The question this answers
How do you design a grant application form that collects evidence, not narratives?
What the problem looks like without structured grant application form design
Your application form asks: “Describe how your project will benefit the community.”
You get 500 words of polished prose. It sounds great. But you can’t tell whether the applicant actually understands the community, has the relationships to deliver, or is just good at writing grant applications.
Worse, the responses are impossible to compare. One applicant writes three paragraphs about partnerships. Another writes three paragraphs about outcomes. Your assessors are comparing apples to oranges, using judgement to fill the gaps.
Now add AI. Applicants paste your question into ChatGPT and get fluent, plausible, generic answers. Your form can’t tell the difference between someone who knows their stuff and someone who knows how to prompt.
The problem isn’t that applicants are gaming the system. It’s that your form is designed to be gamed.
What I design
Grant application forms built as decision tools, not questionnaires:
- Questions that elicit evidence, not narrative
- Structure that forces specificity and exposes inconsistency
- Constraints that make generic or AI-generated responses perform poorly
- Data collected once and reused across eligibility, assessment, contracting, reporting, and evaluation
The test is simple: if an assessor has to interpret what the applicant meant, the form didn’t do its job.
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: “Describe your organisation’s capacity to deliver this project.” (500 words)
You get prose. Some applicants oversell. Some undersell. You can’t compare. Assessors fill in the gaps with assumptions.
Good:
| What you’re trying to learn | How the form elicits it |
|---|---|
| Do they have delivery experience? | List up to 3 projects you’ve delivered in the past 3 years with similar scope. For each: project name, funder, value, completion date. |
| Do they have the right people? | Name the project lead. What role did they play in the projects listed above? |
| Do they understand the costs? | Itemised budget with unit costs. No lump sums over $5,000 without breakdown. |
| Do they have community relationships? | Name 2 partner organisations. What will each contribute? Have they confirmed in writing? (Y/N) |
| Can they actually start on time? | What approvals, permits, or agreements are required before work begins? Which do you already have? |
An assessor can scan this and know: do they have runs on the board? Do they have the right person? Do the numbers stack up? Are the partnerships real or aspirational?
No interpretation. No guesswork. The form did the work.
Why it matters
Your application form shapes every decision downstream. A vague form produces vague responses, inconsistent assessments, and decisions that are hard to defend.
At scale, narrative-based forms break. Staff spend hours interpreting what applicants meant. Assessors score the same response differently. Complaints are harder to resolve because the evidence was never collected. AI-generated applications slip through because the form tests writing, not capability.
A well-designed grant application form collects evidence once and uses it everywhere: eligibility, assessment, contracting, reporting, evaluation. It reduces staff time, improves decision quality, and creates data you can actually learn from.
The smartest form design doesn’t ask applicants to convince you. It asks them to show you.
More Application & Evidence Design Deliverables
Why do you keep asking applicants for the same information? → A lifecycle data architecture built into the form so every question maps to eligibility, assessment, contracting, reporting, evaluation, and cross-program analysis. Information is collected once, structured for reuse, and eliminates the duplication most programs never notice until reporting season.
Why do small organisations give up before they finish your application? → Proportionate evidence pathways built through conditional logic so the form automatically scales. Small projects follow a short pathway with minimal evidence requirements. Complex projects provide deeper substantiation including implementation plans, governance, and risk management. The burden of proof matches the funding risk.
What Does a Grant Application Design Specification Actually Look Like? → A structured blueprint covering question wording, sequencing, conditional logic rules, field types, validation rules, evidence requirements, and data structure. This is the build-ready design that a grants platform (Fluxx, SmartyGrants, Foundant, or similar) can implement directly. You are not receiving a prettier form. You are receiving a decision architecture ready for implementation.
More Application & Evidence Design Deliverables
Why do you keep asking applicants for the same information? → A lifecycle data architecture built into the form so every question maps to eligibility, assessment, contracting, reporting, evaluation, and cross-program analysis. Information is collected once, structured for reuse, and eliminates the duplication most programs never notice until reporting season.
Why do small organisations give up before they finish your application? → Proportionate evidence pathways built through conditional logic so the form automatically scales. Small projects follow a short pathway with minimal evidence requirements. Complex projects provide deeper substantiation including implementation plans, governance, and risk management. The burden of proof matches the funding risk.
What Does a Grant Application Design Specification Actually Look Like? → A structured blueprint covering question wording, sequencing, conditional logic rules, field types, validation rules, evidence requirements, and data structure. This is the build-ready design that a grants platform (Fluxx, SmartyGrants, Foundant, or similar) can implement directly. You are not receiving a prettier form. You are receiving a decision architecture ready for implementation.
