How to Update Your Grant Application: Five Strategic Considerations

Change may be inevitable, but that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. No one wants to live in a world before indoor plumbing—or timers on their coffee makers. While your mission probably won’t change, the needs of your community and the technology you use to manage your grantmaking will.

That’s why it’s important to periodically review and update your grant application. Doing so allows you to incorporate new capabilities in your grantmaking software, respond to evolving grantee needs, and make sure your application still reflects how you want to show up as a funder.

This article offers tips for a strategic review of your application, designed for grantmaking organizations that want to pause, evaluate, and make thoughtful decisions about what to update and why. If you’re considering how to update your grant application in a way that supports better decisions and stronger relationships, these five considerations can help guide the process.

1. How well does your application match your funding priorities?

Your grant application should be a clear extension of your mission as a grantmaking organization. Before focusing on individual questions or workflows, take a step back and look at the application as a whole.

Make sure your core values are represented in your application process. If someone didn’t know your organization well and came across your funding program, would they be able to tell that you prioritize big-picture problem solving or funding marginalized voices, for example?

As you review each question and process around your application, clearly define how it reflects your mission and your priorities.

Action steps to consider:

• Review the full application in one sitting and note where your priorities are explicit versus implied.
• Look for legacy language that reflects past programs or funding goals that no longer apply.
• Ask whether an unfamiliar applicant could reasonably infer your values and focus areas from the questions alone.
• Revisit how each major section supports your current funding strategy, not just historical practices.

2. Can you provide a simple pre‑screening process?

Potential grantees don’t want to waste their time—or yours—completing an application that isn’t a good fit. Provide a simple, low-effort way for organizations to verify their eligibility before spending hours completing the full application.

Consider adding a quick eligibility quiz that verifies they meet your basic criteria, such as serving a specific location or demographic. It should be a few questions, mainly checkboxes or dropdown lists, and should take a few minutes to complete. A survey like this works well if you have specific requirements, such as a budget under $100,000 or serving families with preschool-aged children.

If your requirements need a little more nuance than a survey can convey, perhaps have your grantees submit a short letter of inquiry or a five-minute video explaining why the organization should be considered for funding. These take a little longer for your staff to review, but the organizations can give you more insight into whether they would be a good fit.

If you already have a pre-screening process, look for ways that you can make it better. Do you find it currently takes too much of your staff’s time to review, or that some organizations are getting screened out that shouldn’t be? You may find better ways to ask your screening questions or for your applicants to submit their answers.

Action steps to consider:

• Identify the minimum eligibility criteria that truly determine fit and focus pre‑screening there.
• Evaluate whether your pre‑screening questions are clear, quick to answer, and easy to review.
• Consider whether a short questionnaire, letter of inquiry, or brief video response is most appropriate for your programs.
• Review past pre‑screening outcomes to see where strong applicants may have been filtered out unintentionally.

3. How can you simplify your funding application?

Your grant application must walk a thin line between gathering the information you need to make an informed decision and not being so onerous that your target organizations opt not to apply.

Make sure you are taking advantage of any functionality in your grantmaking software to automate or streamline the process. Something as simple as auto filling address information based on their login can save time. Integrations with CandidGuidestar can also help provide some important details about the potential grantee instead of the applicant having to supply it.

Use conditional logic to shorten the application based on size or age of organization. For example, if an organization is less than two years old, you may ask for a simplified version of their financials. 

Another way to simplify the application process is to enable autosave. Like you, your applicants are busy and probably working on several projects at once. Nothing is more defeating than losing an hour’s worth of work because your browser froze, or you accidentally closed the tab without saving.

Finally, encourage your applicants to submit their responses electronically. Online submissions save your staff time because everything is automatically entered into your GMS, which often also serves as your CRM. It also saves your potential grantees time and money by not having to make copies and mail their application.

Action steps to consider:

• Identify questions that consistently cause confusion or require follow-up clarification.
• Look for opportunities to use conditional logic so applicants only see questions relevant to them.
• Review which information could be auto filled, integrated, or reused from previous applications.
• Confirm that applicants can save progress easily and return without losing work.

4. Who will be completing your application?

You may have people with a variety of abilities, resources, and skills applying for your funding, so keep your application accessible. Depending on your mission and the scope of your funding project, the organizations interested in applying may not have reliable internet, need assistive technology, or may not speak English as their first language. Keep this in mind as you update your grant application.

Keep your language simple and clear. If you include images, make sure they have captions. Avoid jargon, cliches, and regionalisms to help all your applicants understand what you are looking for.

Work with your GMS vendor to make sure your forms work with standard screen readers for people who have limited vision or prefer to have the text read out loud. Similarly, see what translation capabilities are innate to your GMS for organizations where English is not their primary language. Can they easily translate the questions into Spanish, for example?

The concept of universal design states that if you make a system or process more accessible for a subset of people, you often make a better experience for everyone. Everyone benefits from clear language and multiple ways to access.

Action steps to consider:

• Review the application for jargon, acronyms, or assumptions that may not be universally understood.
• Confirm that your application works with screen readers and other assistive technologies.
• Evaluate translation options for applicants who may not work primarily in English.
• Check that instructions and expectations are consistent across questions and sections.

5. How will you use the information you collect?

Every question in your grant application should have a clear purpose. Only ask for information that you know will be essential for making a funding decision. Not only is this important for streamlining your application, but it’s also good data management. You don’t have to worry about managing data you don’t collect.

Remove any legacy questions that have lasted longer than their usefulness for decision making. If you had a program that provided funding for volunteer training, but that is no longer part of program, you may be able to remove any questions about the number of volunteers an organization has.

There is some information that you need, but you may not need to be prescriptive about how you receive it. For example, do grantees need to format their financials based on your templates, or do you just need them in a format where you can verify their budget and expenses? If you are willing to accept their budget in a format that they already pull from their fund accounting system instead of translating it into a spreadsheet, you can save them significant time and still get the information you need.

Action steps to consider:

• Map each question to a specific decision point in your review or reporting process.
• Identify legacy questions that no longer influence funding outcomes.
• Decide where flexibility in format is acceptable without compromising decision making.
• Align data collection with how information is stored, reviewed, and reported internally.

Build Stronger Relationships with More Intentional Application Updates

When grantees recognize that you value their time and experience, trust grows. Thoughtfully updating your grant application helps ensure your process reflects your mission, supports better decisions, and evolves alongside the communities you serve.

If you’re ready for a grantmaking solution that makes application updates easier—while improving accessibility and consistency for applicants—see how Blackbaud Grantmaking supports a modern, flexible grantee experience. Check out the on-demand product tour to learn more.

Common questions grantmakers ask when updating an application

How often should grantmaking organizations update their grant application?
Many organizations review their application annually or alongside major program or technology changes. Regular review helps prevent outdated requirements from accumulating over time.

Who should be involved in reviewing a grant application update?
Including program staff, operations teams, and—when possible—trusted grantees can surface issues that aren’t always visible internally.

Is updating an application the same as changing funding priorities?
Not necessarily. Updating your grant application often reflects how you ask for information, not what you fund—but it can reveal misalignment worth addressing.