Applicant survey

July 2025

Introduction

On 14 May 2025 we distributed a survey to the 31 applicants to gain feedback on their experience of applying for grants from the first Workforce Futures Fund in its first round. 18 provided feedback by the closing date of 23 May.

This insight contributed to a wider evaluation of the first distribution round, where feedback from sector peak bodies; the Grants Assessment Panel, fund staff and the Board was also gathered.

Given the tight timeframe in which to gather feedback and make changes in time for round two, the feedback was collected before applicants knew whether they had been successful in securing funding. Questions covered the application form, processes, support, communications and marketing.

Numerous changes have been made as a result of the feedback. We deeply appreciated the time and insight provided by the applicants, and others who gave feedback. Independent evaluation experts the Centre for Social Impact analysed the findings and wrote a report for the fund’s Board.

Key findings

Overall numbers

• 18 applicants responded

• Across the questions, the overall satisfaction rating was 4.2 out of 5

• 72 per cent of the applications made were for projects specifically developed for this fund, rather than existing projects that were aligned with the fund.

• Applicants spent upwards of 40 hours preparing applications

Satisfaction ratings

Insights from satisfaction ratings

•  Applicants valued the opportunity to talk with the fund’s team: Highest satisfaction (4.67/5) for online meetings with Executive Officer

• Strong overall process: All areas rated above 4.0/5, indicating generally positive experience

• Application form challenges: Lowest rating (3.94/5) for form clarity, suggesting room for improvement

• High time investment: Most applicants spent 40+ hours, with some up to 80 hours

Selected applicant comments

Positive Feedback - Staff Engagement

"We appreciated the opportunity to meet with the EO to discuss our suitability. She was incredibly insightful and could shift between big picture and detailed discussions to support us to understand how we could best apply. We came away from the conversation with a clearer picture of how we already aligned to the fund."

"Felt the engagement meeting with EO was great to confirm we were on the right track, ensured we didn't waste time applying if it wasn't going to be worth the effort."

"Swift communication supported the process... I was grateful for the clear and quick communications from the team."

Positive Feedback - Pre-Application Support

"The Grant Application Questions document was a helpful guide to ensure eligibility. Access to discuss the application with fund's Executive Officer was very helpful, again to clarify criteria and eligibility."

"We found the language to be consistent regarding the focus of the fund and its intention."

"Was clear who the fund was intended for and which industries."

Constructive Feedback - Application Process

"Although there was messaging to encourage only relevant information and the idea not to overwhelm the reviewers with too much content, it still left wonderings about how much was enough or too much. A little more guidance on wordcounts for sections would be helpful."

"We found in writing our application that some of the questions meant that, for our proposal, we were repeating information. The form itself and the platform were easy to use and intuitive."

"Limited amount of uploading space - we had more sector endorsements but limited to a set number. Hard to keep it concise when you are also asking for justification and research, felt we were duplicating in places."

Constructive Feedback - Platform Accessibility

"Very limited visibility of text/content on the online portal made it difficult to work directly into the portal or check entries before submission (I have visual impairments so anyone with visual disabilities may be compromised)."

"When cut and pasted into the online portal, the formatting changed, and a table was not captured... Uploaded documents were not easily identifiable to check once uploaded."

Additional Insights 

"We found it difficult to explain our project and the impact for our sector, knowing that the panel and Board comprise individuals who may have never worked in roles remotely related to our work... We hope that the assessment process and any rubrics allow for good discussion about understanding the validity of a request for that sector."

"This grant required more detail than the majority of funds we apply to." 

Time Investment Analysis

Applicants reported significant time investment in their applications:

• "We estimate around 40 hours of work from the main author, plus considerable consultation time with other team members"

• "Hard to determine, working with IT vendors, doing initial co-design sessions... Estimate 40-50 hours over 6 weeks"

• "We engaged in a contractor (approx $3000) to help shape our proposal - time wise we spent about 40-60 hours, if not more"

• "At least 80 hours of staff time was spent articulating our proposal"

• "Four weeks of intensive thinking, writing and worrying!"