By: Kari Aanestad, co-director of

We are all living in a time of epic disruption, which is stressful AND an opportunity to discover new ways of being and doing our work together. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic government agencies and foundations have taken some remarkable steps to reduce conditions on funds, allow greater flexibility, and even increase grant amounts. If these moves are intended to reduce counterproductive grant processes, grantmakers also need to re-examine the smothering effects of word and character limits. This is a case of unthinking online forms – meant to increase efficiency and reduce paperwork – turn out to be an archaic practice that actually creates unhelpful, harmful barriers to communication of ideas for grant funding. It’s time to find transformation in disruption – including ridding our grant applications of word and character limits forever!

If you’re a funder who has designed applications to include word and character limits, at this point you may be thinking:

  • “But we’re helping prospective grantees right-size the amount of work in applying because writing less takes less work!”

Nope. You’re actually increasing the work by at least 25 percent by putting arbitrary limitations on response fields, that then require applicants to spend hours (yes, hours) playing a game of “cut the words but keep the content.” 

Don’t believe me? I invite you to ask any grantseeker “Have word/character limits ever reduced the amount of time and energy needed to submit requests for grant funding?” I will bet money the answer is “NO!”  Instead of putting technical limitations on to a field in an online form, consider describing the equivalent page length you’re hoping to see. For example, “We expect responses to this question would be approximately 1/2 page single spaced in Word.”

  • “We’re making the application more streamlined and easier.”

Nope again. I’ll let you in on a trade secret…Grant applicants have to re-create your online application as a word document in order to work effectively across teams on writing the case. The word/character limits double this work in that they become another field of information that we manually carry over and have to constantly check as we are writing. In some cases, online applications actually DIFFER in their counting of words/characters than Microsoft Word. So we spend a lot of time and energy making sure we’re within the limits only to discover that we’re actually over because the online form counts differently. More steps = NOT streamlined.

  • “We don’t want folks to write too much because we are only human, and there’s a risk that great fundable work gets lost in content overwhelm.”

Grantmakers are in a hard position. Dozens, if not hundreds, of people feel entitled to your time and attention. You have to say “No” a lot. Some of you are in a middle-person position between the broader community and your employer’s executive leadership team and board. You might be expected to know a lot and make informed recommendations that place the grantmaker’s institutional reputation on the line. You want to recommend effective decisions, do right by the community, and do no harm.


  • If the goal is ensuring your foundation’s resources are invested wisely…
    • Look at your current grant application and review process. How much time and energy is it consuming from you and the broader grantmaking team? PEAK Grantmaking is developing a cool tool – net grant calculator – to calculate the time and resources grantmakers invest in making grants, and to understand the time and resources that their applicants expend in seeking grants. What’s the ultimate value of a grant once all the costs of applying have been considered? Make sure the amount of information you’re requiring of grantseekers matches the level of funding you’re potentially providing.

For people serious about cost benefit analysis, a study waiting to happen is a sober calculation comparing resources expended in the application process to funds allocated for select grantmaking programs. In the category of “do no harm” should be an expectation that no grant round should collectively consume more community resources applying than end up allocated. In the world of heavily promoted, “highly competitive” grantmaking there may be bragging rights for the number of proposals received, yet running those numbers against average number of hours required to submit show that there are indeed grant rounds that are a net loss for the community they purport to benefit. 

2020 is a year where institutions are proving capable of changing their practices. Eliminating character/word limits from grant applications needs to be on that list.