The question this answers
How do you design a grant application form that scales evidence requirements to project size and risk?
What the problem looks like without proportionate evidence pathways
A community group wants $5,000 to run a weekend workshop. Your application form asks for an implementation plan, a risk management framework, governance structure, detailed budget with acquittal methodology, and three years of audited financials.
They don’t have a risk management framework. They have a church hall, a volunteer coordinator, and a good idea.
They look at the form. They close the tab.
Meanwhile, a large organisation applying for $500,000 fills in the same form. The questions are too shallow for the complexity of their project. You get a governance statement that says “our board oversees all projects” and a risk plan that lists “weather” and “staff turnover.” The form didn’t push them because it was designed for the small applicant who already gave up.
Your grant program loses both ways. Small organisations self-exclude. Large organisations coast through without providing the evidence you actually need.
The problem isn’t that the form is too hard or too easy. It’s that one form is doing two jobs and failing at both.
What I design
Proportionate evidence pathways built through conditional logic:
- Project size and complexity determine which pathway an applicant follows
- Small projects provide a short description, simple budget, and minimal risk declaration
- Complex projects provide implementation plans, detailed budgets, governance information, risk management, and delivery capability evidence
- The form routes applicants automatically. No staff judgement required to determine which pathway applies
- Evidence burden matches funding risk at every level
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: One form for all applicants regardless of project size.
A $5,000 workshop and a $500,000 infrastructure project answer the same questions. The small applicant is overwhelmed. The large applicant is underprepared. Assessors adjust expectations informally based on project size, introducing inconsistency.
Good:
| Funding tier | What the form asks | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Under $10,000 | Short project description, simple budget, key contact, basic eligibility declaration | Low funding risk. Evidence burden is minimal. Decision is fast. |
| $10,000–$100,000 | Project plan, itemised budget, delivery capability evidence, named project lead, partner confirmation | Moderate risk. The form needs enough to assess feasibility and alignment. |
| Over $100,000 | Implementation plan, detailed budget with unit costs, governance structure, risk management plan, evidence of demand, delivery track record | High risk. The program needs substantiation proportionate to the investment. |
The small applicant finishes in 20 minutes. The large applicant provides the depth you need to make a confident decision. Assessors compare like with like within each tier.
The form scales itself. No staff interpretation required.
Why it matters
Grant programs that apply the same evidence burden regardless of project size lose good applicants at the bottom and get weak evidence at the top. Small organisations with genuine community impact self-exclude because the form was designed for someone else. Large organisations provide surface-level responses because the form never demanded more.
Proportionate pathways solve both problems with the same mechanism. Conditional logic routes each applicant to the right level of evidence. The form becomes fairer, faster, and more reliable across the full range of what your program funds.
The best grant application forms don’t treat every applicant the same. They treat every applicant proportionately.
More Application & Evidence Design Deliverables
Are You Funding Good Writers, Not Good Projects? → An intelligently designed grant application form that functions as a decision engine, not a questionnaire. Conditional logic creates evidence pathways scaled to project size and risk. Structured prompts force specificity and internal consistency, making weak proposals and AI-generated responses expose themselves without staff needing to detect them. Assessors compare evidence, not narrative skill.
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.
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.
