Costs
Part of Grant applications compared: options and selection criteria
Grant applications comparison for people who want the details
A grant applications comparison across five process shapes: formula, competitive, rolling, two-stage and contest, and what each one asks of the applicant.
Applications are not one thing. The word covers at least five different processes, and the differences decide how much work you are signing up for, how the decision gets made, and whether preparing early helps at all.
This grant applications comparison sets five shapes side by side: formula, competitive, rolling, two-stage, and contest. Each shape draws real programs, from HUD's Community Development Block Grant to the Hult Prize.
Knowing which shape you are in is worth more than any writing advice.
What to take away
- The process shape tells you where the effort goes. Guessing wrong wastes most of it.
- Competitive processes reward writing to the criteria. Formula processes reward getting the paperwork exactly right.
- A contest is not a grant, and its rules document is the real product.
- Every legitimate shape has one thing in commonapplying costs nothing, and no result is guaranteed.
The five shapes and a named example of each
How the decision is made
- Formula
- Eligibility plus a set calculation
- Competitive
- Scored against published criteria by reviewers
- Rolling
- First eligible applications, until funds run out
- Two-stage
- A short concept first, a full application if invited
- Contest or competition
- Judgment, sometimes public voting
Where your effort goes
- Formula
- Documentation and compliance
- Competitive
- Writing precisely to the criteria
- Rolling
- Speed and readiness
- Two-stage
- The concept, which is the actual filter
- Contest or competition
- Marketing and audience
The main risk
- Formula
- A technical defect disqualifies you
- Competitive
- Losing to a better-argued case
- Rolling
- Applying after the money is gone
- Two-stage
- Investing in stage two too early
- Contest or competition
- Rights granted by entering, and no obligation to award
Real examples of each shape: HUD's Community Development Block Grant (formula), the National Science Foundation's merit review (competitive), Walmart Foundation Local Community Grants (rolling), the NIH R21/R33 Phased Innovation Award (two-stage), and the Hult Prize (contest).
Formula processes: CDBG and LIHEAP
Here there is no persuasion. If you meet the definition and file correctly, the calculation decides the rest.
Formula application pre-work
- Meet the eligibility definition
- File correctly and on time
- No missing documents
- Consistent entity name everywhere
- Registration still current
The Community Development Block Grant from HUD is a formula program. It allocates money to about 1,200 entitlement communities using factors like population, poverty, overcrowded housing, and age of housing. You need a HUD-approved consolidated plan on file.
LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, sends block grants to states, tribes, and territories based on heating and cooling degree days and low-income population. State agencies run the local programs.
The whole risk is administrative. A missing document, an inconsistent entity name, or a lapsed registration ends it, and no amount of good writing compensates. This is the shape where the pre-work matters most, and the order to do it in is set out in the package and the sequence to assemble it.
Competitive processes: NSF and NIH
This is what most people picture. A notice publishes criteria, reviewers score against them, and a ranked list decides who gets funded.
How competitive scoring works
- Notice publishes criteria
- Eligibility screens applicants out
- Reviewers score against criteria
- Ranked list decides funding
- Ask for reviewer comments
The National Science Foundation scores proposals on two criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. The National Institutes of Health uses peer review panels that assign percentile scores. Both publish the review criteria before the deadline.
Two things follow. First, the criteria are the specification, so sections should map to them one to one in their order. Second, the scores are relative, which means a good application can lose to a better one and learn nothing from the outcome unless the program releases reviewer comments. Ask for them.
Eligibility still screens first, and it removes most applicants before scoring begins. Read the funder's own account of who may apply and for what before you invest in the writing.
Rolling processes: Walmart Foundation and Kroger
Applications are considered as they arrive until the money is committed. The premium is on readiness rather than on polish.
Rolling process readiness
- Build the evidence folder in advance
- Watch for the announcement
- Move within days
- Verify the listing at the source
Walmart Foundation Local Community Grants range from $250 to $5,000 and are accepted year-round through local Walmart stores. The Kroger Co. Foundation also takes community grant applications on a rolling basis. Both fund smaller, local work, so the paperwork is lighter than a federal application.
If you are in this shape, the whole strategy is to have the evidence folder built in advance so you can move within days of an announcement. This is also the shape most damaged by relying on a secondhand listing, because a stale copy can send you to a program that closed weeks ago.
Two-stage processes: NIH R21/R33 and RWJF
A concept note or letter of inquiry comes first, and only invited applicants write the full thing. This is designed to save everybody effort, and it works if you respect it.
The NIH R21/R33 Phased Innovation Award is a two-stage application in one package: a two-year R21 phase then up to three years of R33 funding. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Evidence for Action program asks for a letter of intent, then invites a full proposal from selected applicants.
The error is treating stage one as a formality and writing it carelessly. Stage one is the filter. Put your best thinking into it and hold the detailed budget until you are invited.
Contests and competitions: Hult Prize and James Dyson Award
A sponsor competition is governed by an official rules document that the marketing page does not summarize. That document says what you grant by entering, whether judging is subjective, and whether the sponsor is obliged to award anything at all.
The Hult Prize awards $1 million in seed funding to a student team each year. The James Dyson Award gives £30,000 to an international winner and £5,000 each to two runners-up. Both publish official rules that cover intellectual property and judging.
Read it before you enter. Public voting rounds in particular convert an application into a marketing campaign you run with your own audience, and that campaign has a cost whether or not you win. The shape and how to recognize it quickly is described in the patterns these opportunities come in.
Choosing where to spend
- If you are strong on documentation and weak on writing, formula and rolling processes suit you better. CDBG and Walmart grants fit that profile.
- If you can argue a case with evidence, competitive processes are where that pays. NSF and NIH panels read for it.
- If your audience is your main asset, a contest may be rational, priced honestly against what the campaign costs you.
- If you are unsure whether you are eligible at all, none of this matters yet. Ask the administering office first, which is faster than any of it: see the state offices worth calling and the bodies that fund things near you.
Applying for a government grant is free, being considered is free, and receiving an award is free. A fee on any step, or a promise that an award is assured, marks the fraud that trails people searching for funding. The FTC's account of government grant scams explains.
Common questions
How do I tell which shape a program uses?
The notice says, usually in the section on how applications are reviewed. Where it does not, ask the program officer. It is a factual question with a one-sentence answer.
Does a two-stage process mean better odds?
It means less wasted effort, which is not the same thing. Your odds at stage one are the real odds.
Is a rolling program easier to win?
It is easier to be too late for. Readiness is the whole game, and the errors that lose it are collected in the failures that sink otherwise good applications.
Which shape should a first-time applicant start with?
Whichever one you are actually eligible for. Fit decides this, not preference, and what reviewers weigh in each case is described in the assessment your application faces.
