What funders and grant assessors actually look for on your website
Your written application is not the only thing being assessed. Most funders and grant assessors check your website too, often before they finish reading the application. Here is what they are actually looking at, and what it takes to hold up under that look.
Why your website is part of the assessment
A grant application tells a funder what you say about your organisation. Your website tells them what you have actually built. Assessors know the difference, and most of them check it. A website visit costs a funder nothing, requires no cooperation from the applicant, and can be done in the gaps between reading applications. That makes it one of the easiest due diligence steps available, which is exactly why it rarely gets skipped.
This is not usually a formal, scored line item. It is closer to a sense check: does the site match the confidence of the application? Board members reviewing a shortlist do the same thing, often on their phone, in the few minutes before a meeting.
The five things assessors check first
1. Is the organisation still active?
A news section that stopped in 2023, a program page describing something that has since closed, or a board list with names that have moved on are the fastest way to raise doubt about capacity. None of this is dishonest, most organisations simply run out of time to update the site, but an assessor cannot tell the difference between neglect and genuine inactivity from the outside.
2. Does the site describe a specific problem and a specific response?
Vague mission language reads as unfocused. Assessors are looking for a clear statement of who you serve, what the actual need is, and what your organisation does about it, in terms specific enough that a stranger could repeat it back accurately.
3. Is there any visible evidence of governance?
Board members, an annual report, an ACNC registration reference, audited financials if the organisation is large enough to require them. None of this needs to be prominent, but its complete absence is noticed, particularly by funders who have been burned before by organisations with weak governance.
4. Can a stranger find the referral or service pathway in seconds?
Assessors sometimes test this the same way a person in need would: by trying to find how to actually access the service, not just read about it. A site that describes its impact beautifully but buries the actual pathway to help is judged on that gap.
5. Does the site look maintained?
This is the least specific and most influential check. Broken links, outdated plugins that visibly slow the site, mismatched branding between the site and other materials, all of it reads as a proxy for organisational capacity, whether or not that inference is fair.
What credibility actually looks like
Credibility on a nonprofit website is rarely one dramatic thing. It is a series of small, consistent signals that together tell an assessor the organisation is well run.
- Content that has clearly been reviewed within the last twelve months
- A specific, concrete description of who you serve and how, not general mission language
- Visible governance information: board, annual report, ACNC status
- A referral or service pathway that a stranger can find in under a minute
- Consistent branding between the website and your printed or grant materials
- Contact details that work, tested, not just published
The gaps that undermine an otherwise strong application
These are the failure points that come up most often when a funder or board reviewer looks at a nonprofit website alongside its application.
- An impact or news section with nothing published in the last year
- A “meet the team” or board page with names that no longer work there
- Broken links on the exact pages a funder is most likely to check, contact and about
- No visible connection between the specific project being funded and what the site describes the organisation as doing
- A site that is difficult to use on a phone, when the assessor is almost certainly looking on one
None of these are large problems individually. Together, they are the difference between a website that quietly confirms an application and one that quietly undermines it.
Preparing your website before your next funding round
This does not require a rebuild. Before your next application, it is worth spending an hour doing what an assessor would: opening the site on a phone, trying to find the referral pathway as a stranger would, checking that the board and governance information is current, and confirming nothing on the site contradicts what the application says.
For organisations applying for larger or recurring funding, or preparing board papers that will face real scrutiny, this is also exactly the ground a Digital Capacity Diagnosis covers, alongside the security, accessibility and search visibility questions that sit behind it.
Applying soon and not sure how the site reads?
A Digital Capacity Diagnosis gives you a plain-English, board-ready view of how your site actually presents, before a funder forms that view for you. $1,500 + GST.
Book a Diagnosis →
