The question this answers:
Why don’t grant applicants understand what we’re asking for?
What the problem looks like without redesigned guidelines ready for applicants
Your enquiries line is overwhelmed. Half the questions are about things that are already in the guidelines. Applications arrive that clearly don’t fit the grant program. Good organisations self-exclude because they couldn’t tell if they were eligible. Assessors spend hours on applications that should never have been submitted.
The guidelines technically contain the information. But they’re written in policy language, structured for internal sign-off, and assume knowledge applicants don’t have.
The problem isn’t that applicants can’t read. The problem is the guidelines weren’t written for them.
What the deliverable actually is
Your existing guidelines restructured and rewritten so applicants can actually use them. That means:
- Plain English throughout, not policy language translated for the public
- A logical structure that answers questions in the order applicants ask them
- Clear criteria that let people self-assess before they invest time
- Explicit guidance on what a good application looks like
- Consistent terminology that matches the application form
What I deliver is a complete document, ready to publish. Not a set of suggestions. Not track changes for your team to implement. A finished product you can put in front of applicants.
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: “Eligible applicants must demonstrate alignment with the program objectives as outlined in Section 2.1, having regard to the priorities established under the relevant policy framework and subject to the requirements set out in Schedule A.”
This is comprehensible to the person who wrote it. It’s not comprehensible to a community group trying to work out if they can apply.
Good: “You can apply if your organisation is a registered not-for-profit based in NSW and your project focuses on one of the three priority areas listed below. If you’re not sure whether you’re eligible, check the examples in Section 3 before you apply.”
Same information. Applicant can actually use it.
Why it matters
Guidelines are the first promise you make to applicants. They set expectations about what the grant program is, who it’s for, and how decisions will be made.
When guidelines are unclear, you pay for it at every stage: more enquiries, more ineligible applications, more complaints, more appeals, more reputational risk.
Clear guidelines don’t just reduce administration. They signal that the grant program has been properly designed and that applicants will be treated fairly.
Other Guidelines Development Deliverables
“How do you brief stakeholders on grant guidelines changes?” → A design rationale document that explains the structural decisions behind the guidelines for executives, ministers, audit committees, and internal teams. This is not a summary of what changed. It explains why the program communicates differently and what that solves.
“Are your grant guidelines compliant?” → A compliance review ensuring the redesigned guidelines meet CGRG or relevant state framework requirements. Program design that cannot pass governance review is not usable design.
“Why do grant guidelines get worse each round?” → A design decision record showing the logic behind every structural change, suitable for audit, governance review, or onboarding new program staff. This is not tracked changes on a document. It is a record of why the program communicates the way it does.
“Can you prove what changed in your grant guidelines?” → A design decision record showing the logic behind every structural change, suitable for audit, governance review, or onboarding new program staff. This is not tracked changes on a document. It is a record of why the program communicates the way it does.
