Three different brushes make one broad cobalt stroke. An original editorial painting about institutions doing more of the coordination themselves, rather than passing repeated work to applicants.
Shared applications should save community organizations time throughout the grant relationship
By Arbab Naseebullah Kasi, Chief Executive Officer - CEO, Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc.
Imagine a community organization finishing a funding application after its evening activities have ended. The director has explained the same work three times, adjusted the same budget to three templates and asked a colleague to find a document already supplied last month. None of these tasks is necessarily difficult on its own. Together, they consume the hours in which the organization could have planned its next activity, supported a volunteer or simply closed on time.
Now imagine three funders announcing that they will collaborate. The organization should feel the difference. A shared logo and a new portal are not enough if applicants still face three sets of follow-up questions, three reporting calendars and three versions of the same financial information.
The useful promise of funder collaboration is that institutions will do more of the coordination themselves. That requires common applications where possible, proportionate checks, compatible reporting and decisions people can understand. It also requires honesty about obligations that remain separate.
This article is about how funders design the experience of seeking and managing support, rather than how a nonprofit writes a persuasive proposal. Examples from London and US research illustrate different settings. Sources and published rules were checked on November 9, 2026; individual grant agreements and applicable law still govern each award.
Start with the work the applicant must do
A funder sees its own application. A community organization sees the accumulated workload of every funder it approaches.
Before building a shared form, trace that workload from the first eligibility check to the final report. Include the work that rarely appears in a portal: joining an introductory call, obtaining board approval, checking an unfamiliar definition, translating an answer, converting a spreadsheet and responding to repeated clarification requests.
Then ask of every question: What decision will this answer change? Who needs it? Can we obtain it ourselves? Does it have to be answered now?
There is evidence that processes can become lighter. The Center for Effective Philanthropy's 2023 study examined grantee feedback associated with 61 US-based funders that used its Grantee Perception Report before 2020 and again in 2021 or 2022. The reported median time for proposal processes fell from 20 to 15 hours. Median annual time for required monitoring, reporting and evaluation fell from eight to six hours. Read the original CEP study.
These are historical, self-reported experiences from funders already commissioning feedback, not a representative survey of all philanthropy. They do not establish that a shared application caused the reductions, and they say little about unsuccessful applicants. The separate medians should not simply be added to construct a typical organization's experience. Nevertheless, the findings challenge the idea that the existing workload is unavoidable.
The point is not to eliminate thought from an application. It is to remove repeated effort that adds little to the decision.
Be precise about what is shared
A common application format, aligned funding and a pooled fund are different arrangements.
A common format can let an organization reuse information while still submitting separately. Aligned funders may coordinate priorities and intake while retaining their own money, decisions and agreements. A pooled arrangement brings contributions into a shared funding vehicle, with governance and grant responsibilities defined for that arrangement. None automatically guarantees identical treatment or a single legal relationship.
London's Propel offers a useful real example. A Greater London Authority decision published in 2024 describes the initial approach as aligned funding with a shared application portal, while participating funders administered grants themselves. It also records the ambition to move toward pooled funding. Read the official decision.
The distinction matters to applicants. They should know whether one submission reaches several decision-makers, whether a particular funder will take responsibility for the award, and whether an unsuccessful application may be considered elsewhere. A shared entrance should not conceal the rest of the journey.
Publish a short explanation of who receives the application, who can request more information, who decides and who signs the agreement. Name the person or team responsible for resolving contradictory requests. Applicants should not have to negotiate the collaboration's internal disagreements.
Keep the common application genuinely common
A well-designed shared application begins with a limited set of reusable information: the organization's purpose, the community involved, the proposed work, the amount sought and a clear financial picture. Ask applicants to confirm what remains accurate rather than retype it every round.
Keep additional questions specific. If only one funder needs information about a restricted purpose, show that question only to relevant applicants and explain why it is required. Do not make every applicant complete the combined wish list of every institution in the partnership.
Staging can help, provided the first stage stays short. A concise expression of interest can establish fit before an organization spends days on a full proposal. It becomes counterproductive when the preliminary stage demands almost everything the full application will ask again.
Propel's published long-term grant process uses an expression of interest followed by a full application. Its current stage-two guidance is for existing Propel grantees who passed the first stage. It states an aim of an approximately 80 percent stage-two success rate, asks organizations to update changed information and allows further conversations about governance, finances and safeguarding. That percentage is a design aim, not a reported result or a promise to an individual applicant. Read the stage-two guidance.
This is an example of process design, not an invitation to apply. On the date checked, Propel's grant-support page stated that there were no open rounds. Check current grant support.
For any collaboration, disclose the likely effort before the applicant starts. Provide downloadable questions, save-and-return functionality, clear character limits and a way to correct a genuine error. Test the process with people who have not helped design it.
Make due diligence proportionate and reusable
Shared due diligence should reduce duplication without blurring responsibility.
Agree which checks one institution can perform for the others, what evidence is acceptable, how recent it must be and who will respond if circumstances change. Record the date, scope and limits of a check. A confirmation of legal status is not evidence that every proposed activity is safe or every financial assumption is sound.
The depth of review should reflect the actual risk. Consider the amount, duration, proposed activity, delivery setting, previous relationship and consequences of failure. A small grant can still involve serious safeguarding concerns; a larger established relationship may already have reliable information that does not need to be collected again.
Use publicly available records where appropriate and ask only for missing material. If a funder needs an additional check because of a genuine legal, fiduciary or contractual obligation, identify that requirement specifically. Distinguish it from an internal preference that the institution could change.
A practical arrangement might appoint one reviewer for an agreed set of organizational checks while leaving each awarding body responsible for its own decision. That arrangement needs proper authority, clear documentation and advice appropriate to the jurisdictions involved. Calling a process collaborative does not transfer duties by itself.
Also explain how concerns can be corrected. An outdated address, missing attachment or misunderstood financial note should not become an unexplained rejection shared across a network. Give the organization a fair chance to resolve factual errors before those errors travel.
Learn from collaboration's uneven results
The Institute for Voluntary Action Research's June 2026 learning report on Propel is especially useful because it describes friction as well as progress. It draws on interviews, workshops, learning sessions and other work conducted between 2022 and early 2026. Participants described a shared portal and less repetition, but some still found the application time-consuming. Under the aligned model, terms, flexibility and reporting varied according to the administering funder. Read the original IVAR report, particularly pages 8 and 31–32.
The report also describes replacing standard reapplications for progression from Explore to Expand grants with structured conversations. This helped plans develop collaboratively, but some organizations hesitated to share unfinished ideas because the funder still held power. Decision timelines could remain inconsistent.
This is qualitative learning from a specific collaboration, not a controlled evaluation of hours saved or community outcomes. The report explicitly does not present final conclusions about the impact of the funded work. Its value is practical: it shows where apparently simpler arrangements can still leave applicants uncertain.
A relationship-based approach therefore needs structure. Tell applicants what the conversation is for, what will be recorded, when a decision is expected and whether exploratory ideas may change. Warmth should not become an unwritten selection criterion. People who communicate differently or have fewer established relationships need the same fair opportunity.
Make reporting compatible before making the award
A shared application saves little if every funder later asks for a differently arranged account of the same work.
Agree a common reporting core before the grant begins. Use compatible definitions, reporting periods and financial categories. Explain where an existing annual report or another funder's report will meet the need, and identify any essential supplement. Ask applicants whether the proposed information already exists in a useful form.
Current Propel guidance illustrates the need to state exceptions clearly. For Deliver and Develop grants, it describes yearly project updates but explicitly excludes organizations funded by the GLA or Lloyds Foundation from the displayed common form; those grantees receive their reporting requirements from their grant manager. See the reporting instructions.
That exception is not proof that collaboration has failed. It is a reason to make remaining differences visible before organizations commit to them. Funders should continue examining whether the differences are necessary, rather than quietly making applicants absorb them.
Avoid treating an oral report as automatically easier. A short call can replace a long document, but it can also demand preparation, travel, interpretation or several staff members' time. Where a conversation is suitable, the funder can prepare a short written record and invite corrections instead of asking the grantee to write the same account afterward. Recording a call should not be the default.
Do not create false comparability. Three funders supporting one activity cannot each claim that they independently produced all its results. Shared reporting should explain contributions, overlap and uncertainty. Likewise, a budget should distinguish funding already secured from requests still pending, so that costs are not accidentally charged twice.
Make decisions accessible as well as applications
An accessible application can still end in an inaccessible decision.
Publish eligibility, assessment criteria, dates and the form in which decisions will arrive. Offer a clear route to request communication support or an alternative format without requiring people to disclose unnecessary personal details. Test keyboard navigation and screen-reader use, and make essential information available outside a document that cannot be read accessibly.
A rejection should say whether the issue was eligibility, fit, available resources or another stated consideration. Where individualized feedback is not feasible, say so and provide useful general information about the round. Do not promise appeals that the process does not offer. Do provide a route to report an administrative error or an accessibility problem.
Successful applicants need accessible decisions too: the amount, purpose, payment schedule, conditions, reporting obligations and point of contact should be understandable without deciphering several overlapping notices. Explain whether acceptance of one award affects another application in the same collaboration.
Finally, let people leave. A withdrawal route, clear treatment of unfinished applications and an honest answer about future eligibility respect the fact that an organization may decide the opportunity is not suitable.
Share information carefully rather than widely
A common portal can reduce repeated uploads while increasing the number of people who can see each upload. Convenience does not settle privacy.
Propel's published privacy notice identifies London Funders and participating funders as controllers of relevant personal data. It describes sharing between funders and possible use of information from earlier due diligence. This is a concrete reminder that applicants should understand the information-sharing arrangement, not assume that their submission stays with one reviewer. Read the privacy notice.
For a new collaboration, explain the data collected, purposes, recipients, applicable legal basis, retention periods and contact for questions. Identify which fields are optional and what refusing an optional use means. Consent is not the only possible legal basis, and a checkbox should never substitute for the legal assessment required in the relevant jurisdiction.
Separate organizational evidence from personal case details. Reviewers usually do not need identifiable beneficiary stories, children's records or confidential case files to understand a project's purpose. Use aggregate or appropriately de-identified information where it is sufficient. If sensitive material is genuinely necessary, explain why and provide a suitably restricted route.
Limit access according to role. Reviewers should see what they need, departing partners should lose access appropriately, and retention rules should cover downloaded copies as well as the portal. Do not silently reuse application material for publicity, unrelated fundraising or a wider referral. A reduced workload should not come at the price of losing control over sensitive information.
Measure whether the burden actually falls
Count the applicant's total effort, not just minutes spent typing into the form. Include unsuccessful applicants and those who withdraw. Ask a brief, optional question about time spent and follow it with a few conversations about what made the process difficult. Examine differences by organization size, first-time applicant status and access needs without collecting unnecessary personal data.
Here is an illustrative calculation using invented figures, not a finding about Propel, Feel Worldwide Foundation or any actual funder. Suppose an organization spends six hours preparing common information for each of three separate applications, plus two hours on funder-specific questions for each. Its total is 24 hours. A shared process requiring six hours for the common information, six for the necessary supplements and two for coordination would take 14 hours. That is a hypothetical saving of ten hours, or about 42 percent.
If the collaboration then adds a four-hour workshop and three separate two-hour follow-up exercises, the entire saving disappears. The calculation is simple, but it makes a useful point: a shorter form is not the same as a lighter process. These figures exclude the funders' own costs, which should be measured separately.
Track decision time, repeated requests, completion rates, withdrawals and complaints alongside hours. Ask whether applicants understood what happened next. Pay a diverse group of organizations to test revisions, including organizations that did not receive funding, and avoid turning the feedback exercise into another substantial application.
Give the time back
Funders have legitimate questions to ask. Community organizations have legitimate limits on the time available to answer them. Good collaboration takes both seriously.
Start with one manageable improvement: reuse verified organizational information, align a reporting date, remove a question nobody uses or appoint one contact to reconcile requests. Agree who owns the change and check whether applicants actually experience the benefit. Then improve the next part of the process.
The measure of collaboration is not how many institutions appear on the announcement. It is whether their combined effort makes responsible support easier to reach and easier to manage.
If you have a specific idea for helping organizations access support with less repeated work, send a partnership inquiry to Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc. Describe the contribution, location and practical outcome you have in mind. An inquiry starts a conversation; it is not an offer of funding or a commitment to a shared application service. Please leave out confidential beneficiary, banking and identity documents.
You can also donate to Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc. to support its mission. Review the available giving options and any stated purpose or recurring schedule before confirming your gift.
