
The good news: each of these barriers is addressable through intentional program design. This guide walks foundation leaders through concrete strategies to redesign grant programs for genuine inclusivity—not as an add-on, but as the foundation of how your programs work.
Before redesigning, understand the specific barriers your current program creates. These barriers often feel invisible to those who've navigated traditional funding systems successfully.
The typical grant application reflects the infrastructure of large, established organizations. Multi-page narrative sections assume sophisticated communications capacity. Required documentation—audited financial statements, Form 990s, insurance certificates—are expensive and time-consuming to produce. Online application systems with rigid formatting demand technical fluency.
For smaller organizations, community groups without nonprofit status, and emerging organizations, these requirements represent months of work before they can even submit an application. Many never make it to the submission stage.
Most foundation outreach follows predictable patterns: website listings, email announcements to existing contacts, presentations at conferences that cost money to attend. These channels work well for organizations already in philanthropic circles but completely miss others.
Many organizations serving diverse and underserved communities have never heard of your foundation. They don't attend funder conferences. They're not on email lists built through years of networking. They don't have grant writers who routinely scan foundation websites.
Even when applications reach your desk, unconscious bias shapes how they're evaluated. Reviewers favor familiar approaches. Language and presentation styles that reflect privilege appear more "professional." Quantified metrics matter more than qualitative impact. Track records favor established organizations over promising newcomers.
These patterns aren't individual failures—they're systemic problems in how traditional grant review works. A diverse applicant pool doesn't guarantee diverse funding decisions without addressing review process design.
Accessible applications don't just attract more diverse applicants—they attract better applicants. When organizations can focus on explaining their work rather than navigating complex requirements, you get clearer evidence of actual impact.
Start radical: assume every question you include must justify its existence. Does your organization truly need 10 pages of narrative? Do you actually need audited financials to assess a $25,000 grant? Would a one-page organizational overview work as well as a comprehensive history section?
Most applications can be cut by 40-60% without losing essential information. This isn't lowering standards—it's removing busywork that measures compliance instead of impact.
Most essential information can be conveyed in 500-750 words per section. Use focused prompts that ask for specific information rather than open-ended narrative.
Instead of requiring audited financials, accept reviewed statements or even summary financial data. For newer organizations, accept letters from fiscal sponsors or funding partners confirming credibility.
Accept applications via online portal, email, video, or phone interview. Some organizations excel at verbal communication. Forcing everything into written text excludes them unnecessarily.
Share sample applications from funded organizations. Walk applicants through each section. Create fill-in-the-blank templates. Remove mystery from the process.
Rigid deadlines favor organizations with dedicated grant teams. Consider rolling review where applications are evaluated quarterly, giving applicants flexibility to submit when ready.
Offer office hours where applicants can ask questions, get feedback on drafts, and troubleshoot technical issues. This support itself communicates that you want them to apply.
If using an online portal, ensure it meets WCAG accessibility standards. Test with screen readers. Provide text-based alternatives to all required materials. Don't create technology barriers.
It shouldn't cost money to apply for funding. Yet many organizations pay for consultants, cover application fees, or invest in expensive software just to submit. These costs are regressive—hitting smallest, newest, and most resource-constrained organizations hardest.
Explicitly eliminate these costs. No application fees. Provide free access to any required software. If applicants need to hire a consultant to complete your application, your application process is broken.
Assume applicants will have questions. Make getting answers easy. Provide email addresses for program officers. Host open office hours for questions. Share FAQs based on questions you receive. Follow up with applicants whose applications seem incomplete or unclear—offer to help rather than rejecting them.
This support transforms the experience from gatekeeping to genuine partnership. It also improves application quality because you're helping clarify thinking rather than letting confusion lead to poor submissions.
Reaching diverse applicants requires going where those organizations already gather—which is almost never traditional funder conferences or email lists.
The most effective outreach happens through trusted intermediaries. Identify organizations that already have relationships with your target applicants: networks serving immigrant communities, organizations working on racial justice, coalitions focused on specific geographies or issues. Partner with these organizations to introduce your program through channels they already trust.
This might mean funding a staff person at a partner organization to handle outreach and application support. It might mean hosting application workshops at partner offices. It means meeting potential applicants where they are rather than waiting for them to come to you.
The most effective outreach isn't transactional. Rather than one-time announcements, think about building lasting relationships with communities and networks. This means:
When organizations feel genuinely welcomed—not just tolerated—application rates increase dramatically. This is especially true for organizations from historically excluded communities, who have learned to be wary of institutions.
Creating a diverse applicant pool only matters if your review process doesn't filter diversity back out through unconscious bias. Intentional process design is essential.
Use objective criteria for screening applications: Does it meet basic requirements? Is it complete? Don't allow subjective judgments (seems promising, high quality) at this stage. Incomplete applications should receive feedback and a chance to resubmit rather than being rejected.
Define exactly what you're looking for in each evaluation category. Instead of asking reviewers "Is their work impactful?"—which invites bias—provide rubrics: "What evidence shows their organization reached 100+ members in the past year?" Specific criteria reduce bias and improve fairness.
Homogeneous committees amplify shared biases. Include reviewers with different backgrounds, experiences, sectors, and perspectives. Include community members served by potential grantees, not just traditional funding leaders. Diversity in the room is essential to catching bias in decision-making.
Remove applicant names, organizational history, and other identifying information from the initial review phase. Have reviewers evaluate solely on: evidence of impact, clarity of plan, alignment with priorities. Knowing an organization's track record introduces anchoring bias and privilege.
When scores vary significantly between reviewers, discuss why. This often reveals where bias influenced decisions. Train reviewers to recognize common bias patterns: favoring similar applicants, privileging certain metrics, dismissing unfamiliar approaches. Structured discussion surfaces and corrects these patterns.
Affinity bias (favoring organizations that resemble the reviewer) is the most common funder bias. Combat this through diverse review committees and blind review processes. When you can't see the applicant's background, affinity bias has less opportunity to operate.
Track record bias privileges established organizations over emerging ones. Established organizations have more documentation and longer histories. Early-stage organizations might be more innovative and responsive. Design your evaluation criteria to specifically value different types of evidence: innovation, growth trajectory, community trust, even if they lack 10-year funding histories.
Metrics bias overvalues quantified outcomes and undervalues qualitative impact. Organizations serving most marginalized communities often have harder-to-quantify impact: increased sense of belonging, community healing, reduced isolation. Explicitly value qualitative evidence and lived experience alongside metrics.
Communication style bias judges applications based on writing quality or presentation rather than substance. This privileges educated professionals and penalizes community-rooted organizations. Consider offering alternative submission formats: video, oral presentations, visual storytelling. Evaluate content separately from presentation style.
Well-intentioned reviewers still apply unconscious biases. The difference is whether your process is designed to surface and correct those biases or allows them to operate invisibly. Standardized rubrics, diverse committees, blind review, and structured reflection aren't extra steps—they're essential infrastructure for equitable funding decisions.
Many organizations struggling to access grants don't need money—they need help understanding how to apply for it. Providing capacity-building support alongside your grant program increases application quality and diversity simultaneously.
Offer free technical assistance with applications: office hours where organizations can ask questions, individual consultation calls, application workshops, feedback on draft applications. This support shouldn't be limited to organizations you think will apply—make it available to all potentially eligible organizations in your focus area.
This support serves multiple purposes: it removes barriers to application, it improves application quality, and it signals genuine welcome to communities that have been historically excluded from funding.
Many organizations can't pursue mission-related grants because they're too busy managing immediate crises: financial instability, staff burnout, lack of systems and processes. Offer capacity-building grants specifically designed to build foundation for future growth. These might fund:
Capacity-building grants recognize that organizations need support before they can effectively compete for program funding. This is especially true for organizations led by and serving communities of color, which have historically received lower overhead funding and thus lack the infrastructure larger organizations take for granted.
Create opportunities for grant applicants and grantees to learn from each other. This might include cohorts of organizations working on similar issues, peer learning communities, convenings where organizations share strategies. These networks build collective capacity and help organizations understand they're not alone in facing challenges.
Network building also increases the likelihood that future applications will be collaborative and thoughtful—organizations are thinking together about strategy rather than competing in isolation.
You can't improve what you don't measure. Systematically tracking applicant diversity metrics—and analyzing patterns in who does and doesn't receive funding—is essential to holding your program accountable to equity commitments.
Develop data collection processes that capture key diversity dimensions relevant to your foundation's focus areas and values. This might include:
The key principle: track what matters to your equity goals. Don't collect data you won't use, but do collect sufficient data to understand whether your program is reaching and funding diverse applicants.
Application Rate vs. Funding Rate by Organization Type
Organization-Led Organizations of Color: 45% apply, 52% funded
White-Led Organizations: 55% apply, 48% funded
Tracking shows equity improvements and remaining gaps.
Raw data isn't useful without analysis. Regular analysis should ask:
Share diversity data publicly with your board, grantees, and the communities you serve. Commit to specific diversity goals and report honestly on progress. When you fall short, explain what happened and what you're doing differently next year.
Use diversity data to drive continuous improvement. If you notice diverse applicants have lower success rates, that's a sign your review process might be biased. If certain geographic areas are underrepresented, increase targeted outreach. If emerging organizations apply less, expand capacity-building support.
Accountability means treating equity not as a marketing message but as a core operational commitment, with resources, governance attention, and willingness to make substantive changes to your programs.
Tracking diversity metrics is only valuable if you actually use that data to improve your program. If you're consistently underfunding organizations of color but reporting it as "progress," you're engaging in performative equity. Use data to identify problems and drive real change.
Designing inclusive grant programs requires more than good intentions. It requires intentional redesign of every element: application simplicity, accessible documentation, authentic outreach, bias-reducing review processes, capacity-building support, and accountability through data.
The payoff is substantial. When your program truly welcomes diverse applicants, you discover innovative organizations doing extraordinary work that traditional grant seeking never reaches. You build relationships with communities rather than extracting applications from them. Your funding decisions become more thoughtful and less biased. And the organizations you fund gain not just money but partnership in growth.
This work isn't quick. Building trust with historically excluded communities takes years. Redesigning processes takes time and iteration. But the alternative—maintaining grant programs that look like your field rather than your communities—perpetuates the exact inequities your foundation claims to oppose.
Your program design communicates whether diverse applicants are truly welcome or merely tolerated. Make the choice intentional.
Start with a grant program audit: map current barriers to application, review process bias points, and outreach gaps. Identify one element to redesign first. Build accountability metrics into your planning.
Explore More Equity Resources